Poll - Ring final circuits with high integrity earthing

[JohnW2]

WHAT is a PE? I presume you mean it is a Protective Earth.

Has he not looked at p41?

"He" (Simon) is using the 'correct' abbreviation, per pages 33 and 41, and it is EFLI who appears to be suggesting that it means Protective Earth (despite what the regs actually say).

It certainly does appear to be a strange choice of abbreviation. Although people suggested that it was perhaps a typo (or 'misplacement') in part 2, that is perhaps less likely given that it is repeated on two pages.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So it's a protective conductor for a circuit. It is a protective conductor which works at the level of the circuit. The circuit has it as a protective conductor.

 

[JohnW2]

So it's a protective conductor for a circuit. It is a protective conductor which works at the level of the circuit. The circuit has it as a protective conductor.

As you know, I agree.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

"wine" is the last word of "wine glass"

You are making it difficult.

that doesn't make every glass a wine glass.

Not every PE is a CPC so using PE when talking about a CPC is ambiguous.

"tipper lorry" are the last words of "articulated tipper lorry", that doesn't make every tipper lorry articulated.

No, but perhaps every "articulated tipper" is a lorry.

Perhaps someone should email the IET and ask why there are two terms, and why each is used as it is in 543 ?

But "PE" is not used in 543.7. Is it used anywhere in the rest of 543?

If you accept that cpc and PE are not the same thing,

They are not always the same thing.
CPCs are always Protective conductors; Protective conductors are not always CPCs.
(for some reason the abbreviation for this is PE; you must agree that this is illogical)

Are there Protective conductors other than CPCs, the (only one) Earthing conductor and Bonding conductors?
If so, what are they called?

then 543.7 all makes sense and there's no problem. If you don't accept that, then 543.7.2 makes no sense at all.

To some.

 

[SimonH2]

But "PE" is not used in 543.7. Is it used anywhere in the rest of 543?

If that bothers you then I'll stop using the official abbreviation as specified in Section 2 and copy-paste protective conductor all the time. Will that make you happy ?

As to PE being an odd abbreviation, I agree it's odd and does kind of suggest that perhaps it was once protective earth as you suggested earlier - anyone with older versions of the regs able to see if that was the case ?

So it's a protective conductor for a circuit. It is a protective conductor which works at the level of the circuit. The circuit has it as a protective conductor.

Yes it's a protective conductor - perhaps that's why they call it a protective conductor But no it does not necessarily operate at the level of the circuit.

View attachment 83247
Here b-B is the cpc for one circuit, but b-B-BB-AA is a PE (oops, protective conductor). So part of the PE (oops, protective conductor) b-B-BB-AA is also the cpc for one of the radials - not the radial it's a PE (oops, protective conductor) for.
So the length of conductors a-A and b-B are 3 things each :
The cpc for it's respective circuit, a protective conductor (PE) for it's own circuit, AND a protective conductor for the other circuit.
The conductor AA-BB is part of the protective conductor for each circuit, but not a cpc.
Again, I see no reason a single piece of wire cannot perform two functions at the same time - in this case acting as the cpc for protection against shock as a result of faults, and as a protective conductor (i.a.w. 543.7) for protection against shock due to earth leakage.