The extraneous conductive part test
Sorry to bring this up, but it is something I can never get to grips with.
I understand the thinking behind it, (I think) proving that a conductive part is not able to introduce an earth potential, (generally)
That could be hazardous, if a fault appeared on another accessible conductive part, and a person was in contact with both.
The formula Rcp > Uo / Ia or I∆n (I've left out the resistance of the body..)
And with I∆n we can choose our value depending on risk factors 0.5mA - 10mA - 30mA The level of resistance
between the two parts increasing as the mA decrease.
It's the actual test procedure. No publication really seems to get into the details with it
GN8 says - The measured resistance between the conductive part concerned and the main earthing terminal (MET) of the installation (in Ω)
Then put that resistance through the above formula, If you are above it can be considered extraneous, and would not need protective bonding.
CPS helpline says disconnect the earthing conductor and test from that to the part in question
NIC pocket guides says disconnection of parallel paths my be needed. - very non committal.
So my question is. Do we remove the earthing conductor, or bonding conductors. when carrying out these tests?
Say we want 22kΩ resistance between the two
If its greater than 22 kΩ when protective conductors are connected, surely disconnecting will not decrease the 22kΩ
If we get greater than 22kΩ when disconnected - it could be possible to reduce that when re connecting protective conductors ? , to a level that would require bonding?
Not a direct connection, to the part, but a step like increase., an induced earth for want of a better term.
In my mind it makes sense to have all the protective conductors connected to test.
Then we can see, how the installation is day to day.
But I suspect my thinking is wrong.
Thanks