Czy wolisz polską wersję strony elektroda?
Nie, dziękuję Przekieruj mnie tamRafik_ wrote:(...) The third protective conductor from your new installation is best connected somewhere to a water pipe or something (unless you have plastic pipes, it is a zonk(...).
Quote:As a last resort, the solution may also be to connect a protective device with a neutral at the input of the installation, but necessarily before the differential (although I do not recommend it personally, it can be different on the incoming neutral).
Rafik_ wrote:(...) Just tell me what will be like the installation in this riser, e.g. it is old, a man lives on the 10th floor will fire zero, e.g. on the fifth, and which way will the electricity from the neighbors from above be closed? Will neutral then remain neutral? Only because I wrote that it can be different with neutral (...).
Rafik_ wrote:(...)
And I don't know if Łukasz-O's statement:
"Again, my advice is for the TN-CS system so that it doesn't happen later"
and the network symbol used, the author of the post will say something(...)
Quote:It can be different with the replacement of the riser by the administration, I cannot ask for help in my community, they prefer to make the facades and renovate the cage without being aware of the dangers of faulty installations.
Quote:In my bathroom, with an old installation and connecting the "Polish grounding" (zero to the pin in the socket), it gave the effect of digging after touching the housing, and now on a new installation with a differential, and with grounding so much hailed by you, nothing happens and The interference from the computer on the TV card has also been eliminated, my advice may be "straight from the bazaar", something I have never heard of, it works for me as before, and probably despite your fears I feel safer than without it.
kortyleski wrote:
I have written more than once, but I will repeat it - the split point must be grounded
kortyleski wrote:
- otherwise, you just have to wait for the electrocution ... It is enough, for example, to steal cables in the basement.
HeSz wrote:
Before you explain that the incident is the result of "combinatorialism", you will be held in mining custody for six months.
HeSz wrote:
And 10 floors is about 30 m of cable. Not such a great cost when it comes to security.
HeSz wrote:
Why do you always react with aggression?
HeSz wrote:
And when it comes to the solution, there is no universal solution. In my block, a 16 ^ 2 wire connected to a ring earth electrode was sufficient.
tulipan13 wrote:
There are three phases and zero to my apartment, and there is no earth electrode.
Quote:I am joining the guy who wrote-I have written more than once, but I will repeat - the point of division must be grounded - otherwise you only have to wait for an electric shock ... It is enough to try to steal cables in the basement ... At one time, in one block we had three thefts a week ...
Quote:If in an old installation where protection was implemented by zeroing, was it safe enough that you could boldly grab the device's housing in the event of a break or theft of cables in the basement / neutral wire?Block of 10 floors, WLZ 16mm? (therefore 4 wires), installation for TN-S apartment on the 9th floor.
I am asking for practical advice on how to perform such a grounding.
Akrzy74 wrote:kortyleski wrote-Quote:I have written more than once, but I will repeat - the point of division must be grounded - otherwise you only have to wait for an electric shock ... It is enough to try to steal cables in the basement ... At one time, in one block we had three thefts a week ...
HeSz wrote:
Mr. dr. MUST is known as the indoor standard PN IEC 60364.
HeSz wrote:
Among electricians, he has the same number of supporters as his opponents.
If the SEP stated that the solutions of the standard do not correspond to reality, why did it limit itself to issuing a "Commentary on the standard" instead of dealing with the development of its amendment.
HeSz wrote:
European directives of the so-called "new approach" do not require the use of specific solutions, if the solution proposed by the author is "at least as safe". So, if you can prove that the lack of grounding of the PEN conductor to PE and N conductor is as safe for users as its grounding, you can do so. But you have to show it.
HeSz wrote:
Personally, I am a supporter (as opposed to Dr. Musiał) of earthing the split point of the PEN conductor. Whatever the cost.
HeSz wrote:I also spent my money!
kortyleski wrote:
The awareness of having protection gives rise to bolder use of devices
kortyleski wrote:
and this in turn poses a greater risk.
kortyleski wrote:I always advise as it should be,
patryk-84a wrote:In our area, ZE does not wish to use their earth electrode. You should then pull the 4x wire to the houses and do the separation in the fuse box. what do you say?
kortyleski wrote:I always advise as it should be,
Wirnick wrote:Buddy Łukasz-O, you answered yourself in the second post of this topic.
TL;DR: Up to 30 V stray voltage appears on taps when the PEN conductor burns [Elektroda, kortyleski, post #5250901]; “the point of division must be grounded” [Elektroda, kortyleski, post #5250901] An RCD will still trip, but safety depends on correctly splitting PEN to PE + N.
Why it matters: A single wiring error can leave every metal appliance in your flat live, even with a new differential (RCD) installed.
• Typical PEN failure voltage on exposed metal parts: 20–30 V AC [Elektroda, kortyleski, post #5250901] • Minimum cross-section for added PE conductor in flats: 10 mm² Cu or 16 mm² Al (PN-HD 60364-5-54) • 4-pole RCD sensitivity recommended: 30 mA, Type AC or better [PN-EN 61008-1] • Reported PEN cable thefts: up to 3 per week in one block [Elektroda, kortyleski, post #5250901] • RCDs prohibited in pure TN-C installations (PN-IEC 60364-4-41, 413.1.3.8)