I think this really is getting a bit silly. We're not talking about geometry but, in context (since it's what matters to HIE), about multiplicity/redundancy of paths from a point on the ring back to the CU earth bar. Although, geometrically, a ring/circle is only one line, there are two (curved) 'lines' (aka 'paths') between any two points on the ring/circle.
No, because I regard the two terms as interchangeable. If the context is 'a circuit', then when, as is the quote from me you include, I type 'CPC' (since it's less to type), I might just as easily have typed "protective conductor".
So that's a "no I won't answer" then.
That's rich - you drew the original it's adapted from !
It was answered but I'll spell it out.
Not I. I think you are confusing me with someone else.
The quoting in Simon's post seems to have been incorrectly edited. It would appear that Simon was actually responding to BAS (not you) and, although the quotes were attributed to you in his post, they were actually quotes of a post by BAS.
Ah - so they are - but I still suspect that Simon 'thought' that he was responding to BAS, not you! Even the 'tone' of his post suggested that.
That will be semantics as in "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning", will it?
Indeed.
When does it constitute "ONE cpc" in one case and two CPCs in the other case?
Oops
Yes indeed
Repeatedly?
Because of the semantics. What is being called "the CPC" of a ring final circuit (a single ring) will be made up of two protective conductors ("the two PCs", if you like) leaving each point in the circuit and heading back, independently, to the CU earth bar.
I'm not. I'm doing quite the reverse. It is you who is "over-interpreting" it by going on about it being lots of cmall cpcs so it can't be "a" cpc, or how it has 2 paths so it can be regarded as 2 cpcs.
Yes - that makes it of "higher integrity" than a standard radial cpc.
No more and no less than I can explain why a normal, standard-integrity ring has to have a ring cpc. It it not supposed to carry any significant current, and we all know that with just one path for pc current it is perfectly OK for fault protection, so there is no conceivable electrical reason that I can think of why a string of sockets needs a ring cpc when L&N are a ring. Can you?
I can't speak for EFLI, but what I am arguing for is recognition of what the regulations actually say. And as I have said more than once, I find it unfathomable that so many people either refuse to recognise what they actually say, or they do but then decide that because they don't like, or agree with, or understand what they say they will proceed on the basis that the regulations don't mean what they actually say, and that compliance with them can be achieved by ignoring what they actually say and doing things which they do not actually say.
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. But that is what the regulations say - there are different ways to achieve HI earthing. One is larger csa, another is twice the normal number of separate cpcs, i.e. adding one which is just like the normal one, i.e. adding a second radial cpc to a circuit which normally has one radial cpc, or adding a second ring cpc to a circuit which normally has one ring cpc.
Unless its changed now the booths are going, the M25 has never been a ring
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
