Double insulated down lights cpc

[Alextrician]

whats classes as the correct method of terminating an earth cable when you have double insulated fittings?

You can see on the picture I can’t get a wage inside nor a normal connector block it’s just too tight.

I have seen in the past the cpc being bent over and also snipped off which isn’t recommend just wanted to know the correct way of termination.

 

[telectrix]

Over sleeve it, bend back and tape to the sheath.

This way the CPC is there should anyone need in the future.

Some things can be overthought if allowed to.

obviously wago'd into the other cpc where ther are 2 cables?????

 

[GBDamo]

Click Flow connectors.

And how would it be connected to the Earthing arrangement if there is more than one luminaire?

Doesn't look like there is enough room in those fittings for loop in/out and switch so assuming that is done in a JB.

Otherwise you're right, the CPC needs continuing.

 

[GBDamo]

obviously wago'd into the other cpc where ther are 2 cables?????

Is that what the bare one in the middle is for. Thought that was just an aid for stripping the sheath ;-)

 

[GBDamo]

Are you being serious, leave it unenclosed and taped to the sheath. There is a difference between over thought and no thought.

If we have the same situation in mind then yes.

That is single feed to a single luminaire, all other cables terminated elsewhere; click distribution box, lighting JB or similar.

 

[Dobes_88]

Would a push fit type Wago not fit?

 

[GBDamo]

Are you being serious, leave it unenclosed and taped to the sheath. There is a difference between over thought and no thought.

Not wanting to start WW3 but, what requirement is there to enclose a CPC?

526.5-8 specifically refers to live conductors.

Am I missing something?

 

[Dillb]

Not wanting to start WW3 but, what requirement is there to enclose a CPC?

526.5-8 specifically refers to live conductors.

Am I missing something?

From memory as not the book to hand but anything under 4mm requires mechanical protection.

 

[Deleted account]

From memory as not the book to hand but anything under 4mm requires mechanical protection.

Form memory also is that not just for main earthing conductor or is there reference somewhere for cpc' also.

 

[Dillb]

Form memory also is that not just for main earthing conductor or is there reference somewhere for cpc' also.

I am not sure and no where near my books at the minute, I am sure someone will be aong soon to confirm though.

 

[GBDamo]

Interesting stuff, especially since i'm doing the 18th tomorrow.

The 4mm, if mechanically unprotected, rule is for "Protective conductors" the definition of protective conductors on P33 (BYB) does not mention CPCs but rather:-

"A conductor used for some measures of protection against electric shock and intended for connecting together any of the following:-
(i) Exposed conductive parts.
(ii)Extraneous conductive parts.
(iii)the main earthing terminal.
(iv)Earth electrode(S).
(v) The earthed point of the source, or an artificial neutral."

None of the above mentions or hints at CPCs.......

.....Except metal (none class II) accessories, which then makes the CPC a "protective conductor".


I think...

 

[westward10]

As the cpc has been removed from the cable sheath which affords it protection then 521.10.1 would apply.

 

[westward10]

Interesting stuff, especially since i'm doing the 18th tomorrow.

The 4mm, if mechanically unprotected, rule is for "Protective conductors" the definition of protective conductors on P33 (BYB) does not mention CPCs but rather:-

"A conductor used for some measures of protection against electric shock and intended for connecting together any of the following:-
(i) Exposed conductive parts.
(ii)Extraneous conductive parts.
(iii)the main earthing terminal.
(iv)Earth electrode(S).
(v) The earthed point of the source, or an artificial neutral."

None of the above mentions or hints at CPCs.......

.....Except metal (none class II) accessories, which then makes the CPC a "protective conductor".


I think...

What do you suppose cpc stands for.

 

[GBDamo]

I'd still contend, that in the case of a CPC feeding a single luminaire, that it is not a "protective conductor" as the CPC is not linking Exposed Conductive Parts, if it were the CPC would be connected to the accessory, and therefore there is no requirement to enclose.

 

[Deleted account]

I'd still contend, that in the case of a CPC feeding a single luminaire, that it is not a "protective conductor" as the CPC is not linking Exposed Conductive Parts, if it were the CPC would be connected to the accessory, and therefore there is no requirement to enclose.

It's protecting the cable.

 

[GBDamo]

What do you suppose cpc stands for.

There are protective conductors and Protective Conductors.

Other than the instance highlighted above the CPC does not fit the definition on P33 and is not specifically listed as an example.

It is their for fault protection not electric shock protection.

So, as i read it, a CPC can be but is not always a protective conductor.

 

[GBDamo]

It's protecting the cable.

Not many cables suffer the effects of electric shock.

Joking aside, why would the BYB specifically define a Protective Conductor as "A conductor used for some measures of protection against electric shock....."if it means any old protective conductor?

 

[westward10]

What do you consider the purpose of a cpc.

 

[GBDamo]

As the cpc has been removed from the cable sheath which affords it protection then 521.10.1 would apply.

My initial comment said to over sheath, so we've got that one covered.

 

[westward10]

My initial comment said to over sheath, so we've got that one covered.

The conductor is still not enclosed for protection.

 

[GBDamo]

What do you consider the purpose of a cpc.

This is not an exercise in what I consider but what the book stipulates.

Please try to stick to the discussion rather than trying to undermine contributors.