New sub board for shed swa advice.

[Ian1981]

You shouldn’t export a DNO earth without their consent. What you do is provide your own! That’s called TT and doing the RIGHT thing. Get over yourself.

your ----ing in the wind bob.
All them school jobs I’ve done where different buildings exist from the same installation, all the new build student block accommodations I’ve been involved with and army base new builds ,all with the installation earth extended to each building and non TT.
All the jobs I’ve been on and tested etc, don’t recall many being TT where numerous buildings exist but all must be breaking your law then?

 

[Pete999]

For God's sake don't give him more excuses

 

[Ian1981]

For God's sake don't give him more excuses

I won’t pete I’m turning the notifications for this thread well and truly off

 

[Pete999]

I won’t pete I’m turning the notifications for this thread well and truly off

Good man I'm ignoring, just as good

 

[netblindpaul]

how the hell does the CPC "vaporise" when the circuit was energised?? If there was a dead short between L-E then the OCPD would have tripped. Sounds a bit iffy to me.

I dunno, but that was the expert witness evidence provided by the forensic investigation.
If the circuit was repeatedly energised then it may well have blown the cpc away, we don't have adequate detail to know.
What was the fault current, I think it may have been a block of flats?
As she was definitely in a flat, so the sub may have been close.
There was no RCD on the circuit, so the fault would have been at full PFC at that point.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

With regards to the Emma Shaw case:
The installation was constructed to the 16th edition.
She was electrocuted in 2007.
The ECA were called as expert witness.
A screw fixing plasterboard to metal stud work penetrated a cable, making contact with both the Line and CPC.
Subsequent energisation did cause part of the damaged CPC to be vaporised, which left the unearthed metal stud work live.
The CPS decided there was insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone for manslaughter.
The Coroner did not write to every NICEIC QS, he wrote to the NICEIC and the Chair of the Competent Persons Forum.
Two people, an unqualified Inspector and his QS were prosecuted under HASAWA section 7.
The QS was found guilty and fined £1000.

 

[Leesparkykent]

how the hell does the CPC "vaporise" when the circuit was energised?? If there was a dead short between L-E then the OCPD would have tripped. Sounds a bit iffy to me.

I read something ages ago, but can’t seem to find it anymore....That the circuit breaker had been reset many times effectively blowing the line to earth fault clear.

 

[netblindpaul]

With regards to the Emma Shaw case:
The installation was constructed to the 16th edition.
She was electrocuted in 2007.
A screw fixing plasterboard to metal stud work penetrated a cable, making contact with both the Line and CPC.
Subsequent energisation did cause part of the damaged CPC to be vaporised, which left the unearthed metal stud work live.
The CPS decided there was insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone for manslaughter.
The Coroner did not write to every NICEIC QS, he wrote to the NICEIC and the Chair of the Competent Persons Forum.
Two people, an unqualified Inspector and his QS were prosecuted under HASAWA section 7.
The QS was found guilty and fined £1000.

That is pretty much correct spin.
Under rule 43, the coroner wrote to theNICEIC, and they wrote to all their QS's & PDH's at that point in time.
Or at least they told the Coroner they did, because if they hadn't the Coroners powers could have taken that further.

 

[Leesparkykent]

You shouldn’t export a DNO earth without their consent. What you do is provide your own! That’s called TT and doing the RIGHT thing. Get over yourself.

What about extending the equipotential zone?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

BigBob1.
Have you ever considered actually backing up anything you say with a Regulation or a quote from somewhere?
Citing publications and Regulations that do not agree, or in fact actually disagree with your statements is not sufficient.