Poll - Ring final circuits with high integrity earthing

[ban-all-sheds]

I presume that's as close as I am going to get to "the IET" confirming that they agree with my interpretation of the regs - namely that a ring final with a single 'CPC ring' and 'separate terminals' qualifies as "HIE" !!

Would you please contact that guy one more time, and ask him to confirm that his opinion is authoritative, and that the email(s) he sent you represent an official amendment to BS 7671?

If he cannot do that, can you explain how, because of his opinion, we can all start disregarding what the regulations actually say?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Lets assume for a moment that you are correct, would you please state how the single YELLOW ring in your earlier diagrams meets 543.7.1 (specifically 543,7,1,203(iii)), and also how the single green ring in the same diagrams also meets 543.7.1 ?

On it's own it doesn't. It's only as a pair that it works.

Because, according to your logic, each of those rings must on it's own meet the requirements of 543. And since you are adamant that a single ring cannot comply, then neither can either of your two rings individually. So each one, on it's own, must be two rings - so now a total of 4 rings. But then, each of those rings must on it's own comply with 543, and therefore must be two separate rings - so now a total of 8 rings. I think we can all see where this is headed.

Is it headed towards an increasingly ridiculous argument from you?

But you also have to consider something else. 543.7.2.201 could not be clearer. It says that "A (note the singular) ... with a ring protective conductor ... is acceptable".

It is acceptable, and I have never denied that.

It is perfectly acceptable if the csa of that singular ring is either ≥ 10mm² (543.7.1.203(i)) or ≥ 4mm² with extra mechanical protection (543.7.1.203(ii)).

If the csa is neither of those then you're left with 543.7.2.201(iii) Other circuits complying with 543.7.1.

543.7.1.203(iii), for example.

 

[JohnW2]

Would you please contact that guy one more time, and ask him to confirm that his opinion is authoritative, and that the email(s) he sent you represent an official amendment to BS 7671?

Can you not read? ....

.... I am required to preface my remarks by saying that I have no authority to interpret the requirements of BS 7671:2008(2015), Requirements for Electrical Installations.

If he cannot do that, can you explain how, because of his opinion, we can all start disregarding what the regulations actually say?

We all knew that you were going to say that, regardless of what response I got from the IET, but I suspect that many/most are becoming increasingly less interested in that ("stubborn law students' debating society") argument. Are you perhaps one of those who for decades obeyed what the instruction "Keep away from children" actually said ??

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Also, since you mentioned "2.5/1,5", this seems to imply that you feel that the protective conductors' CSA is part (or all?) of the reason why a single (1.5mm²) CPC ring wouldn't comply as "HIE". If that is the case, can you explain what makes you think that?

If you're interested I can explain what makes me think that.

It's 543.7.1.203.

A single 1.5mm² cpc ring does not comply with

(i), because 1.5 < 10.

(ii), because 1.5 < 4.

(iii), because a single cpc < two individual cpcs

(iv), because there isn't one.

(v), ditto.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The requirement is only to comply with one ("or more") parts of 543.7.1.203, not all parts.

And I have asserted otherwise, where, exactly?

Although you disagree, 'we' (including 'the man at the IET') are complying with 543.7.1.203 via 543.7.1.203(iii), which has no requirements as regards CSA

Indeed it does not, and I have never said that it does.

It does, however, require two individual cpcs. Is the problem that you, or the man from the IET, or both of you, need to look at a dictionary to refresh your memory of what "individual" means?

 

[JohnW2]

If you're interested I can explain what makes me think that. It's 543.7.1.203. A single 1.5mm² cpc ring does not comply with
(i), because 1.5 < 10. AGREED
(ii), because 1.5 < 4. AGREED
(iv), because there isn't one. AGREED
(v), ditto. AGREED

(iii), because a single cpc < two individual cpcs

That, as you must know by now, is where most of us (now including 'the man at the IET') disagree. Whatever definitions one might wish to use for "CPC" or "protective" conductor" one cares to use or discuss, the fact is that that there are two individual paths to earth - and most of us (including 'the man at the IET') believe that is what matters (and, yes, we all KNOW that that is not what the regulations "actually say").

Kind Regards, John

 

[deadshort]

JW2, shouting what next ?

DS

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Can you not read? ....

.... I am required to preface my remarks by saying that I have no authority to interpret the requirements of BS 7671:2008(2015), Requirements for Electrical Installations.

Yes, I can read.

But his disclaimer was about "interpreting" - I was asking about his authority to amend what the regulations actually say.

We all knew that you were going to say that, regardless of what response I got from the IET

I would not have said that if their response had been in accordance with what the regulations actually say.

but I suspect that many/most are becoming increasingly less interested in that ("stubborn law students' debating society") argument.

Well - we know that you have already said the following:

I have to say that I don't really care what the regulations precisely say.

I really don't care what the regulations actually say.

I don't really care a jot what the regulations "actually say".
.
I'm perfectly happy to completely ignore BS7671

which seems to be what you fall back on when you can no longer find any way to get around the fact that what you are saying complies does not comply with what the regulations actually say.

And I'm being no more stubborn than you, except I am stubbornly insisting on considering what the regulations actually say, whereas you are stubbornly insisting on ignoring what they actually say.

Are you perhaps one of those who for decades obeyed what the instruction "Keep away from children" actually said ??

I'm not sure where that comes from, nor what its relevance is to the issue of what a para-legal formal British Standard actually says.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Whatever definitions one might wish to use for "CPC" or "protective" conductor" one cares to use or discuss,

How about the one on p25 of the Wiring Regulations?

the fact is that that there are two individual paths to earth - and most of us (including 'the man at the IET') believe that is what matters (and, yes, we all KNOW that that is not what the regulations "actually say").

Which is what I've been saying all along.

You have been remarkably stubborn in refusing to realise that.


Do you have any rational explanation of why, if they don't mean what they actually say, they have, for decades, and through several opportunities to change what they actually say, left the Regulations requiring something which they don't mean to be required?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Has anyone mentioned the second paragraph of 543.7.1.203(iii) with regard to the poll question?

The second paragraph of 543.7.1.203(iii) is irrelevant to a standard ring final, since the two "patrhs to earth" would be in different cables, wouldn't they?

So, now you also think that a ring circuit is made up of more than one cable.
I suppose it is logical that you should think that in view of your definition of the 'protective conductors'.

I take it then, that you do not think that both of the protective conductors (your definition) are incorporated in a multicore cable.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, I can read. But his disclaimer was about "interpreting" - I was asking about his authority to amend what the regulations actually say.

You're being silly. You know that no individual has the authority to amend BS7671. If you want to ask him such a daft question, feel free to do so yourself. If you want his name and e-mail address, just PM me.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

JW2, shouting what next ?

Not shouting - just attempting to ensure that my responses embedded within the quote of BAS's post didn't get overlooked!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I take it then, that you do not think that both of the protective conductors (your definition) are incorporated in a multicore cable.

Oh my goodness! Even if it is not what the second paragraph of 543.7.1.203(iii) "actually says", it is surely apparent that it means "Where the two individual protective conductors are incorporated in the SAME multicore cable...", isn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Well, IF it does mean the same cable (although in my mind a ring only has one cable) then, by your conclusions, it would never be needed for a ring circuit so would seem to make the regulations for HIE ring circuits even more straight forward in that the ONLY requirement would be separate terminals.
I still wonder why they did not just say that.

 

[JohnW2]

Well, IF it does mean the same cable (although in my mind a ring only has one cable) then, by your conclusions, it would never be needed for a ring circuit ....

I don't believe that second paragraph of (iii) would ever be relevant to ring circuits (unless for one of BAS's ones with two CPC rings). I think it's only relevant to radials when one uses 4-core cable (say 3C+E) to achieve two separate CPCs for HIE.

so would seem to make the regulations for HIE ring circuits even more straight forward in that the ONLY requirement would be separate terminals. I still wonder why they did not just say that.

As I said last time you made that comment, I personally think that they more-or-less have, but worded it very badly. I believe that 543.7.2.201(i) is tryiing to say that 'standard' ring finals are deemed to to satisfy 543.7.1.203(iii) (on the basis of two independent paths to earth), and therefore only have to additionally satisfy ...204 (separate terminals) and ...205 (instructions at CU).

Kind Regards, John