gkenyon:

Mike,


I think these assumptions are roughly well published, at least historically, and "tweaks" from there are seen as "improvements", such as additional protection by RCD.


I do have a minor concern that for new installations there's definitely no such thing as an equipotential zone any more when you move outside steel-framed / steel-clad buildings, but if that's the case there are only other exposed-conductive-parts to touch anyway, and they are all connected to MET.


Outdoors, it remains as it always was in that respect, save for RCDs for socket-outlets and portable equipment.

I'm still not seeing profound elucidation in the IEC technical reports, or what testing exactly results in the inferences made. There is also the fact what little there is in comparison, is hidden behind exceptionally high costs which is only setting humanity backwards.


But worst of all, I'm seeing manufacturer driven influence and bias. Mandating RCDs and metal consumer units where there is also the option of earth proving units and thermarestor strips is not the intent of the regs. They should state what they want done, not what product should go about doing it. 


Regarding bonding, I am on the side of the IEC in that bonding just makes for a larger zone of energized metal. ADS should be the central focus IMO. Not earthing and bonding which are dated, misunderstood concepts rooted in ignorance.   

gkenyon:

Mike,


I think these assumptions are roughly well published, at least historically, and "tweaks" from there are seen as "improvements", such as additional protection by RCD.


I do have a minor concern that for new installations there's definitely no such thing as an equipotential zone any more when you move outside steel-framed / steel-clad buildings, but if that's the case there are only other exposed-conductive-parts to touch anyway, and they are all connected to MET.


Outdoors, it remains as it always was in that respect, save for RCDs for socket-outlets and portable equipment.

I'm still not seeing profound elucidation in the IEC technical reports, or what testing exactly results in the inferences made. There is also the fact what little there is in comparison, is hidden behind exceptionally high costs which is only setting humanity backwards.


But worst of all, I'm seeing manufacturer driven influence and bias. Mandating RCDs and metal consumer units where there is also the option of earth proving units and thermarestor strips is not the intent of the regs. They should state what they want done, not what product should go about doing it. 


Regarding bonding, I am on the side of the IEC in that bonding just makes for a larger zone of energized metal. ADS should be the central focus IMO. Not earthing and bonding which are dated, misunderstood concepts rooted in ignorance.