A bit of bondage!

[david911cockburn]

Well, well, well, Reidie hello again.

Have you given away your true identity for a second time?

When ever you find yourself in a tight spot you always return to the same line of intimidatory questioning, don't you remember?
You little rabble rouser you!
Wasn't it;
"do you think all those north sea oil rig workers can be wrong?" the first time a few years years ago?
Then it was;
"do you think this highly experienced aviation electrician can be wrong?"

But you were unaware that in both cases that their experience lay in industries that have a 'constant loop impedence', where as here on terra firma we have a 'constantly variable loop impedence'.
The only other people that you know are all ex-coal miners and the same is true of their experience, the loop impedence underground is also constant.

Therefore the straight answer to your question is:
Yes I certainly believe that you are all wrong because I know that none of you have any experience at all of electrical installation contracting.

Also given the fact that the double jeopary law has now been repealed, you and your friends may well also be once again be staring down the barrel of manslaughter charges!
Which would certainly go some way to explaining your less than democratic attitude to the thought of large numbers of electricians reading this book.

Well it's true what they say about a cornered animal being at its' most dangerous!

Happy reading everyone.

Regards,

Dave.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But you were unaware that in both cases that their experience lay in industries that have a 'constant loop impedence', where as here on terra firma we have a 'constantly variable loop impedence'.

Do we?

What makes mine vary all the time?

And why is this such a secret?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q="variable+loop+impedance"

The only other people that you know are all ex-coal miners and the same is true of their experience, the loop impedence underground is also constant.

How do they manage that?

Therefore the straight answer to your question is:
Yes I certainly believe that you are all wrong because I know that none of you have any experience at all of electrical installation contracting.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Dave - do yourself a favour - take your theories to the IET forum, and expound them there. I'm sure you will find some real electrical engineers there.

Do you think you'll find any who agree with you?

 

[dingbat]

Heating and hot water systems, piped in copper, once cross bonded to the cold water and the gas, become one large extraneous-conductive-part. Once the continuity of copper pipes is removed, the radiators simply become lots of individual extraneous-conductive-parts.

As you have already been informed, remove the connection to earth and you no longer have an extraneous conductive part - or maybe you believe the definition in BS 7671 is wrong?

Flexes have traditionally been considered to be the weakest and most vulnerable part of any electrical system (with good reason) and it is the flexes that electrical safety earthing is taking into consideration.

Er, no and no. Flex is a superior cable type, its definition incorporates the principle that it has been manufactured to cope with the conditions of use. Very few parts of the installations covered by the scope of BS 7671 are likely to employ flex. The rules for its use have not changed in decades and the very few accidents involving direct contact with damaged flex are actually made worse by the presence of conductive parts held at earth potential.

Employing supplementary equipotential bonding to connect extraneous-conductive-parts to earth, puts the electrician in complete control of the speed of automatic disconnection of supply.

Again, simply wrong, wrong, wrong. You really and truly do not understand the purpose of bonding, do you?

!6mm or plasterdepth boxes can be used with care, if you have 1.0mm as opposed to 1.5mm lighting cable and the gentleman working in Dubai was presumably using a battery powered neon screwdriver.

This is irrelevant... as well as being wrong.

The 17th Edition is described as a non-mandatory, minimum standard and it is legally disclaimed!

Are you referring to, "While the publisher and contributors believe that the information and guidance given in this work is correct, all parties must rely upon their own skill and judgement when making use of it. Neither the publisher nor any contributor assume any liability to anyone for any loss or damage caused by any error or omission in the work, whether such an error or omission is the result of negligence or any other cause. Any and all such liability is disclaimed."?

Because I just copied that from your beloved 16th Edition, you nugget.

If somebody wishes to demonstrate that the supply will be automatically disconnected whenever an un-earthed extraneous-conductive-part comes into contact with a live conductor, then I will be forced to change my opinion of the 16th Edition.
But if just one radiator becomes hazardous live and the supply does not disconnect, it proves that the 17th Edition is potentially lethal!

As I have already informed you - as you don't have a copy of the 17th to refer to, because you are incompetent - the requirements for earthing and bonding are identical in both the 16th and 17th Edition.

But bonding will not cause disconnection. You are confusing bonding and earthing; that is a big part of your problem. But, in any case, you have not yet grasped that the term 'hazardous live' refers to any exposed or extraneous conductive part, or any combination of these parts which may be simultaneously accessible and which present the risk of you being in contact with two different potentials. (Hence the term, 'potential difference')

Show me, don't tell me (as the song says).

Step up here and put your finger on this, Dave

One more thing; I heard that a young girl had already died having grabbed hold of a copper pipe fixed to the outside wall of her house! This was what prompted me to 'draw' the earthing principles set out in the 16th edition...

This would be because somebody - was it you, Dave? - had bonded it to the MET without verifying that a means of earthing was also present and effective. (I like your use of inverted commas for 'draw', by the way - have you any idea what you intended that to mean?)

...along with having seen a misleading and irrelavent drawing repeated in two different guide books to the electricity at work regulations.

There's a more than evens chance that it was only you who was misled. I strongly suspect that might be because your ignorant beliefs are so unshakeable you couldn't or wouldn't accept a truth that went against your own incorrect understanding.

You are, sir, a muppet of the highest order and I can't wait for your next fairy story to be published.

 

[dingbat]

Well, well, well, Reidie hello again.

Have you given away your true identity for a second time?

When ever you find yourself in a tight spot you always return to the same line of intimidatory questioning, don't you remember?
You little rabble rouser you!

Reidie?

I suspect that this isn't the first time you have been involved in a discussion like this - can you give us a link?

And I'd love to know who you think is 'Readie'.

...here on terra firma we have a 'constantly variable loop impedence'.

This is a stupendously meaningless term and the only place for it is in your book!

Therefore the straight answer to your question is:
Yes I certainly believe that you are all wrong because I know that none of you have any experience at all of electrical installation contracting.

I refer you to the answer [above] already given by B-a-S.

Also given the fact that the double jeopary law has now been repealed, you and your friends may well also be once again be staring down the barrel of manslaughter charges!
Which would certainly go some way to explaining your less than democratic attitude to the thought of large numbers of electricians reading this book.

You do seem to be confused about something, but given that this isn't the first time you've tried to defend your impossible logic, it's not surprising you're delusional.
As for 'less than democratic', I believe that free speech is considered an important principle in a democracy.

As B-a-S has suggested, you might want to see how the IET forum responds to to you.

 

[dingbat]

To lighten the mood, and maybe start a trend...

There was a ‘lectrician called Dave
Who must have been raised in a cave
His knowledge of bonding
Was pretty ‘desponding’
To reveal it was awfully brave.

 

[1john]

This fella is trying to tell everyone in the world that knows that red is infact red that is infact blue!!

 

[Spark123]

Like I said before, this bloke has got to be a wind up

 

[ban-all-sheds]

At least £795 http://www.authorhouse.co.uk/[/QUOTE]

 

[ricicle]

I am also beginning to believe this isn't the real DC posting on here.

 

[1john]

At least £795 http://www.authorhouse.co.uk/[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

That is suprisingly cheap

 

[Risteard]

Has anyone read his book on ADS yet?

 

[david911cockburn]

Hi Guys,

Finally you have come up with something.

Where do you believe these 'touch voltages' come from.

I believe that what you are referring to is 'earth leakage current' or 'earth fault current'.

Earth Leakage Current - "A current which flows to earth, or to extraneous-conductive-parts, in a circuit which is electrically sound. This current may have a capacitive component including that resulting from the deliberate use of capacitors".

Or in your case from pressure faults in your sloppy installation work!

Earth Fault Current - "A current which flows to earth".

In both cases a person coming into contact with them will only be coming into at worst 'indirect contact', or contact with current already on its' way to earth.
Before the magnetude of current flow from 'indirect contact' can become dangerous, the supply will be automatically disconnected.

Indirect Contact - "Contact of persons or livestock with exposed-conductive-parts which have become live under fault conditions".

Therefore if this 'touch voltage' emerges as a result of the exposed or extraneous-conductive-part that you are in contact with, coming into contact directly with a live conductor and therefore becoming hazardous live itself.
If it is bonded to earth you will be in 'indirect contact' and the supply should automatically disconnect.
If it isn't bonded you will be in 'direct contact'!

This therefore adds wieght to the theory that you are simply trying to cure 'indirect contact'.



The legal disclaimer that you have copied out is not from my precious 16th Edition, but from the 16th Edition as amended from 2004 onwards, as was explained earlier on this forum dickhead.

Now at fear of repeating myself, the time for debate is over it is now time for you to prove your theories.

If you like we can find a block of Council Flats somewhere and you can pull on your carpet slippers and take a firm grip of each of the radiators and other isolated pieces of un-bonded pipework, I will then attach a live conductor to the other end of each.
If you are still alive by the end of the day, I will consider taking my book out of publication.

You can't say fairer than that!

Regards,

Dave.

 

[Spark123]

Oh my god - you are reading from a pre-2004 version of the 16th edn regs, not the yellow cover is it

You also really ought to read up on direct and indirect - or basic and fault protection as they are now known.

You keep twittering about leakage to earth yet don't seem to grasp that the purpose of "equipotential bonding" isn't about things being earthed. You may earth your equipotential bonding as with EEBADS (now under the umbrella of ADS), or not as with earth free equipotential bonding which can be utilised with electrical separation.

 

[RF Lighting]

It seems that you don't even have a grasp of simple principles here such as the difference between current and voltage