High integrity earthing

[Spark123]

Not in the sense that you are putting across, no. But they do have two conductors at each point each providing an individual path back to the MET.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Which they would if they were in the same terminals, just as the phase and neutral conductors do.

But the regulation does not call for the provision of two current paths back to the MET, it calls for two individual conductors, and a T/E ring final does not have two individual conductors.

 

[Spark123]

607-02-05 calls for the ends of the protective conductors to be terminated in separate terminals.

The actual CPC within the ring is one conductor, however in the spirit of the regulation I take it to mean that there are two independant connections from the exposed conductive part (socket front) to the MET.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

607-02-05 calls for the ends of the protective conductors to be terminated in separate terminals.

I know, but that's for reasons other than providing two current paths.

The actual CPC within the ring is one conductor, however in the spirit of the regulation I take it to mean that there are two independant connections from the exposed conductive part (socket front) to the MET.

So do lots of people, and that may well be what the IEE intended.

But unfortunately they got inarticulate fools who couldn't count to two to write the regulations.

 

[NotHimAgain]

607-02-05 calls for the ends of the protective conductors to be terminated in separate terminals.

I know, but that's for reasons other than providing two current paths.

BAS You told me you understood this subject - obviously not.

The actual CPC within the ring is one conductor, however in the spirit of the regulation I take it to mean that there are two independant connections from the exposed conductive part (socket front) to the MET.

So do lots of people, and that may well be what the IEE intended.

But unfortunately they got inarticulate fools who couldn't count to two to write the regulations.

Fools - I see - is that your considered contribution to this debate?.

If it is BAS I afraid it says far more about you than those you call fools.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS You told me you understood this subject - obviously not.

Oh - so if you don't connect the conductors in a ring to separate terminals you don't get two current paths?

News to me.

Fools - I see - is that your considered contribution to this debate?

So how would you describe a group of people who deliberately chose to write a regulation which does not describe what they actually want people to do?

 

[Spark123]

It isn't about the current paths in a healthy RFC, it is about the integrity of the connections and reducing the risk of losing all connections to earth in the event of a broken connection.

 

[NotHimAgain]

Spark123 wrote:

607-02-05 calls for the ends of the protective conductors to be terminated in separate terminals.

BAS Wrote:

I know, but that's for reasons other than providing two current paths.

BAS Now Writes:

Oh - so if you don't connect the conductors in a ring to separate terminals you don't get two current paths?

News to me.

These statements appear to me to be inconsistent - maybe I am just one of those fools you like to refer to.

There is very good reason why two current paths are created. It underlies the basic principle of both the problem and what many engineers consider to be its preferred remedy.

So how would you describe a group of people who deliberately chose to write a regulation which does not describe what they actually want people to do?

Well if you look at my posts on this on this topic you will see that I described them as engineers.

Tell me, if they are "inarticulate fools" how is it that they chose to write the regulation in the way you describe?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Spark123 wrote:

607-02-05 calls for the ends of the protective conductors to be terminated in separate terminals.

Indeed he did.

BAS Wrote:

I know, but that's for reasons other than providing two current paths.

Indeed I did.

BAS Now Writes:

Oh - so if you don't connect the conductors in a ring to separate terminals you don't get two current paths?

News to me.

These statements appear to me to be inconsistent - maybe I am just one of those fools you like to refer to.

In what way are they inconsistent?

When I replied to Spark123 that the reason for 607-02-05 calling for the ends of the protective conductors to be terminated in separate terminals is not to create two paths for cpc current you responded "BAS You told me you understood this subject - obviously not"

i.e. you were telling me that my understanding (that the reason for requiring separate terminations is not to create two current paths) was wrong.

i.e. you were telling me that the reason for requiring separate terminations is to create two current paths.

i.e. you were telling me that unless separate terminations are used there won't be two current paths.

Hence:

"Oh - so if you don't connect the conductors in a ring to separate terminals you don't get two current paths?

News to me."

There is very good reason why two current paths are created. It underlies the basic principle of both the problem and what many engineers consider to be its preferred remedy.

Are you able to explain how connecting the cpcs to different terminal holes in the same earth bar, or in the same socket, creates two current paths whereas connecting them into the same terminal does not?

Well if you look at my posts on this on this topic you will see that I described them as engineers.

Tell me, if they are "inarticulate fools" how is it that they chose to write the regulation in the way you describe?

I don't know. Maybe because they are inarticulate fools?

But as for "the way I describe" - I'm just quoting the words they have written.

Can you explain to me why when you look at this:

you see, and I quote, "two individual protective conductors"?

 

[tim west]

Can you explain to me why when you look at this:

you see, and I quote, "two individual protective conductors"?

A RFC doesn't consist of a single wire.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

OK - then please draw me an RFC, or use Spark123's drawing, and indicate in a RFC wired using T/E which is individual protective conductor #1, and which is individual protective conductor #2.

Bear in mind 713-03-01, and therefore that you will have to show that you would be able to carry out two individual continuity tests, one for each of the two individual protective conductors, and that you would be able to verify the continuity of individual protective conductor #1, and the continuity of individual protective conductor #2.

 

[tim west]

Here's a RFC:

Is that one of those Super Conductors? put the electricity into it at manufacture and the current goes round and round forever?
so where does it go in and come out?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It goes in at one point and comes out at several.

That does not turn any of the conductors into multiple individual ones. If it did you would be able to show me with a drawing which was individual conductor #1 and which was individual conductor #2, and you would be able to show how you would be able to carry out two individual tests of continuity.

 

[tim west]

Then why confuse the issue with diagrams like above?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You seem easily confused.

The whole point of that diagram was to remove the confusion that exists in some peoples' minds which leads them to think that because a conductor provides two current paths it must in fact be two individual conductors.

By removing the points at which current enters and leaves the conductors the diagram shows that a ring has one phase, one neutral and one cpc.

And as I keep asking you, and everybody else who asserts that a ring has two of each, please produce your own drawing of a ring in which you can identify two of each.