Socket earthing yeah or neah

[Darkwood]

What about the cpc in a spur? do you run a seperate 4mm earth.

You make a good point and thats what i threw this question out there for, a thought i overlooked so assuming that spurs off ringmains have been deemed safe for earth size then the 1.5mm tail dosnt pose a earthing issue under fault. The real question behind all this is does the fuse operate fast enough for the 1.5mm to cope but as you point out about spurs it must have been deemed safe enough to allow spurs off rings so i will not issue a code on it.

 

[Des 56]

A good example by andyb
It removed the coding desicion

Also a good example of a situation that became clear through discussion between the parties
The benefit of the forum shown up with this question and responses conclusion

My thought is that the high fault current would be at such a short period flowing in the cpc of the spur, that it may not cause thermal damage
Comparing the standard current carrying capacity of a 1.5 tail to a 2x1.5 mm cpc may be where the doubt arose

The original post about connecting the cpcs at the back box would leave me uneasy about the installers methods,not something that would fill me with confidence in their methods if I were doing the PIR

 

[andyb]

I suppose that the correct answer is to do an adiabatic equation for the sockets in question.
I think my 1st post was a trifle ott, most observations on pirs are subjective, other than obvious dangers of risk to life or property.
As an electrician I would ask myself if the instalation was safe and complies with the regs, the second part is not so easy to answer and as I am just back from the pub I will not even try to answer it now. But I will have a kip and then give it some more thought.
Cheers.

 

[EddieB]

It would seem to me that in most cases here the answers that Darkwood recieved were not for the the question asked, Hocome on lads read the question properly before answering

 

[Guest123]

It would seem to me that in most cases here the answers that Darkwood recieved were not for the the question asked, Hocome on lads read the question properly before answering

Care to share your views then Eddie???

 

[EddieB]

No particular views Len, it was just that I understood the question immediately and I was just amazed on how quickly the original question got sidetracked by the the first response which interprerted the question incorrectly. Dont get me wrong here I thoroughly enjoy this forum.

 

[Guest123]

Cool.

 

[Darkwood]

It would seem to me that in most cases here the answers that Darkwood recieved were not for the the question asked, Hocome on lads read the question properly before answering

Much appreciated, for the back-up as you say the answers went straight off on a tangent that why i had to re-enforce the question 3 times but end of day its all fun and in no way puts me off as i got there in the end

 

[nrbspark]

I would certainly code it 2 because if a fly lead became detached from a socket front the integrity of the cpc R2 value would still be in tact, but the socket itself would have still found an earth through the 3.5 screw and lug.

If then there was a corrosion issue the socket would become unsafe having no or poor earth.

So unless you take 100% of socket fronts off for visual inspection how could you deem it a totally safe?

 

[peteludman]

That is correct as you say Darkwood. Cpc conductors from ring must be terminated at socket not back box. Then fly lead if required.

If i came accross sockets terminated like that whilst doing a PIR i would code 2 it and therefore PIR would be unsatisfactory.

The nic told me a code 2 is unsatisfactory to but if you look in guidance note 3 pg78 it states a code 2 ond 3 you woud use your judgement so if the tests are ok (earth loop) then i would just make a note and give it a code 2 but satisfactory.
but i wouldnt be happy with the wireing eather not good practice