Dear Mr Cockburn,

Do you actually read what you and others write?

Section 607

From what you have written Section 607 requires a 10mm2 green/yellow earth conductor to be taken from items of equipment with high earth leakage currents to a main earthing terminal (please correct me if I have missed something).

This is a high integrity earth connection to reduce risk in case the earth conductor that is run together with the live and neutral conductors fails in some way.

This is backed by the way the section was changed to include the term 'safety' to avoid the confusion suffered by you and others.

You and you alone have come up with a theory that you are unable to justify and quantify that this has something to do with energy saving.

Fused plugs

You wrote "I apologize for the lack of common sense currently being displayed by other on this forum" when the quotation I gave was from British Standard 1363-1 which is the basis of the British ring final circuit which you claim to be technically superior.

It appears to me that you simply pick words and phrases that appear to back your possibly distorted view and ignore the rest.

Best regards

Roger

You may be claiming that david - section 607 actually indicated something fundamentally different though.

Notwithstanding section 607 has long gone, it was concerned with ensuring the integrity of a CPC in applications where high protective conductor currents are present. It was entirely safety related.

May i suggest you read the scope of BS 7671 - it's concerned with the protection of people and livestock from the effects of shock, fire and burns - it has bugger all to do with energy efficiency. Your nonsensical interpretation of section 607 is funadamentally wrong at every level.

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option

Hi Roger,

In order to make sure that the earth cable and its' connection is of a high integrity and hasn't and won't fail in some way, we carry out an initial and then periodic testing program.

Whoever added the word 'safety' didn't understand the above!

The energy saving aspect is very easy to prove, which is why I have asked for your or anybody elses help in this matter.

Fuses:
When was BS 1361-1 written?

Regards,
Dave.

1971, David

It's now withdrawn, and superseded by BS 88-3

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option

And amendments?

Why does anyone bother to reply to Cockburn, he clearly hasn't got the slightest clue of what he is talking about.

Shall I Google that for you dave ?

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option

I would suggest that they didn't understand it because it actually doesn't make any sense.

No matter how good an installation is initially we cannot say it won't fail and no inspection and test program can ever ensure that a failure will not occur in the future.

It can reduce the likelihood of failure and can detect deterioration that would potentially lead to failure that can then be rectified but there are so many failure mechanisms known and unknown we cannot ensure that an installation will not fail.

Kind regards

Donald Lane

Well at different temperatures sea water can sink within sea water, however you were suggesting filling a vessel with sea water and that vessel will have a weight that you will need to take into account.

Therefore if you fill the vessel with sea water there will be nothing to counteract the weight of the vessel and it will sink.

Kind regards

Donald Lane

This seabed carpet might be a better solution than the sea-saw.
(But what about the marine life)


http://physicsworld.com/cws/ar...d-harness-wave-energy

The Scotsman (Thursday 14 June).