High integrity earthing and ring final circuits.

[davelx]

You are never going to agree here, because there is a fundamental philosophical difference between you.

Without wishing to side with either, it seems to be that BAS takes the position that what is written in print in the BS document defines what the actual regulations are, and that no-one other than BS themselves have any power to vary, modify, update or interpret that wording.

Therefore in order to comply with the standard, you have to take it completely literally and all words, unless there is statement in the BS document to the contrary, take their normal meaning in English.

It does not matter that what is printed in the BS doc may not be what those writing the doc intended - that is a different issue. The regs are what they are until amended by the BSI. Therefore anything in any document from any other organisation, regardless of the fact that the people writing it may be some of the SAME people who wrote the standard, cannot be taken to override what is actually written in the BS document, as they are writing with a non-BSI hat on.

Spark123 on the the other hand, takes a more pragmatic and some would argue, more reasonable, approach, which allows commentary on the BS document by people who most (even BAS I suspect) would acknowlege to have a level of knowlege/competence to make such comments, to modify what is stated in the regs, and in Spark's opinion this would not, if implemented in an installation, result in non-compliance.

There is no real way to resolve this difference. In practice, unless there is a court case as a result of someone being injured due to some event in an installation that complies with the regs as interpreted by the OSG, or unless BSI issues amendments to the regs that incorporate changes from the OSG, no-one will ever be know if that installation might be able to be deemed to comply with the regs or not.

But following this discussion helps pass the time, so don't stop

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Without wishing to side with either, it seems to be that BAS takes the position that what is written in print in the BS document defines what the actual regulations are, and that no-one other than BS themselves have any power to vary, modify, update or interpret that wording.

I think you'll find that that is also the position of the BSI.

Therefore in order to comply with the standard, you have to take it completely literally and all words, unless there is statement in the BS document to the contrary, take their normal meaning in English.

What else can you do?

It does not matter that what is printed in the BS doc may not be what those writing the doc intended - that is a different issue. The regs are what they are until amended by the BSI. Therefore anything in any document from any other organisation, regardless of the fact that the people writing it may be some of the SAME people who wrote the standard, cannot be taken to override what is actually written in the BS document, as they are writing with a non-BSI hat on.

Exactly.


But now there are some crucial non-sequiturs..

Spark123 on the the other hand, takes a more pragmatic and some would argue, more reasonable, approach, which allows commentary on the BS document by people who most (even BAS I suspect) would acknowlege to have a level of knowlege/competence to make such comments,

They do indeed.

to modify what is stated in the regs,

They cannot do that.

and in Spark's opinion this would not, if implemented in an installation, result in non-compliance.

It may well result in compliance with what the people who wrote the regulations intended .

But as they did not write a regulation which requires what they intended it will result in non-compliance.

There is no real way to resolve this difference.

Aside from recognising that there is no ad-hoc unofficial way for British Standards to be amended?

In practice, unless there is a court case as a result of someone being injured due to some event in an installation that complies with the regs as interpreted by the OSG, or unless BSI issues amendments to the regs that incorporate changes from the OSG, no-one will ever be know if that installation might be able to be deemed to comply with the regs or not.

Aside from just reading what the regulations say?

 

[davelx]

deem verb (deemed, deeming) formal, old use to judge, think or consider.
ETYMOLOGY: Anglo-Saxon deman to form a judgement.

No need to repeat yourself BAS, I/we understand your position, and your opinion: If it isn't done as written in the BS docs it cannot possible comply. Period.

 

[Pensdown]

deem verb (deemed, deeming) formal, old use to judge, think or consider.
ETYMOLOGY: Anglo-Saxon deman to form a judgement.

No need to repeat yourself BAS, I/we understand your position, and your opinion: If it isn't done as written in the BS docs it cannot possible comply. Period.

The fact is the wording is wrong - as pointed out. To meet the safety requirements for an HI ring cct the diagram as posted will do the trick However, to meet the requirements of the BS text, it will not.

It's a bit like the new definition of a spur which can now be from a radial. Mr Sparks installs 2 sockets wired as radial. 5 years later Mr Electric installs 2 more sockets fed from the 1st socket. When you carry out a PIR some years later, which one is the spur, or are there 2 spurs?

 

[RF Lighting]

If you continue the radial in the same size as the rest of the circuit (ie 4.0mm²) then this is not a spur.

You would have a spur from a radial if you stepped the cable down a size, such as if you were to connect an additional socket to a 4.0mm² 32A radial circuit using 2.5mm² cable. This is the same as a conventional spur from a ring final circuit that we all know and love.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Is this the George A Romero forum, where topics you thought were dead come back to eat the brains of the living?

 

[Pensdown]

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Is this the George A Romero forum, where topics you thought were dead come back to eat the brains of the living?

Apparently:

As for running in two CPCs, all I'm going to say is every guidance document I have seen on the subject says that for socket outlet final circuits a single ring CPC complies, including the 17th edn OSG.