Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Helpful Answer
  • Replies 46 replies
  • Subscribers 39 subscribers
  • Views 9910 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

Is the UK the only country that continues to permit and deploy TN-C-S earthing systems?

Philip Oakley

In a discussion about Diverted Neutral Currents, an contributor (Australia I think) suggested that the problem was that it (DNC) is unique to UK.

I'm not that well versed in international systems of earthing, but it's my understanding that while part of the diverted neutral current problem is because of PME (Protective Multiple Earth), and PEN (Protective Earth and Neutral). And that the the problem is likely to be common to all systems, because there is only one planet earth/ground and we all have to be careful with it when latent and patent faults abound.

I suspect part of the issue is that different folks hear different parts of the story and then project the aspect that's different from their system onto the UK system (given we are reporting it).

Is PME / TN-C-S special to UK?

(discussion was in a Youtube video on ' Loose Neutral Fault Explained')

 

  • 0 in reply to Chris Pearson

    It's not ideal. But at a high level large organ8sationscand government's have to put a number on acceptable cost for saving a life. Admittedly they are probably more willing to spend consumers money than there own.

    If the national health / NICE were given say an extra 30 million a year I am sure they would save much more than 1 extra life a year. Or improve the life of many more.

    I realise that it's not comparing apples with apples but at some point someone should be making value calculations on improving technology.

  • 0 in reply to Alan B
    Alan B said:
    If the national health / NICE were given say an extra 30 million a year I am sure they would save much more than 1 extra life a year. Or improve the life of many more.

    Could be considered politics, but I'm sure there are stats that might show a different story (however, being politics, the answer might be "It's underfunded at present, so what do you expect?"

    ... perhaps not a good comparison.

    I still think the most telling part of safety, is that we accept the quantity of road deaths that we do, and as a population are often critical of initiatives and innovation to improve road safety, yet there may well be a huge outcry if someone is electrocuted.

    To be plain, though, neither road deaths, nor electrocutions, should be acceptable today.

  • 0 in reply to gkenyon
    gkenyon said:
    I still think the most telling part of safety, is that we accept the quantity of road deaths that we do, and as a population are often critical of initiatives and innovation to improve road safety, yet there may well be a huge outcry if someone is electrocuted.

    Even if motor vehicles were preceded by an escort, there would still be fatalities, but they might be rarer than electrocutions.

    I do not think that RTCs are accepted as such, but they are an inevitable consequence of human failure, and in some cases recklessness. Just as we could avoid electrocution by doing away with electrical installations, we could avoid RTCs by doing away with motor vehicles, but as Graham says, it is what is politically acceptable that matters.

  • 0 in reply to Chris Pearson
    Chris Pearson said:
    it is what is politically acceptable

    or acceptable to society in general

  • 0

    Just to say I'm away all week and hope to read and reply from Sunday (13th).

    Thank you to all for the feedback so far.l

  • 0 in reply to gkenyon

    And to that end countries where the other risks are higher, quite correctly, worry far less less about both road and electrical safety, but I don't recommend any European to cross a major road in any Indian city without asking a local where is a safe place first !
    Of course if at some point our prosperity and value of life falls, then we will need to be ready to adapt downwards in a similar way to a more affordable, but higher risk lifestyle.

    Some level of risk is perfectly acceptable, but the pain cost balance point depends on external factors.

    Mike.

Community Rules & Guidelines