Poll - Ring final circuits with high integrity earthing

[JohnW2]

Do you believe that a standard ring final circuit, wired in 2.5mm² cable with a 1.5mm² CPC, with 'separate terminals' for each protective conductor at each socket/accessory is compliant with the requirements for a high integrity earthy system, per 543.7.2.201 of BS76671?

 

[EFLImpudence]

I am hesitant to vote (other than no) as there seem to be many convoluted regulations in 543.7.1, followed by 543.7.2.201 which, for socket circuits, states that they must comply with 543.7.1 but then the last sentence states that (i) a normal ring circuit - apparently without separate connections - would be compliant.

Plus (ii) which states that a radial with an apparently normal ring cpc would also be compliant.



It really is not good enough.

 

[JohnW2]

I am hesitant to vote (other than no) as there seem to be many convoluted regulations in 543.7.1, followed by 543.7.2.201 which, for socket circuits, states that they must comply with 543.7.1 but then the last sentence states that (i) a normal ring circuit - apparently without separate connections - would be compliant. Plus (ii) which states that a radial with an apparently normal ring cpc would also be compliant.

That's all true and, if you want to use it, that's why I included a "don't know" response category. FWIW (unless you are fed up of hearing it), my personal view is that 543.7.2.201(i) is saying that a standard ring is an acceptable way of satisfying 543.7.1.203 - which seems to imply that (get your flak jacket on!) they consider that since a ring CPC provides two independent paths back to the CU, it effectively satisfies 543.7.1.203 (iii). If that is the view, then provided one also satisfies 543.7.1.204 and 543.7.1.205 (both easy), one has "complied with 543.7.1.

If you are still undecided, what about turning it into a practical question - if a customer asked you to install a ring final circuit with high integrity earthing (the implication being that it should be regs-compliant), what would you do? I somehow doubt that you would install two separate CPC rings, or run a 10mm² CPC ring, would you?

It really is not good enough.

It certainly could be a lot clearer, thereby avoiding the uncertainty in some people's minds. If I drafted regulations/rules/conditions/whatever for a client in such a sloppy and confusing manner I'm sure that I would get shot/sacked!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I was unaware that what the Wiring Regulations actually say could be changed by voting.

To all readers:

For a circuit as described above, 543.7.2.201 requires compliance with 543.7.1. It does. It says so in clear and unambiguous language. Only people who think that they can pretend that 543.7.2.201 contains words other than the ones printed in the Wiring Regulations would say otherwise.

So 543.7.2.201 leads us to 543.7.1.

543.7.1 (in 543.7.1.201) requires that a circuit described as above have two individual protective conductors. It does. It says so in clear and unambiguous language.

Further it says that each of those two individual ones must comply with Section 543. Each of them. As individual protective conductors, not as a pair working together. Each of them. It does. It says so in clear and unambiguous language. Only people who think that they can pretend that 543.7.1.201 contains words other than the ones printed in the Wiring Regulations would say otherwise.

So 543.7.2.201 leads us to 543.7.1 which leads us to Section 543.

Section 543 (in 543.2.9) says that a circuit as described above requires a protective conductor to be in the form of a ring with both ends connected to earth at the origin of the circuit. It does. It says so in clear and unambiguous language. Only people who think that they can pretend that 543.2.9 contains words other than the ones printed in the Wiring Regulations would say otherwise.

But remember that 543.7.1.201 requires two individual protective conductors, EACH ONE OF WHICH complies with 543.2.9 and therefore EACH ONE OF WHICH has to be in the form of a ring with both ends connected to earth at the origin of the circuit.

Each of them. As individual protective conductors, not as a pair working together. Each of them.

They each have to be an individual ring in their own individual right.


I'm really not sure what John is hoping to prove here. If it is that many people share with him the belief that the Wiring Regulations either say something other than the words printed in every copy sold, or contain words describing requirements which the people who wrote them did not intend to be requirements, we already know that.

But it really doesn't matter how many people vote Yes, or what % of the votes are in the Yes camp - none of that is capable of changing what the Regulations actually say.

People who vote Yes are wrong - it is that simple, that straightforward, and trivially easy to be seen by anybody prepared to read and take notice of what the Regulations actually say.

It doesn't matter how much, or how many, people argue that they believe that their alternative complies with the spirit of what the Regulations intend by the various regulations in Section 543, or how their alternative is just as "electrically sound" as what is prescribed by the various regulations in Section 543. Because Section 543 contains the immutable words which it does, Section 543 says that the arrangement proposed above does not comply.

It does. It says so in clear and unambiguous language. Only people who think that they can pretend that 543 contains words other than the ones printed in the Wiring Regulations would say otherwise.

 

[Iggifer]

If you are still undecided, what about turning it into a practical question - if a customer asked you to install a ring final circuit with high integrity earthing (the implication being that it should be regs-compliant), what would you do? I somehow doubt that you would install two separate CPC rings, or run a 10mm² CPC ring, would you?

Tell them radials are better and put a HIE radial in

 

[JohnW2]

I was unaware that what the Wiring Regulations actually say could be changed by voting.

They obviously can't. However, I've been expecting someone to question my repeated statement that I believe that a substantial majority of electricians (or otherwise) probably agree with my view as to what is compliant with the Wiring Regulations (without their being changed) - so I thought I ought to make at least a token attempt to gather some 'chapter and verse' about peoples' views to see if that supported my statement.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

there seem to be many convoluted regulations in 543.7.1, followed by 543.7.2.201 which, for socket circuits, states that they must comply with 543.7.1 but then the last sentence states that (i) a normal ring circuit - apparently without separate connections - would be compliant.

No - it does not use the word "normal" - it just talks about rings, which are a topological concept. And yes, it is perfectly OK to have just a single cpc ring, and comply with 543.7.2.201.

Just so long as that single cpc ring is compliant with either 543.7.1.203 (i) or 543.7.1.203 (ii).

Plus (ii) which states that a radial with an apparently normal ring cpc would also be compliant.

That isn't really relevant to the requirements for the cpcs of rings though, is it.

But there is something of interest there to those who want to concern themselves with the "intent", or "spirit" of the Regulations, and it's the correlation between {a high integrity earth for a radial vs a normal integrity earth for a radial} and {a HIE for a ring vs a NIE for a ring}

It really is not good enough.

Well - the fact that so many people are getting it wrong would tend to support that criticism, but really the words are quite clear, there is no excuse for getting it wrong.

Bear in mind that the person who started this poll does not care one little bit what the Regulations actually say.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However, I've been expecting someone to question my repeated statement that I believe that a substantial majority of electricians (or otherwise) probably agree with my view as to what is compliant with the Wiring Regulations (without their being changed)

Nobody has questioned that because it is quite true. You are far from alone in neither knowing nor caring what the Regulations say.

 

[EFLImpudence]

543.7.2.201(i) should say "A ring final circuit with a ring protective conductor complying with the requirements of 543.7.1.". as it then so stipulates for associated spurs.

The same applies to (ii) regarding radials.


If you, as I am inclined to do, regard this as the mistake/misleading part rather than ignore 543.7.1 then you have to agree with Bas.
If not, the whole situation is ridiculous.

 

[JohnW2]

543.7.2.201(i) should say "A ring final circuit with a ring protective conductor complying with the requirements of 543.7.1.". as it then so stipulates for associated spurs.

You are obviously free to take that view, but I personally don't think that's what it means - particularly given that, as you say, it makes the point that something extra/different has to be done with spurs. As I said, I believe it is saying that it deems a ring final (with a single cpc ring) to satisfy 543.7.1 (although I it should have made it clear that that is only the case if it complies with 543.7.1.204 and 543.7.1.205).

If you, as I am inclined to do, regard this as the mistake/misleading part rather than ignore 543.7.1 then you have to agree with Bas.

As above, I personally don't agree that it means (or is meant to mean) what you suggest it should say - so, no, I do not have to agree with BAS.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Spark123]

Try doing a search, I think this has been done before to death, and resurrection, and death again!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

543.7.2.201(i) should say "A ring final circuit with a ring protective conductor complying with the requirements of 543.7.1.". as it then so stipulates for associated spurs.

It doesn't need to.

It has already said "... shall be provided with a high integrity protective conductor connection complying with the requirements of Regulation 543.7.1. " That requirement does not disappear from any of the (i), (ii) or (iii) acceptable arrangements.

It is just as if they had explicitly repeated themselves and written

... shall be provided with a high integrity protective conductor connection complying with the requirements of Regulation 543.7.1. The following arrangements of the final circuit are acceptable:

(i) A ring final circuit with a ring protective conductor complying with the requirements of Regulation 543.7.1....

(ii) A radial final circuit with a single protective conductor complying with the requirements of Regulation 543.7.1
.
.
.

Interesting to note that some people try to pretend that 543.7.1 does not contain 543.7.1.203, and what's more expect everybody else to believe their pretence.

 

[EFLImpudence]

...but they do repeat it for spurs.

 

[JohnW2]

...but they do repeat it for spurs.

To my mind, the fact that they make the specific point about spurs reinforces my belief that they are saying that a ring final with a single ring CPC, per se (i.e. without spurs), is deemed to be compliant with 543.7.1.

We are agreed that these bits of the regs (like many others) are worded badly and that if they were crystal clear (one way or the other), there would be no need for discussion/debate, or this poll. In an ideal world, there would obviously be no such thing as rules, regulations, legislation etc. being worded such that they were anything but crystal clear. However, we don't live in anything approaching that ideal world, so it is sometimes necessary to apply common sense or reasoning ....

... as an example (which you may call 'silly', but I don't think it's materially different from some of the things which have been said in this discussion), you are probably aware that, for very many years (until not all that long ago) there was a statutory requirement for the labelling and instructions of many/most medicines to include the (exact) phrase "Keep away from children". Fortunately, virtually everyone who was meant to comply with those instructions (I can't speak for BAS!) applied common sense, and did not get hung up about what the instructions "actually said" - otherwise the courts would have had an awful lot of cases of 'child neglect' to deal with!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Try doing a search, I think this has been done before to death, and resurrection, and death again!

I don't doubt it, but that 'doing to death clearly hasn't resulted in a consensus view with which absolutely everyone agrees!

Would you like to share your view/opinion with us?

Kind Regards, John