High integrity earthing

[tim west]

I ve shown you how many wires beforehand in posts which you choose to ignore and keep on with your "obtuse" remarks about conductors instead of realising that all along the argument has been about the amount of physical wires. till you realise that then there is not much point continuing, I know i'm right and you're wrong and thats all that counts as far as i'm concerned.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I ve shown you how many wires beforehand in posts which you choose to ignore and keep on with your "obtuse" remarks about conductors

The problem you have with that is that the regulations use the word "conductors", not "wires", so if there's any obtuseness involved, it'll probably be coming from those who refuse to deal with the concept of "conductors".

instead of realising that all along the argument has been about the amount of physical wires.

So Spark 123's diagram contains two individual protective wires does it?

Do you think you could label it to indicate which is individual protective wire #1, which is individual protective wire #2, and how you could remove one of the two individual protective wires to leave one individual protective wire remaining, and at all times maintain compliance with 543-02-09?

till you realise that then there is not much point continuing, I know i'm right and you're wrong and thats all that counts as far as i'm concerned.

It's fascinating, isn't it, what a person can think they know when what they don't know is how to count beyond one or what the word "individual" means...

 

[tim west]

The problem you have with that is that the regulations use the word "conductors"

It's fascinating, isn't it, what a person can think they know when what they don't know is how to count beyond one or what the word "individual" means...

Aha! at last the acknowledgement that the regs states Conductors in plural, meaning more than one

If it makes you happy then i'll use a phrase that both counts and uses the word "individual".

Bas you are one "individual" that would make even a saint count 1,2,3,4, up to 10

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Aha! at last the acknowledgement that the regs states Conductors in plural, meaning more than one

Err - that's what I've been trying to get you to grasp.

More then one protective conductor. More than one individual protective conductor. To be precise, in the words of 607-02-04, "two individual protective conductors"

And since, for a ring final, the cpc has to be a ring as well (543-02-09), two individual protective conductor rings.

If it makes you happy then i'll use a phrase that both counts and uses the word "individual".

Instead of doing that, why don't you take Spark123's drawing and indicate which is individual protective conductor ring #1, which is individual protective conductor ring #2, and how you could remove one of the two individual protective conductor rings to leave one individual protective conductor ring remaining.

 

[tim west]

Aha! at last the acknowledgement that the regs states Conductors in plural, meaning more than one

Err - that's what I've been trying to get you to grasp.

More then one protective conductor. More than one individual protective conductor. To be precise, in the words of 607-02-04, "two individual protective conductors"

And since, for a ring final, the cpc has to be a ring as well (543-02-09), two individual protective conductor rings.

what a U-Turn by yourself Maggie Thatcher would be proud of you son!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What U-turn?

It's what I've been saying all along - I won't repeat them all, but here are the first 10 relevant posts in this topic:

Not wired like that with a single cpc....

High integrity earthing requires two completely separate cpcs

Basically the suggestion that the regular ring final cpc has been connected to the terminals separately because high integrity earthing is required doesn't wash. High integrity earthing is almost certainly not required, but if it is then a single 1.5mm² cpc won't do it, whether connected as per usual, or to both terminals as in this case.

the intention of 607 is surely what 607 actually says? And it doesn't say that IF a socket outlet final circuit needs high integrity earthing that a single 1.5mm² cpc is OK.

A ring final circuit has one phase conductor, one neutral conductor and one cpc....

No - I'm not missing the point. I know exactly what point people are trying to make - they are saying that a ring circuit has two of everything - two phase, two neutral and two cpcs.

They are wrong - it does not - it has one of each. The fact that at any point on the ring current can travel along two paths to get there does not mean that the circuit has two of each conductor.

And you can't say "both protective conductors" because there is only one.

A single conductor with two ends, bent round so that the two ends touch is still a single conductor, not two.

The fact is, you cannot count the conductors in a ring twice - there are not two phase or neutral conductors, there is one of each. They are in the shape of a ring, and the fact that at any point of use current will flow in two directions along each segment of them does not make each two conductors. There are not two cpcs, there is one. It is in the shape of a ring, and the fact that at any point of use current could flow in two directions along each segment of it does not make it two conductors.
.
.
a ring final has only one cpc, and if that cpc is only 1.5mm², and if high-integrity earthing is required, then according to BS7671 size does matter, at least to the extent that one cpc of 1.5mm² is not deemed to be adequate.

The regulation requires that the circuit has two individual protective conductors.

A normal ring final has a single cpc. Whether at each socket you connect the cables into the same terminal, or into two separate terminals makes no difference, you still only have one cpc.

The regulations require two cpcs.

 

[tim west]

A ring final circuit has one phase conductor, one neutral conductor and one cpc....

 

[ban-all-sheds]

A ring final circuit has one phase conductor, one neutral conductor and one cpc....

Yes, and a high integrity ring final circuit which complies with 607-02-04(iii) has has one phase conductor, one neutral conductor and two cpcs....

Please don't pretend that you are so stupid that you don't understand the context of what I wrote, or that you think everybody else here is too stupid to realise it, for it won't reflect well on you.

Even NHA, or anybody else who disagrees with what I say will assure you that all along I've been arguing that the regulations require two cpcs - that's what, all along, they have been disagreeing over, so heaven only knows what you think you'll achieve by pretending that I've suddenly changed my position.....

 

[Softus]

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:

the 16th Edition contains contradictory requirements, viz:

...shall have a high integrity protective connection complying with one or more of the following:
.
.
.
(iii) two individual protective conductors, each complying with the requirements of Section 543.

...the circuit shall be provided with a high integrity protective conductor connection complying with the requirements of Regulations 607-02 and 607-04.
.
.

No, that is wrong, on the following counts:

1. It isn't what Adam_151 quoted me as having written.
2. It isn't what I wrote.
3. It omits the part of the 16th Edition which was the nub of my point.

If the omission was inadvertent, then please edit your post accordingly.

If it was deliberate, then you've perpetrated the type of shabby manipulation of other people's quotes of which you've oft been accused.

 

[tim west]

Please don't pretend that you are so stupid

I dont pretend to be stupid at all i'm not in the slightest bit stupid, I leave that to you

 

[ban-all-sheds]

My apologies - I hadn't realised that you weren't pretending.

 

[tim west]

My apologies - I hadn't realised that you weren't pretending.

no im deadly serious, you ARE stupid!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

My apologies - I hadn't realised that you weren't pretending.

no im deadly serious, you ARE stupid!

Well - if that's the best you can do to rationally and logically argue that a ring final circuit wired as shown in Spark123's diagram does indeed have the two individual protective conductors as required by 607-02-04(iii) then I fear that you don't actually have a rational and logical case.

 

[tim west]

Well - if that's the best you can do to rationally and logically argue that a ring final circuit wired as shown in Spark123's diagram does indeed have the two individual protective conductors as required by 607-02-04(iii) then I fear that you don't actually have a rational and logical case.

What like the rude arrogant person that you've been in posts so far? Dont preach to me.

 

[Spark123]

So as installed the high integrity earthing circuit has a ring CPC, which as far as we are concerned complies with 543-02-09.
If the CPC ring is broken in any point, what function do the two parts of the CPC then perform? Are they still protective conductors? Are then independant of each other?
Ok, they will no longer fully comply with 543-02-09 as they are no longer a ring - but so won't a normal ring if the CPC is broken.