Dado 3 compartment or Maxi trunking - home office - use singles?

[JohnW2]

I think this really is getting a bit silly.

Blimey - has the penny finally dropped for you about what the regulations actually say?

Nope - I still believe that my interpretation is correct. However, as I've said, in relation to this issue I don't really care a jot what the regulations "actually say". I know what I regard as adequate for high-integrity earth of a ring circuit and I'm perfectly happy to completely ignore BS7671 in relation to this issue and stand up and present my own reasoned electrical argument to support my view to anyone who wishes to disagree. As I need not tell you, compliance with (any or all) of the 'regulations' in BS7671 is not mandatory.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The major approach of all of 543.7 is that the best/simplest way of achieving HIE is to have at least two paths from each socket/whatever back to the CU earth bar.

Can you please tell us where it actually says that in 543.7?

Or is this another of your inventions?

A ring final circuit already has that, but a radial doesn't.

Indeed. A standard ring final circuit has standard integrity earthing for a ring final, and a radial has standard integrity earthing for a radial.

So for high integrity earthing the level has to be increased beyond the standard.

With a ring final one therefore only has to attend to the 'separate terminal' issue (in order to satisfy 543.7.1.204) to get HIE, whereas with a radial one has to add that second path. Simples.

So are you now pretending that 543.7.1.203 does not exist at all?

Can you really not see that the "protective conductors" referenced in 543.7.1.204 have to be in the form of a ring, if the circuit is a ring (perhaps you should read 543.2.9 if you doubt that)? And therefore when 543.7.1.204 says "two protective conductors" it is, in the case of a ring final, talking about two protective conductors each of which has to be in the form of a ring?

The rest of the discussion seems like the work of a law students' debating society, arguing about whether or not all the words of the regs strictly reflect the electrically sensible interpretation/ approach above (which I still think nearly everyone believes)

Whether they do or not is irrelevant.

What is relevant is what they actually say. Unless, of course, you believe that it's OK to certify compliance with the regulations having ignored what they actually say because you don't find it "electrically sensible".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Because of the semantics.

You mean because of what the words mean?

Which words?

"two"? "individual"? "ring"?

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.

Hang on - that's the nonsensical distinction you were accusing me of using. You actually said you didn't know where I got those definitions from. Here it is:

As I wrote yesterday, I think one of the confusions is resulting from the fact that BAS seemingly perceives a difference between "Protective Conductor" and "Circuit Protective Conductor", accepting that the former represents "A path" back to the CU (hence there are two), but regarding the latter ('CPC') as referring to the entire ring of protective conductors (with joints) - in which case there is only one. Where he got those different 'definitions' from, I haven't got a clue.

Your increasingly desperate wriggling is becoming increasingly funny.

 

[JohnW2]

What is relevant is what they actually say. Unless, of course, you believe that it's OK to certify compliance with the regulations having ignored what they actually say because you don't find it "electrically sensible".

Nope. that's not OK. However, if I actually believed that your interpretation of the regulations was correct, what would be OK (provided I had an adequate electrical argument to support what I had done) is ....

I being the person responsible for ...... hereby CERTIFY that ....... is to the best of my knowledge and belief in accordance with BS7671:2008 amended to ..... except for the departures, if any, detailed as follows: ......

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Not really

OK.

So do you ignore that one too, and install ring finals without the cpc being in a ring? If not, why not?


I think we've done this one to death. 543.7.2.201 says "... shall be provided with a high integrity protective conductor connection complying with 543.7.1. The following arrangements of the final circuit are acceptable: (i) A ring final circuit with A ring protective conductor...". Is that not saying that "a ring final circuit with A ring protective conductor" is one acceptable way of achgieving the required compliance with 543.7.1?[/quote]
Yes.

But have you not spotted that "complying with 543.7.1" means "complying with 543.7.1.203"?

If so, which of the high integrity protective conductor connection complying with 543.7.1.203 do you want to go for for?

One consisting of a single protective conductor having a csa of not less than 10mm²?

Or one consisting of a single protective conductor having a csa of not less than 4mm² with added mechanical protection?

Those are the only two ways (apart from (iv) and (v)) in which "a ring final circuit with A ring protective conductor" will comply with 543.7.1.

I think we've reached the point at which I have to say that I don't really care what the regulations precisely say.

Dear God.

Just think of how much time we could all have saved if you had adopted that attitude from the beginning, instead of going on for page after page after page arguing and twisting and inventing and accusing me of doing things I wasn't doing but you were, all of it, all of it, because I was trying to get you to recognise what the regulations precisely say.

It was always about nothing except what the regulations actually say, and if you don't care then it was shameful of you to ever join in.

BAS seems to be arguing for the sake of it!

Goodbye - I am not going to waste another minute of my time discussing this any more with you.

 

[JohnW2]

Goodbye - I am not going to waste another minute of my time discussing this any more with you.

At last! I'm pleased to hear that you have given up. I'm sure that most of us know full well what our position is in relation to the issue in question, without your needing to expending time and effort repeating your position any more times.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Discuss, no.

Point out your complete failure to show a circuit with two independent cpcs each one in the form of a ring, yes.

Point out your complete failure to say whether 10m of rope is two 5m pieces, yes.

Point out that you repeatedly accused me of introducing an undocumented distinction between "circuit protective conductor" and "protective conductor" when all along it was you, yes.

Point out that no matter how many times I kept coming back to what the regulations actually say, you were sitting there not caring at all what they say but nevertheless continuing to argue that the words in them do not mean what they actually say, and then accuse me of arguing for the sake of it, yes.

Give up trying to discuss it with someone so utterly unqualified to be in a discussion as you? Yes.

Give up on the idea that what the regulations actually say does matter? Not a chance.

Forget, from this day forth, that your firmly stated position is that you do not care what the regulations say? Not a chance of that, either.

 

[JohnW2]

Forget, from this day forth, that your firmly stated position is that you do not care what the regulations say? Not a chance of that, either.

You have totally missed the point - that "firmly stated position" relates only to this discussion. YOU are the one and only reason that I wrote "I think we've reached the point at which I have to say that I don't really care what the regulations precisely say.".

I always have been, and remain, comfortable with my view of what is necessary to satisfy the regulations as regards high intensity earthing of a ring final circuit and, as such, would be perfectly honest and comfortable in signing a declaration that the work "is to the best of my knowledge and belief in accordance with BS7671" - and, if anyone challenged about that, would be very happy to produce my supporting arguments.

However, if I were faced with someone who went on and on and on and on and on about their view/interpretation that what the regs "actually said" rendered my view non-compliant (as I've said, in the fashion of a stubborn law students' debating society), I would eventually tire and reach the point at which I would say "OK, let's forget about direct BS7671 compliance (which the law does not require). Instead, I will provide an electrical argument as to why my approach is acceptable - being at least as safe as the other approaches which would (non-controversially) be compliant with BS7671. In fact, that argument, if accepted, would actually essentially bring my approach into compliance with BS7671, by virtue of the last paragraph of 120.3, regardless of what any other regulation sin BS7671 "actually said".

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You have totally missed the point - that "firmly stated position" relates only to this discussion.

Irrelevant.

Because you've encountered a regulation, or set of regulations, which you do not understand and/or which you have no time for, your attitude is that you don't care what they say.

That is a fundamental attitude which is wrong - the context is irrelevant.

YOU are the one and only reason that I wrote "I think we've reached the point at which I have to say that I don't really care what the regulations precisely say.".

Yup, because of my consistent, logical, anomaly free focussing on what the regulations actually say you eventually realised that you could no longer pretend that they said otherwise, so you were faced with either saying "OK - you're right, I agree with you that is what they actually say" or "I don't really care a jot what the regulations actually say".

You chose the latter.