IEC 60364 Table 48A

Thank you for this! Enthusiasm peaked :) ?



Kind of reminds me of US practices where a ground riser is run through none steal frames buildings so all separately derived sources can be connected to a common electrode.


The thing is, looking at your graphic, I wonder if any copper is really saved. All the copper that goes into bonding everything together locally could go into a larger CPC whereby touch voltage is reduced in addition to disconnection times via fuses. It would also make compliance much easier in that I can not see any of that being done to the letter or remaining that way as plumbers/builders change things.


Extremes are the worst IMO, in that you energize more metal parts relative to those which are not bonded.

Thank you for this! Enthusiasm peaked :) ?



Kind of reminds me of US practices where a ground riser is run through none steal frames buildings so all separately derived sources can be connected to a common electrode.


The thing is, looking at your graphic, I wonder if any copper is really saved. All the copper that goes into bonding everything together locally could go into a larger CPC whereby touch voltage is reduced in addition to disconnection times via fuses. It would also make compliance much easier in that I can not see any of that being done to the letter or remaining that way as plumbers/builders change things.


Extremes are the worst IMO, in that you energize more metal parts relative to those which are not bonded.