High integrity earthing

[NotHimAgain]

Funny your book stops before 543.7.2.1 - is it a discount version .

 

[Softus]

But the 16th Edition also says this:

607-03-01

...the circuit shall be provided with a high integrity protective conductor connection complying with the requirements of Regulations 607-02 and 607-04. The following arrangements of the final circuit are acceptable:

(i) a ring final circuit with a ring protective conductor.
.
.
.

So which section is correct?

 

[Spark123]

I don't agree with (d), I believe you do not need to duplicate the CPC in a ring final circuit where each point has two independant connections via protective conductors to two different terminals the MET.

 

[333rocky333]

I think most people realised the point of it all and what it does.

The thing that was in dispute was how the reg was worded , regarding conductors.

The point I initially asked was to md balson, why he connected like it in the first place.

He failed to reply and in the meantime it has diverted to a debate and 13 pages of which at least 6 pages repeat, the principle behind, what we all know, including ban I presume, if one earth comes adrift , the current will all return on the remaining leg of the ring.

Instead of explaining what we know, can you not just show on the drawing which is conductor one and which is conductor two as this is what we want to know.

We do not need to be reminded of the theory, as most people now reading it know how a ring is wired.

This afaik was never in dispute.

 

[Spark123]

You won't have a conductor 1 or a conductor 2 as such, but there are two independant paths from each point:

For the top left hand socket, the left hand earth terminal connects to MET terminal 1, the right hand terminal independantly connects to MET terminal 2 (via the other sockets etc).
Sorry if you don't have a widescreen monitor!!

 

[NotHimAgain]

333rocky333

Instead of explaining what we know, can you not just show on the drawing which is conductor one and which is conductor two as this is what we want to know.

I am not so sure we do all know, however if you do then please ignore my post it was not direct at those who know.

As to explaining conductor one and conductor two - I am not even going there.

I cannot compensate for the poor wording currently used in the regulations - if you are just interested in that then you had better adopt the view that BAS holds. If you think you need four conductors or whatever then you use them.

As to the first part of your post I don't see what you are getting at.

 

[333rocky333]

Spark
It was really aimed at NHA
The two paths we know , it was never in dispute.

It was the TWO conductors,wording.

NHA has now started to call it

TWO independent terminations for the TWO routes to the means of earthing.

[/list]

 

[Spark123]

A protective conductor can link an exposed conductive part to the MET, theres two independant links from each point to the MET.
Is it fair to say there are two independant protective conductors from each point to the MET?

 

[Softus]

Too bleeding right it's fair!

Who could possibly view two CPS segments that are terminated in different places, and that are capable of carrying current in two different different directions along two independent paths (in the event of a leakage and a loose screw), as being one conductor?

 

[RF Lighting]

There seem to be a few folk on this forum who do

 

[NotHimAgain]

I haven't just started to talk about two routes - this is from a page near the beginning of this topic.

1) Dunno what the 17th requires, but mdbalson's kitchen is being done to the 16th.

2) The implication of the explanation in that Wiring Matters article is that confusion about the topology of a circle is not confined to members of this forum. A ring final circuit has one phase conductor, one neutral conductor and one cpc....

Dear me don't you ever give up

A ring final circuit is not a circle it is two routes to a supply source.

 

[333rocky333]

As to explaining conductor one and conductor two - I am not even going there.

As possibly there is not two conductor's,
As softus posted above, a ring has a Ring protective conductor. (singular)

I cannot compensate for the poor wording currently used in the regulations - if you are just interested in that then you had better adopt the view that BAS holds. If you think you need four conductors or whatever then you use them.

As softus points out, what section do we go by
I did not have an on site quide when I first read the reg, but must admit I too read it as ban say's.
Although as softus points out 607-03-01 contradicts 607-02-04

As to the first part of your post I don't see what you are getting at.

I apoligize for that , I misread your post , but deleted it soon as.

 

[NotHimAgain]

I am beginning to think this must be ground hog day .

 

[Softus]

If one topic becomes broken, so that two threads develop in different directions, and the source is the same, but they terminate in different places, are there two threads, or just one?

 

[Softus]

They say we're young and we don't know,
We won't find out until we grow...