Work on TN installations come "the 18th"

[EFLImpudence]

I don't think that 'explanatory clause' alters the first part of the sentence, which says "Additionally, there shall be an earth electrode"

Of course it does. There is a condition.
"Additionally, there shall be an earth electrode, supplementing any earthing facility provided by the distributor"
You don't have one.
(Aren't the two commas superfluous?)

You appear to be suggesting that the sentence as a whole can be interpreted as meaning "Additionally, there shall be an earth electrode, if and only if there is an earthing facility provided by the distributor" - and I really don't think it means that.

No. I am saying that it does NOT say "There shall be an earth electrode to supplement the earth electrode which YOU have provided.

Apart from anything else, if the authors of the draft reg had intended that, they could surely have said so.

They didn't need to. Did they realise DNOs don't install electrodes?

Just as 411.3.1.2 states that MPB shall connect to extraneous-c-ps including the following:
Several items.
It does not tell you what to do if these items are NOT e-c-ps, but we all know - nothing.

Also note that the draft reg refers to "Regulations 542.1.2.1 to 3". 542.1.2.1 and 542.1.2.2 are fair enough (TN) but 542.1.2.3 relates only to TT and IT, so it appears that the draft reg intends to include them, even though (as well as being silly!) distributors rarely, if ever, provide such earthing facilities these days.

I do not see what difference that makes.

You said having to have two electrodes would be silly. Are you going to fit a second one?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I said, you might.

Thanks for the correction - in the quote, BTW - it is what I should have written.

John is arguing that the regulation calls for him to supplement his TT earth which he provided with a second rod.

I thought he was arguing that the regulation calls for him to supplement the no earth which the DNO has provided.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Of course it does. There is a condition.
"Additionally, there shall be an earth electrode, supplementing any earthing facility provided by the distributor"
You don't have one.

Therefore he is required to add a supplement to nothing, an act which we all agree can be done.

 

[JohnW2]

Of course it does. There is a condition.

As I said, we are interpreting it differently. You think that clause is a 'condition', whilst I think it is more like an 'explanation'. Unfortunately, no-one here is really able to (authoritatively) 'referee'.

You said having to have two electrodes would be silly. Are you going to fit a second one?

It obviously would be silly. I certainly don't intend to fit one, and nor do I believe that even 'they' think or intend that I should. I was commenting on what I regard as ('yet another') imperfect worded (draft) regulation.

In an earlier post, you implied that you thought the draft reg only related to TN-C-S and/or PME - which would make some sense. However, I assume that you don't disagree that, as written, it certainly applies to TN-S, even if we don't agree on whether or not what the (draft) reg, as drafted, 'actually says' includes TT.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Of course it does. There is a condition.

Try this one - a hypothetical regulation ....

"All electrical installations shall have a means of isolating the entire installation from the electricity supply, supplementing any means of isolation provided by the distributor"

Does that mean that if an installation has no distributor-provided isolator, then there is no need for the installation to have an isolator?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Therefore he is required to add a supplement to nothing, an act which we all agree can be done.

In that case, he has already done it - with his present electrode.

 

[EFLImpudence]

However, I assume that you don't disagree that, as written, it certainly applies to TN-S,

I don't disagree

because TN-Ss are breaking down and being replaced by TN-C-S,
we are told to assume what still looks like TN-S is to be treated as PME
and I assume this is the reason for the new regulation
so whether TN-S doesn't really apply.

All due to the negligence of the DNOs.

 

[JohnW2]

In that case, he has already done it - with his present electrode.

In terms of the wording of the draft reg, the problem here is the "Additionally". I have, as the draft reg requires (as one of the options) installed an earth rod to satisfy 542.1.2.3. However, the draft reg required that, "additionally", there shall be an earth electrode. Does "additionally" not mean additionally?

I hope we are all agreed that no-one in there right mind would have intended that this proposed new reg should apply to TT installations - but that does not (to my mind) forgive the wording they chose to use.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

.... because TN-Ss are breaking down and being replaced by TN-C-S, we are told to assume what still looks like TN-S is to be treated as PME

Fair enough.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Try this one - a hypothetical regulation ....
"All electrical installations shall have a means of isolating the entire installation from the electricity supply, supplementing any means of isolation provided by the distributor"
Does that mean that if an installation has no distributor-provided isolator, then there is no need for the installation to have an isolator?

That's sort of an opposite situation, but I could use the same argument if the regulation was solely to safeguard against a failure by the DNO isolator.

If there is not one then presumably it wasn't and isn't needed.

 

[EFLImpudence]

In terms of the wording of the draft reg, the problem here is the "Additionally". I have, as the draft reg requires (as one of the options) installed an earth rod to satisfy 542.1.2.3. However, the draft reg required that, "additionally", there shall be an earth electrode. Does "additionally" not mean additionally?

In terms of Bas' question re: supplementing the nothing provided by the DNO, I would still say you have already done it - otherwise you would be supplementing it twice.

 

[JohnW2]

That's sort of an opposite situation, but I could use the same argument if the regulation was solely to safeguard against a failure by the DNO isolator. If there is not one then presumably it wasn't and isn't needed.

I think that's stretching things a bit. The thought behind such a (hypothetical) reg would surely be that there had to be at least one isolator (as part of the installation), even if the distributor had provided one?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

In terms of Bas' question re: supplementing the nothing provided by the DNO, I would still say you have already done it - otherwise you would be supplementing it twice.

I can understand that as a viewpoint.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

If there is structural metal passing through a flat in a block of flats, do you really believe that it must be bonded everywhere it 'enters' or 'leaves.

Structural steel seldom becomes un-jointed. A rising ground looped from MET to MET could become un-jointed

The conductor coming through the ceiling of Flat 1 at A is no longer a rising ground but is in fact a descending Neutral

Do you perhaps have shares in a supplier of G/Y cable?

No but I do have an open mind that operates a policy of "what if"

 

[boringoldcodger]

Oh dear, I can feel myself getting into JohnW2's bad books again. When he said (in entry 44):

nutrients which are available from their diet

I believe he meant "not available".