High integrity earthing

[NotHimAgain]

First your very nice diagram with green (you do realise that the use of the single colour green is not permitted by BS 7671 ) and yellow connections using a number of pieces of cable to link earth terminals.

I do hope you did not waste too much time on it, because (as I believe you know well) it is incorrect, it is not what is required, it has never been what is required.

You might refer (although I doubt if you will) to earlier copies of BS 7671 (16th Edition Yellow copy or earlier) for confirmation. You could of course refer to GN 7 or GN 8 - but I doubt that you will.

Then if you search really hard you may just find the article I had published in the Electrical Times in the early 90's which detailed the requirements - but I doubt that you will

You are unlikely to refer to any of these sources because they do not support your fatuous argument. You prefer to engage in ever more convoluted semantics to prove what - that your command of English is better than the other posters - if that what you seek please let me oblige - it is. However, that does not further the understanding of the need for, and methods recommended for, high integrity earthing.

 

[mdbalson]

Nine pages so far & counting

 

[stargazer]

How high should high intensity earthlings be on the DIYers to do list?

 

[NotHimAgain]

How high should high intensity earthlings be on the DIYers to do list?

High if it is required and not on it at all if it is not .

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I do hope you did not waste too much time on it, because (as I believe you know well) it is incorrect, it is not what is required, it has never been what is required.

That's as may be, but it is what the Regulations say is required..

You might refer (although I doubt if you will) to earlier copies of BS 7671 (16th Edition Yellow copy or earlier) for confirmation.

What earlier versions said isn't really relevant to what the current version says, in just the same way that in a few months what the 16th says will be irrelevant.

You could of course refer to GN 7 or GN 8 - but I doubt that you will.

I could, but my argument is not, and never has been, about the intention of the Regulations, just what they actually say, and with all the people here who seem unable to grasp what the Regulations say, and what "two individual conductors" means.

Then if you search really hard you may just find the article I had published in the Electrical Times in the early 90's which detailed the requirements - but I doubt that you will

I won't, and there's a very simple reason for that - I doubt that the article will address the issue of what the Regulations actually say.

You are unlikely to refer to any of these sources because they do not support your fatuous argument. You prefer to engage in ever more convoluted semantics to prove what - that your command of English is better than the other posters - if that what you seek please let me oblige - it is. However, that does not further the understanding of the need for, and methods recommended for, high integrity earthing.[/b]

My argument is neither fatuous nor convoluted.

It is simply to look at the phrase "two individual protective conductors", and to wonder how one individual protective conductor can ever be regarded as two simply because it's cut into sections which are then linked together with the metal straps on the back of socket outlets.

And it is all the people who argue that it does become two who are engaging in convoluted semantics - mine are very simple - they are, basically "here is one cpc. Please show me where the second one is".

Guidance notes, books on the regulations, NICEIC Snags & Solutions, articles in IEE Wiring Matters or the Electrical Times etc etc are all very well, but, just as with the Building Regulations Approved Documents, if they conflict with what the Regulations actually say, then I believe it is the Regulations which should take precedence.

 

[NotHimAgain]

OK BAS I suppose we ought to go for ten pages .

I wired a ring main in my house (before Part P you understand ). I installed a few socket outlets using some PVCTWE that I happen to have. It has a grey outer sheath. Oh dear - I have run out - off to Screwfix to buy some more. I continue wiring my ring main using PVCTWE cable, but this time it has a white outer sheath.

Dam - I don't have one of those sonic welder jobbies - I will just have to join these two protective conductors from the different cables two form my ring.

No doubt I have it all wrong - but then 'am I bothered'

 

[333rocky333]

From the 1992 regs book
607-02-06

"Alternatively a ring circuit may be used to supply a number of single socket-outlets.There shall be no spur from the ring and the supply ends of the protective CONDUCTOR ring shall be seperately connected at the distribution board.
The minimum size of the protective earth CONDUCTOR ring shall be 1.5mm Squared"

Conductor = 1
Conductor's = more than 1
Why was it 1 then but 2 now.

 

[tim west]

And now let's count the ends.

But according to one of your previous posts they are complete circles, they have no ends ,no beginning no end?
Thats where the confusion was coming into this argument, you were using terminology that in theory doesnt work in practice, a RFC does have ends and you have produced in the pics above what you actually have in a RFC, loops as i stated before.

Now to elaborate from this, name a spark who would wire and then connect a RFC in a continuous loop without cutting or breaking the cable into ends at the sockets. They would then proceed to connect those TWO ends into the socket then move on and connect another two ends into a socket etc etc. at this point the circuit at a whole is or at least should be at the same potential per each leg ie Live, Neutral or Earth potential.

just because the potential are the same at each socket still doesnt mean they are the same physical cable or wire anymore ie once you cut the cable from the reel it becomes split into several short cables or links.
but at the cu you see two multicore cables or six singles leaving per RFC or two multicore cables or six singles at each of the sockets, so now let me ask why there are those that cannot grasp or understand that?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

OK BAS I suppose we ought to go for ten pages .

I wired a ring main in my house (before Part P you understand ). I installed a few socket outlets using some PVCTWE that I happen to have. It has a grey outer sheath. Oh dear - I have run out - off to Screwfix to buy some more. I continue wiring my ring main using PVCTWE cable, but this time it has a white outer sheath.

Dam - I don't have one of those sonic welder jobbies - I will just have to join these two protective conductors from the different cables two form my ring.

No doubt I have it all wrong - but then 'am I bothered'

You do have it all wrong, and it seems to bother you enough for you to keep trying to cover it up.

I'll ask you this again, as I will ask you every time you try to claim that a conductor in the shape of a ring is actually two conductors.

Please take the diagram posted by Spark123, and indicate on it which is individual protective conductor #1, and which is individual protective conductor #2. Don't worry if your drawing skills aren't up to much - nobody will be petty enough to criticise them.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But according to one of your previous posts they are complete circles, they have no ends ,no beginning no end?

OK - I'll draw it like that again - two of each, wasn't it? Two live, two neutral and two cpcs:

Is that what you meant?

Thats where the confusion was coming into this argument,

Possibly, but it's you who is confused, not I.

It's you who can't look at a piece of wire, with two ends, both of which are in the CU, and only see one conductor.

It is you who thinks that if a conductor is cut, and then joined, it has become two individual conductors. (As an aside, I'd love to see a consistent and logical explanation, with labelled diagrams, which shows why if that is the case it becomes two when you do that once, but remains two no matter how many subsequent times you do it.)

you were using terminology that in theory doesnt work in practice, a RFC does have ends and you have produced in the pics above what you actually have in a RFC, loops as i stated before.

Oh yes - so you did. 6 loops, wasn't it, just as I drew?:

2 of each LNE singles.

2 L singles
2 N singles
2 E singles.
--
6 singles

just because the potential are the same at each socket still doesnt mean they are the same physical cable or wire anymore

No, but it means they are the same conductor. Try reading 543-02-02.

ie once you cut the cable from the reel it becomes split into several short cables or links.

But it's not left split, is it, otherwise you would not be able to verify the continuity of the conductor. It's joined, and thus becomes a single conductor again.

but at the cu you see two multicore cables or six singles leaving per RFC or two multicore cables or six singles at each of the sockets, so now let me ask why there are those that cannot grasp or understand that?

You tell me - you are the one who can't grasp that what you see at the CU is not the ends of 6 conductors, it is the ends of 3 conductors looped back to the CU so that both ends are there.

A couple of questions for you:

1) Unless you're going to claim that a conductor of finite length has only one end, if you think there are two multicore cables or six singles leaving the CU, where are the other ends of the conductors in the two multicore cables, or the other ends of the six singles?

2) The drawing below shows, at A, a length of copper wire.

At B, C, D etc it shows the wire cut in one or two places, and joined or not in one or two places with a piece of choc-block. For each of B - H could you please state how many conductors there are, and why.

 

[NotHimAgain]

But BAS you need to help me out - you see my conductor is not in the shape of a ring. That shape would not fit in my house . How do I feed energy in and extract it - by induction?

BTW if you find this argument fatuous I can understand how you might despair - you see I know just how it feels to have to view arguments which ultimately serve no useful purpose.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But BAS you need to help me out - you see my conductor is not in the shape of a ring. That shape would not fit in my house . How do I feed energy in and extract it - by induction?

Do you think that by making flippant comments like that you'll succeed in making your argument that a single conductor becomes more than one conductor if either or both of the following is done:

a) It is cut and joined

b) It is looped back and its two ends joined

?

BTW if you find this argument fatuous I can understand how you might despair - you see I know just how it feels to have to view arguments which ultimately serve no useful purpose.

Then stop writing them!

Stop purposelessly arguing that a single conductor when cut and joined along its length and/or looped so that its two ends can be joined is no longer a single conductor.

Stop thinking that your complete refusal to answer any requests to identify multiple individual conductors in the drawings posted earlier indicates anything other than the fact that you can't do it, because it's impossible.

 

[NotHimAgain]

Circuit protective conductor (cpc). A protective conductor connecting exposed-conductive parts of equipment to the main earth terminal.

Now if this must be a single conductor how do we connect the exposed-conductive-parts of a final circuit connected to a second or third layer of distribution to the main earth terminal at the origin of the installation.

BAS please tell were in the definition of circuit protective conductor it states that it has to be formed from a single conductor - please also define conductor and cable.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Now if this must be a single conductor how do we connect the exposed-conductive-parts of a final circuit connected to a second or third layer of distribution to the main earth terminal at the origin of the installation.

Please try to understand the difference between a single cable and a single conductor.

BAS please tell were in the definition of circuit protective conductor it states that it has to be formed from a single conductor

It doesn't say that, and it doesn't have to be. 543-02-02 actually says that "A protective conductor may consist of ONE OR MORE of the following..."

The diagram that Spark123 posted has a single cpc. It is formed from 6 cables and 5 metal straps. But it is a single cpc - not 2, not 5, not 6 and not 11.

please also define conductor and cable.

Conductor - something that conducts electricity.
Cable - a wire or bundle of wires that conducts electricity.

 

[NotHimAgain]

You haven't answered my question BAS - define cable and define conductor.

BTW 543-02-02 is not the definition of a protective conductor it merely tells you what it may consist of. It does NOT rule out the possibility of of the protective conductor (abstract) being formed by any number of physical conductors.