I guess by "explain" you must mean "ignore what words are written on the pages of BS7671 and refuse to show in detail how Spark123's diagram contains two individual cpcs because I know that I can't do that".
High integrity earthing
- Thread starter ban-all-sheds
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2008
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 20
- Country
BAS said
I don't know how many subjects I have contributed to on here but its only three or four.
I believe only two have involved you - this one, and one on discrimination.
We clearly don't agree on this one but we certainly did not disagree on the discrimination topic, so 50% of subjects in which we have encountered one another have resulted in no disagreement - you see that is just as daft as your conjecture.
BTW we have communicated a number of times on two other forums - generally without any major disagreement - although I did take you to task on one matter.
I don't know how many subjects I have contributed to on here but its only three or four.
I believe only two have involved you - this one, and one on discrimination.
We clearly don't agree on this one but we certainly did not disagree on the discrimination topic, so 50% of subjects in which we have encountered one another have resulted in no disagreement - you see that is just as daft as your conjecture.
BTW we have communicated a number of times on two other forums - generally without any major disagreement - although I did take you to task on one matter.
Come on NHA that sort of misreading of posts is beneath you - I said 75% of all the posts you had made on this forum, not 75% of all the topics in which you had posted.
Can you show me where in any of my posts that i said what you have quoted? stop inventing phrases to back up your ideals, I have shown you the error of your ways, if you choose not to accept that then thats up to you.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2008
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 20
- Country
Alright BAS have it your own way - as our friends in the USA say - have a nice day.
You're being obtuse again.
I will accept that just as soon as you can label Spark123's drawing to indicate which is individual protective conductor #1, which is individual protective conductor #2, and how you could remove one of the two individual protective conductors to leave one individual protective conductor remaining.
Until you do that you aren't really showing me the error of my ways, just that you can't count beyond 1.
Feel free to show that when I wrote that, 75% of your posts on this forum had not been made in this post...
Each of those cpcs complies with 543-02-09, does it....
The CPC did did till I cut throught it!
Now there are two protective conductors each compliantly sized as a single length, but as you correctly say - not as a rfc cpc.
I cannot beleive this has managed to make 17 pages
But to use what softus posted a bit back as a base as to what I have to say:
Perhaps I'm over simplifying, but isn't 607-4 is telling you that a ring final circuit wired using separate terminals can be taken as complying with 607-2, without any further need to thrash out the exact wording?
Similar situation to where a cable can be assumed to be protected against fault currents, if the same cpd provides protection against overload (and adequatly protects the cable agaisnt overloads) and fault currents and it has sufficent breaking capacity to handle the fault levels at the location at which it is installed, with no need to go into calculating it.
But to use what softus posted a bit back as a base as to what I have to say:
Perhaps I'm over simplifying, but isn't 607-4 is telling you that a ring final circuit wired using separate terminals can be taken as complying with 607-2, without any further need to thrash out the exact wording?
Similar situation to where a cable can be assumed to be protected against fault currents, if the same cpd provides protection against overload (and adequatly protects the cable agaisnt overloads) and fault currents and it has sufficent breaking capacity to handle the fault levels at the location at which it is installed, with no need to go into calculating it.
Adam,
Without quoting reg numbers these are saying that a high integrity CPC shall be one or more of:
(a) 10mm single if not mechanically protected
(b) 4mm single if mechanically protected
(c) made up of dual CPC's whether that be cable and conduit, cable and armour braiding or two cables.
(d) Earth monitoring system................
(e) Use of double wound transformer............
607-04 then goes on to say that the minimum CPC csa shall be calculated using whichever is greater from section 543 or that shown above.
So, with respect to a ring final, where 1.5mm csa CPC's are in use you would expect to see four CPC terminations within a socket outlet, two at each end to comply with the regulations, being comprised of CPC 1 contained within the twin and earth and CPC 2 being a separate CPC which therefore allows the wiring to be designated as having a high integrity CPC.
That is my reading of it, for what it is worth.
Regards
Without quoting reg numbers these are saying that a high integrity CPC shall be one or more of:
(a) 10mm single if not mechanically protected
(b) 4mm single if mechanically protected
(c) made up of dual CPC's whether that be cable and conduit, cable and armour braiding or two cables.
(d) Earth monitoring system................
(e) Use of double wound transformer............
607-04 then goes on to say that the minimum CPC csa shall be calculated using whichever is greater from section 543 or that shown above.
So, with respect to a ring final, where 1.5mm csa CPC's are in use you would expect to see four CPC terminations within a socket outlet, two at each end to comply with the regulations, being comprised of CPC 1 contained within the twin and earth and CPC 2 being a separate CPC which therefore allows the wiring to be designated as having a high integrity CPC.
That is my reading of it, for what it is worth.
Regards
I cannot beleive this has managed to make 17 pages
But to use what softus posted a bit back as a base as to what I have to say:
No - it's telling you that it must comply with 607-02, i.e. it must be one of:
(i) 10mm² single if not mechanically protected
(ii) 4mm² single if mechanically protected
(iii) made up of two individual cpcs whether that be cable and conduit, cable and armour braiding or two cables.
(iv) Earth monitoring system................
(v) Use of double wound transformer............
when you understand what obtuse means then perhaps youll understand what a stupid comment that was from you.
Then show me that it's stupid.
Show me that you can successfully count beyond one by successfully labelling Spark123's drawing to indicate which is individual protective conductor #1, which is individual protective conductor #2, and how you could remove one of the two individual protective conductors to leave one individual protective conductor remaining.
Show me that you can successfully count beyond one by successfully labelling Spark123's drawing to indicate which is individual protective conductor #1, which is individual protective conductor #2, and how you could remove one of the two individual protective conductors to leave one individual protective conductor remaining.
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
Sponsored Links
