Advice on regulation 521.5.1

[HappyHippyDad]

Wrong.

Correct.

Wrong.

Right.

It's like a ping pong ball!

 

[davesparks]

Wrong.

Care to expand on that?

 

[spadge47]

I can see it from both sides because on one hand as well i could bolt directly onto the side of the consumer unit, therefore no earthing conductor going through the hole., which is the same outcome as going through a separate hole as it doesn't affect eddys currents.)

And I can see it as it says the appropriate protective conductor.

Now if it was a circuit fed from the board i could understand bringing it through the same hole, however as it is tails directly from the meter and an earth directly from the cut-out, why would you need to bring it through the same hole.

 

[netblindpaul]

Read and understand the regulation number quoted in the OP and all will become clear.

If the additional cpc is bolted to the outside of the enclosure it is NOT entering the enclosure.
If it is entering the enclosure then it must comply with the reg, thus enter collectively surrounded by ferrous material.
This is not an option it's a reg, end of.
If you don't want to do it, put it as a deviation, else comply simple.

 

[netblindpaul]

Did they not introduce a new Regulation in the 17th allowing a separate earth to be run along side an SWA cable?
Obviously the earth would have to enter the enclosure separately to the other conductors.

Why spin?
it has always been acceptable, whilst ill advised to run a "separate" earth (cpc) alongside an SWA, as both the SWA & the "earth" must be capable of carrying they full fault current and suitably terminated to meet the requirements, so it is just a waste of money to do this.
So nothing has changed.
It is still stupid to waste money on a separate cpc, so why bother?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Can someone please explain why the Regulations allow a separate earth with SWA to enter ferrous magnetic enclosures, but not when the conductors are not part of an SWA cable?

 

[davesparks]

Why spin?
it has always been acceptable, whilst ill advised to run a "separate" earth (cpc) alongside an SWA, as both the SWA & the "earth" must be capable of carrying they full fault current and suitably terminated to meet the requirements, so it is just a waste of money to do this.
So nothing has changed.
It is still stupid to waste money on a separate cpc, so why bother?

The only reason I know of to run a seperate earth is when if is required to meet bonding requirements rather than as a cpc

 

[spadge47]

what deems it an appropriate protective conductor?

 

[netblindpaul]

Can someone please explain why the Regulations allow a separate earth with SWA to enter ferrous magnetic enclosures, but not when the conductors are not part of an SWA cable?

They don't allow it to enter through a different point, never have.

 

[davesparks]

Can someone please explain why the Regulations allow a separate earth with SWA to enter ferrous magnetic enclosures, but not when the conductors are not part of an SWA cable?

Probably because the people who wrote the regs realised they had created an impossible scenario and Bodged it up to cover themselves. Pretty much standard 7671 nonsense

 

[Deleted member 26818]

They don't allow it to enter through a different point, never have.

They don't then can you explain how it is possible to correctly terminate an SWA cable, and slip in the separate earth cable?

 

[netblindpaul]

The only reason I know of to run a seperate earth is when if is required to meet bonding requirements rather than as a cpc

dave,
I never mentioned bonding conductor, only referencing a cpc as an "earth" using the term "earth" as it had been used in an earlier post.
A bonding conductor is not part of the circuit that the SWA is supplying.

 

[davesparks]

They don't allow it to enter through a different point, never have.

It's time for you to read the regulation then, it makes a specific exception for SWA allowing a seperate cpc to pass through a different hole

 

[netblindpaul]

Not according to the copy I have here.

 

[spadge47]

They don't allow it to enter through a different point, never have.

if you read the final paragraph of 521.5.1 it reads 'the use of an additional protective conductor in parallel with the steel wire armouring of a cable where such is required to comply with the requirements of the appropriate regulations in chapters 41 and 54. it is permitted for such an additional protective conductor to enter the ferrous enclosure individually.