Where it is required to be labelled/identified, they would be green/yellow since whilst 514 does not specify a colour for "circuit protective conductor", I can't think of a situation (at least in anything I do) where the "circuit protective conductor" is not also a "protective conductor" where 514 specifies green/yellow.
What does 514 have to do with it?
I asked you about the protective connection for a HIE situation - 543.7.
543.7 does not talk about colours. It doesn't even mention 514, so why do you think that the CPC(s) of your circuit need to be identified with G/Y? What principle are you applying there?
Before you go off on a tangent, no that is not saying that cpc==PE, just that for any circuits I am likely to be working on, the cpc will also be a PE
Does 543.7 say that?
If not, I'm confused about how you think the rules work. I thought your position was that if 543.7 doesn't explicitly state a requirement it does not exist.
, and the one “When did you stop beating your wife?”
Which I won't be since you know full well it was never intended to get an answer.
Well, I did offer you the alternative of saying that you did now get it, and that you accept that not all "simple" questions have simple answers.
Are you prepared to say that? Or are you going to try and persist with your accusations of evasion and subject changing because I tried to get you to see that?
Turning your argument (not all simple questions have a simple answer) around, not all simple questions don't have a simple answer
And you can show where I said that all simple questions
don't have a simple answer, can you?
Mind you, your using it to prove a point could be a bit of an own goal. It could well have a very simple answer (which will be different for different people)
So give the answer which applies to you. Say what the date was when
you stopped beating
your wife. Or say that you do now accept that not all "simple" questions do have "simple" answers, and that therefore your claims that I was being evasive etc were groundless.
which I'll decline to give not because of any reluctance to address the question, but because it's no damn business of yours (or anyone else here) what my martial status is, or if I am married, what me and my wife get up to behind closed doors.
Don't be ridiculous - nobody here knows who you really are, where you live etc.
If you think you can try to make out that you
could answer the question “
When did you stop beating your wife?” with a date but don't want to because of those concerns, or because you don't want to incriminate yourself, and that people will accept that, then you run the very real risk of making yourself look like an utter fool.
I'm rather surprised you didn't seem to realise that this question doesn't actually prove what you claim. It is not actually intended to show the absence of a simple answer - rather that some questions cannot be answered without self incrimination. Eg, if someone answered "last month" (a simple answer) then that could be taken to imply that until last month they had been beating their wife.
So are you telling us that the only reason you won't answer the question is that you don't want to incriminate yourself? That were there some way in which you could be guaranteed immunity from self-incrimination you
could give us the date when you stopped beating her?
It is interesting that you've not addressed my question of how the case of two radials with their ends linked complies with the regs. You've said that you believe it does, I am interested in which specific regulations cover it - and how. I've given my interpretation of how I believe the regs can be interpreted to cover it, what's yours ?
I haven't read it, and I have no intention of doing so until you show that you are prepared to behave, to stop accusing me of evasion etc when I try to get you to see that your "simple" world is actually simplistic, and to clear up the question of whether you do or do not accept that CPCs which comply with the requirements in 543.7 also have to comply with the requirements for CPCs laid down elsewhere in the regulations, even though those other requirements are not explicitly stated in 543.7.
Oh - and another bit of advice - if you think you can turn that into some kind of admission from me that I cannot deal with the wall of truths with which you are assailing me and that I have therefore given up and run away, nobody is going to believe that either, and you will have found another way to run the very real risk of making yourself look like an utter fool.
