Oh my word. There are various versions of it, but a suitable quote for you is this:
"It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt"
Hi Guys,
The NIC EIC never gave me their blessing to write my books, they have simply had to recognise them as genuine pieces of literature.
Thank goodness you have a sense of humour. And if it turns out to have all been a jolly jape on your part, I will be the first to congratulate you on how well you have reeled us all in. (It is, of course, too late for you to spring from your box and cry "April Fool!")
The reason that none of the other bodies have commented is because they cannot argue with what is being said.
A fair point; where does one start?
As for all that you have written, niether have any of you.
All that any of you have done so far is quote regulations, or try to assasinate my character and that is not debate.
Neither is clinging to the entrenched view that nothing you say is incorrect...
Therefore I am assuming that you all believe that RCD's can replace bonding, so lets look at this assumption a little closer.
And we all know where assumptions can lead, do we not? I don't recall a single person in this discussion raising that point, but I may be wrong. (Have you ever used that phrase, I wonder?)
Regulation 412-06-01 of the 16th edition tells you that "a residual current device is not recognised as the sole means of protection against direct contact".
Get with the programme Davey-boy. It's the 17th now and, in any case, nobody was disputing this.
As you should all be aware by now once an RCD has been tripped on overload it becomes weakened and from that point forward it very annoyingly trips at between 15 & 30mA.
OMG. You come in, all guns blazing, then blow it in the first sentence of your argument.
RCDs do
not provide overcurrent protection and I'm sure that the manufacturers of RCDs would be delighted to knjow that you have uncovered a fatal flaw in their long-term operating characteristics.
I have never heard of this from any source, so you must prove the veracity of your assertion.
If you have a 0.5x,1x,5x RCD tester you will have found that when you are called back by your client because the RCD trips out everytime they use their food mixer, you cannot find the fault.
Spurious, irrelevant and untrue. I do believe you might be talking about
your own personal experiences here - is this a theory you've dreamed up to explain to your clients why you have neither the equipment nor know-how to diagnose RCD problems?
Not once have I ever heard of the problem you have cited - not from the various forums I browse, nor from the hundreds of electricians I have helped to train.
...then go upstairs, take off your boots, lift the carpet and stand on the floorboards, then take the front off of a socket and put the back of your index finger onto the live conductor.
I very much doubt that the RCD will trip and it will hurt like a son of a ****.
You utter cabbage!
Once you've done this, then come back and debate me over whether or not you think you need earthing.
The need for earthing has never been questioned.
The case for bonding is clear
RCDs are an irrelevance that you have just introduced (for no apparent reason)
The problem here, is that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND the very subject that your book claims to explain.
Oh, sorry, I must be wrong. It must be me, the IET, the contributors to this and their forum... in short, anybody but you.
Look. EVERYBODY DISAGREES WITH YOU.
That does not make you Galileo - you're just wrong.
