It's a bit elaborate a deception if he's not. Have you read the whole discussion?
A bit of bondage!
- Thread starter dingbat
- Start date
- Status
It's a bit elaborate a deception if he's not. Have you read the whole discussion?
Sponsored Links
Yes, and yes.
"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."
Talk about inventing your own urban myth!
Mind you a few years ago a fellow electrician told me that BS for RCDs only require that to pass the spec for an RCD they only had to work 5 times. Likewise I suppose that you can see (just about) where this misconception might come from
Talk about inventing your own urban myth!
Mind you a few years ago a fellow electrician told me that BS for RCDs only require that to pass the spec for an RCD they only had to work 5 times. Likewise I suppose that you can see (just about) where this misconception might come from
Hi Guys,
Well now that all of you big braves lads know how 'direct contact' feels, we can move onto 'indirect contact'.
Indirect contact is what happens when, for example a plumber/heating engineer is kneeling on wet floorboards and has wet hands, especially when working with copper pipe. It is especially common when electricians use 25mm deep knock out boxes (designed for light swithches) instead of the correct 35mm deep knock out boxes for his socket outlets.
The result of this usually being that the cables get crushed inside the boxes and cause pressure faults. Before this tiny amount of earth leakage current can be allowed to reach dangerous levels the supply will be automatically disconnected, hence the importance of insulation resistance and loop impedence testing.
Once the installation is up and running and insulation and loop impedence figures are within agreed ranges, the carpets and underlay are fitted and the house's occupants have moved in, indirect contact even under fault conditions will hardly even be noticed.
Indirect contact is not only acceptable but also incurable under UK conditions.
But it is 'indirect contact' that you and your 17th edition have tried to 'cure', the book that you have all read on earthing (the one that cost £90 approx.) was written by an Australian, he served his time working in a bowl shaped desert (not kneeling on wet floorboards in the UK) and he has therefore no idea what 'indirect contact' is as he has never had the chance to experience it!
In conclusion:
Rather than taking the time to cut in the correct depth of knockout box and therefore avoid pressure faults, you have tried to cure the problem of 'indirect contact' with extraneous-conductive-parts by not bothering to bond extraneous-conductive-parts at all. Therefore allowing the possibility of extraneous-conductive-parts providing the opportunity for 'direct contact' to take place under fault conditions.
Direct contact can kill people especially children and the elderly!
If ever there was a case of curing the headache by cutting off the head, the 17th edition is certainly it.
Regards,
David Cockburn.
Well now that all of you big braves lads know how 'direct contact' feels, we can move onto 'indirect contact'.
Indirect contact is what happens when, for example a plumber/heating engineer is kneeling on wet floorboards and has wet hands, especially when working with copper pipe. It is especially common when electricians use 25mm deep knock out boxes (designed for light swithches) instead of the correct 35mm deep knock out boxes for his socket outlets.
The result of this usually being that the cables get crushed inside the boxes and cause pressure faults. Before this tiny amount of earth leakage current can be allowed to reach dangerous levels the supply will be automatically disconnected, hence the importance of insulation resistance and loop impedence testing.
Once the installation is up and running and insulation and loop impedence figures are within agreed ranges, the carpets and underlay are fitted and the house's occupants have moved in, indirect contact even under fault conditions will hardly even be noticed.
Indirect contact is not only acceptable but also incurable under UK conditions.
But it is 'indirect contact' that you and your 17th edition have tried to 'cure', the book that you have all read on earthing (the one that cost £90 approx.) was written by an Australian, he served his time working in a bowl shaped desert (not kneeling on wet floorboards in the UK) and he has therefore no idea what 'indirect contact' is as he has never had the chance to experience it!
In conclusion:
Rather than taking the time to cut in the correct depth of knockout box and therefore avoid pressure faults, you have tried to cure the problem of 'indirect contact' with extraneous-conductive-parts by not bothering to bond extraneous-conductive-parts at all. Therefore allowing the possibility of extraneous-conductive-parts providing the opportunity for 'direct contact' to take place under fault conditions.
Direct contact can kill people especially children and the elderly!
If ever there was a case of curing the headache by cutting off the head, the 17th edition is certainly it.
Regards,
David Cockburn.
Sponsored Links
What are 16mm boxes for then?
(No I don't like 'em and never use 'em but they do exist).
____________________________________________
I'm more than a bit boggled by your direct/indirect contact scenario
(Yes I do understand both direct & indirect contact and what extraneous parts are too but I'm not sure you do from what you've just said)
________________________________________________
If you're trying to say RCD by all means if you wish to but don't forgo supp bonding bcause of it then I can live with that approach as I have not dropped supp bonding myself even if regs permit it (If a functioning RCD is expected to save 95% of the population then this means 5% wouldn't survive, if the failure rate of RCDs is 7% then this means about eleven and a half people out of a hunderd might not survive, so I keep the supp bonding in place to help reduce this a bit.
(No I don't like 'em and never use 'em but they do exist).
____________________________________________
I'm more than a bit boggled by your direct/indirect contact scenario
(Yes I do understand both direct & indirect contact and what extraneous parts are too but I'm not sure you do from what you've just said)
________________________________________________
If you're trying to say RCD by all means if you wish to but don't forgo supp bonding bcause of it then I can live with that approach as I have not dropped supp bonding myself even if regs permit it (If a functioning RCD is expected to save 95% of the population then this means 5% wouldn't survive, if the failure rate of RCDs is 7% then this means about eleven and a half people out of a hunderd might not survive, so I keep the supp bonding in place to help reduce this a bit.
H
holmslaw
Mr midickissorecosisetfiretoit
Could you please post in english so we can all benefit from your souperior intellect.
Could you please post in english so we can all benefit from your souperior intellect.
You must be quite a big, brave lad yourself, Dave. I see, however you have declined to address your detractors.
Maybe not so brave as to admit you're wrong, eh?
Garbage.
Utter garbage.
Maybe on your installs they do. I can quite imagine that.
All of which are carried out on new work - in accordance with the regulations - before it is put into service. Unless you think that somehow your cables get crushed by, I dunno, the boxes shrinking as the plaster dries - it sounds as feasible as one of your theories!
If you were a trainee I'd have you look up all the definitions and you'd maybe see the errors in your interpretation of what is happening, but as you have failed to come to terms with any of the - quite correct - criticism of your feeble theses, I doubt you'd understand.
I have no idea what book you think this is. I've certainly not paid that much for such a book - indeed it was me you ripped off with your pamphlet. I dearly hope I'm the only one who bought it and it's a small price to pay to warn others.
But let's address this in a little more detail:
You're the one who is obsessed with the now obsolete term of 'indirect contact' and doesn't your book purport to deal with exactly that subject - or maybe you don't understand and didn't realise that?
Further, why bring in the 17th edition? The requirements for equipotential bonding are, to all intents and purposes, exactly the same as in the 16th, to which you seem to hold on quite tightly. The only problem here is that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND the subject.
Time to take up painting and decorating, I think - you should leave the wiggly-amps to those who do understand.
In conclusion: garbage.
And the feeble-minded... please let it only be a matter of time.
You are a nugget, David me boy, a 24-carat, solid gold, nugget.
No, he can't be.
I think he realises he's screwed up on the book and he's just trying to stir it now. Because, surely, nobody is that clueless?
(Oh, apart from me, according to Holmslaw!
)
I think he realises he's screwed up on the book and he's just trying to stir it now. Because, surely, nobody is that clueless?
(Oh, apart from me, according to Holmslaw!
)- Joined
- 28 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 641
- Reaction score
- 75
- Country
Goodness gracious me. If this poster is for real, blimey.
Dave, with each post you show how confused you are about this subject.
Also, you are arguing against something you have imagined - no-one on here has suggested that bonding is not necessary, indeed it is because we DO fully understand the importance of it that we are so concerned with your pamphlet.
You don't even understand the (outdated) term "indirect contact"; indirect contact is when an exposed conductive part becomes live due to a fault, and someone gets a belt from it.
Even your made-up scenario is wrong; "small amounts of earth leakage" will not cause the circuit to disconnect, regardless of bonding, only an RCD will do this.
I can't even be bothered responding any further, as you as so far from being correct, it is not possible.
There is a wealth of information on this subject, read some, please.
Dave, with each post you show how confused you are about this subject.
Also, you are arguing against something you have imagined - no-one on here has suggested that bonding is not necessary, indeed it is because we DO fully understand the importance of it that we are so concerned with your pamphlet.
You don't even understand the (outdated) term "indirect contact"; indirect contact is when an exposed conductive part becomes live due to a fault, and someone gets a belt from it.
Even your made-up scenario is wrong; "small amounts of earth leakage" will not cause the circuit to disconnect, regardless of bonding, only an RCD will do this.
I can't even be bothered responding any further, as you as so far from being correct, it is not possible.
There is a wealth of information on this subject, read some, please.
apologies to all for being a bit slow on the uptake here. I think i've just realised what Mr. soredick 'the electrical expert' is doing.
He is a chancer (like a mobility salesperson) who has somehow managed to get some gibberish published, purely for his own gains.
He has sent this for review/perusal/approval from the recognised electrical authorities/bodies in the uk.
Most of them have ignored this tripe or dismissed it as garbage. This speaks volumes about the quality (lack of) contained within.
'dave' has now decided to chance his arm to improve the pamphlet by offering up all sorts of ridiculous explainations of how lektricky works, merely in order to provoke those who know whats going on to correct him and as a consequence give 'dave' the correct answers.
I imagine he is copy/pasting these responses into a file for later submission into another document which he will hopefully publish and make himself look slightly less stupid, whilst taking more money from good-willed yet novice sparks who may take this info as gospel. That will not help the unwitting spark or any of the customers upon whom he exercises his new found 'knowledge'
So, a plea to the regular, knowledgable folk here. Please don't correct this nutter any further, all you are doing is giving him your valued information for him to b'stardise it and re-gurgitate it for his own benefit.
He is a chancer (like a mobility salesperson) who has somehow managed to get some gibberish published, purely for his own gains.
He has sent this for review/perusal/approval from the recognised electrical authorities/bodies in the uk.
Most of them have ignored this tripe or dismissed it as garbage. This speaks volumes about the quality (lack of) contained within.
'dave' has now decided to chance his arm to improve the pamphlet by offering up all sorts of ridiculous explainations of how lektricky works, merely in order to provoke those who know whats going on to correct him and as a consequence give 'dave' the correct answers.
I imagine he is copy/pasting these responses into a file for later submission into another document which he will hopefully publish and make himself look slightly less stupid, whilst taking more money from good-willed yet novice sparks who may take this info as gospel. That will not help the unwitting spark or any of the customers upon whom he exercises his new found 'knowledge'
So, a plea to the regular, knowledgable folk here. Please don't correct this nutter any further, all you are doing is giving him your valued information for him to b'stardise it and re-gurgitate it for his own benefit.
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 641
- Reaction score
- 75
- Country
Good point Mikey, I hadn't considered that.
For me, that is the most serious aspect of this - many sparks don't fully understand bonding, and it will be such a shame for a spark to try to improve their knowledge, only to end up reading this crap.
Also, Mr Penisscorch's "debating" style reminds me of "alternative medicine" quacks or the bible-nuts who believe in a 6000 year old universe and Adam and Eve - the complete ignorance of the points actually put to them to correct their thinking, whilst arguing against pathetic straw-man points that were never raising and indeed have no bearing on anything ("So your religion is evolution and you think the eye appeared by accident..." erm no. "so you guys don't think bonding's necessary..." erm, no.)
In fact, here we go Davey - why not write a children's pamphlet explaining how the stork brings a new mother her baby! (hint: if a midwife argues with it, start by saying "so you don't think babies exist....")
For me, that is the most serious aspect of this - many sparks don't fully understand bonding, and it will be such a shame for a spark to try to improve their knowledge, only to end up reading this crap.
Also, Mr Penisscorch's "debating" style reminds me of "alternative medicine" quacks or the bible-nuts who believe in a 6000 year old universe and Adam and Eve - the complete ignorance of the points actually put to them to correct their thinking, whilst arguing against pathetic straw-man points that were never raising and indeed have no bearing on anything ("So your religion is evolution and you think the eye appeared by accident..." erm no. "so you guys don't think bonding's necessary..." erm, no.)
In fact, here we go Davey - why not write a children's pamphlet explaining how the stork brings a new mother her baby! (hint: if a midwife argues with it, start by saying "so you don't think babies exist....")
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 641
- Reaction score
- 75
- Country
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
- Status
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
- dextrous
- Plumbing and Central Heating
