Once again about entering the power supply into the house. Deadly mistake

And now the load with us how it goes?

It is thanks to such "High-class specialists" that people perish and exploiters suffer. Absolute misunderstanding of the issue.
Plus, this scheme is a direct way to the theft of electricity - the "left" zero after accounting. What have you done there in 17 years in the design? Looks and kicked out ...

"In emergency situations No. 1 No. 2 and No. 3, an accident is quickly detected." Is this due to the appearance of a phase through the load in the house on the PE line (instrument cases)?

Oleg,
Plus, this scheme is a direct way to the theft of electricity - the "left" zero after accounting.
Oleg. Theoretically, it is possible to use the LEFT zero, but in practice it is a complete hemorrhoid .. and it is unlikely that many people will do this. And in order to completely exclude this possibility, it is necessary to seal two screws with one seal securing the PEN and N wires to the PE bus.

Djey,
When using a voltage monitoring relay, this will not happen.

In order not to have problems, you need to install the multifunction protection device UZM-16.50M, 51M !!!!!!

Djey,
I confirm. :)

Thank you so much for the series of articles. Very simple and clear.

Yes, the schematic is really original. Yes, with Energosbytovskih (or with Networkevik, I don’t understand ...) TU will never converge. In my opinion it is necessary to do so (I also have a hoop): Input to the Double automatic machine for sealing-> Counter-> Line wire to the automatic circuit board (РЩ), PEN (Zero) - to the main grounding bus (GZSh). GZSh: On grounding; On a PE shield; On the N shield.

Better yet, do not enter directly from the support with air (a textbook on electrical substations), but with a cable through underground, but no one will allow this.

It’s a pity this service does not accept schemas and blocks links

And the grounding after the machine and the counter protects you in some way from: a good uncle of an electrician who likes to change phase with zero (220 on the case), and from burning off zero at a substation (less bias 220-380), and from the fact that through your wires the whole equalizing current of the village (the same combustion) will go, and from end to end: it is yours, and not universal: “re-grounding zero wires”, and there should not be gaps (according to technical conditions) between the input machine and the line (that is in phase, that is at zero (automatic machine for monitoring meter removal without disconnecting the entire line)).

Or, another option (if malicious energy sellers are thoughtlessly (see PUE - system TN-C-S) prohibit making grounding at the input): bring 2 wires: phase (L- the one that lights up on the indicator when supplying 380 / 220V (3 to 220, the approach is different, but there is one)), and zero (PEN-conductor of general overhead line (normal, not lit)) to the house shield (see above - RC). There we sit on a common grounding bus connected to the shield body (2 buses do not make much sense since the electrical connection PEN-land-PE-N must be (see PUE-1986: "grounding without grounding is prohibited")). Next to the same bus we land the ground, zero workers (the second socket of the outlet -N (blue in the VVG triple wire)) and zero protective (socket housing -PE (yellow-green (if lucky))) wires. Total - again, we comply with the requirements of the new PUE in relation to the system TN-C-S.

 The grounding device is another matter, but not less than three counts and in a line, and not in a triangle.

Zeroing ?! Never! The customer does not have money for a competent ground loop (and this is only about $ 250 with work) it’s better not to bother with the “earth”, a campaign and a smaller estimate will come out)))

So the presence of grounding is a standard requirement of networkers (sometimes measurement protocols and a memory passport are also required). Well, well, let the customer expect that in normal mode everything metal (such as an electric stove) will pinch small and small, and in an abnormal situation, something will burn or someone will be beaten.

And from experience: three stakes a meter by a meter, clogged in crushed stone-building and garbage soil along the garden house, tied with aluminum wire (what kind of welding - all hands) - give a current equivalent to 0.5 kW when the phase is closed (in a fresh state - in a year it’s better), but this is more for theft, and not for security.

I recommend that the customer-economist use either a two-wire (it will be overjoyed, but theoretically, this is prohibited by the PUE) scheme (L-N), or equalization of potentials (stove - sink, etc., although now all plumbing is plastic, but water does).

Scheme number 2 - the killer. With the described problem, the phase goes through zero to the case of the devices. Put an RCD.

The first article in the series, with which I disagree categorically.

If you talk in general terms, then Figure 1 correct and technically competent. The decision in Figure 2 is erroneous and not a single inspector will make it.

In the second diagram there is generally blatant mistake! CAN NOT be from PEN conductor get a PE conductor without first dividing PEN into PE and N. That is, circuit number 2 in itself is not-gra-mot-on!

Fault situations No. 1, 2, 3 are contrived and NOT real.

Let's figure it out.

With a fig, will contacts disappear at points No. 1 and No. 2 in scheme No. 1? This is a PE wire (protective conductor !!!!); no working currents flow through it! All current went by N to the counter.

Or does it seem so difficult for someone to provide an initially good wire contact at the bus terminal during installation? Let him do another, more understandable thing for him.

Why should the PE conductor break in case No. 3 in scheme No. 1? This will be one of the veins of the common cable! Why does she break off? Why does the wire break in the cable, the only one through which current does not flow? Why?

Scheme No. 2 is no better in this case, if the owner kills when taking the meter readings.

Now we will consider several options for the location of the shields shown in the diagram.

Option 1. Two shields stand next to the wall of the house.Unlikely, but still ...

The diagram in Figure 2 also looks ... strange to say the least. But in principle it is possible, since the shields are nearby. Which of the shields will include grounding (repeated, since CT circuits are not considered) is not very important. Although it all depends on where the automatic machines, SPDs and RCDs that are mandatory for TU will stand. Where there is an SPD - there, in principle, and grounding should be the Main Grounding Bus (GZSCH).

Option number 2

Typically, the switchboard is located outside on the wall of the house, and the switchboard inside somewhere at the entrance or in the boiler room. Scheme 2 looks in this case even more ridiculous. Lead the ground wire into the house, and then back to the PEN input conductor ... taking into account the fact that for private houses phase distortions and large equalizing currents in PEN are common, together with the supply wires ... this puts your house at risk of fire (or how minimum closure of the input cable that goes to the ShchR) from the resulting short circuit somewhere in the external supply line ... On the TP, the protection will not work for some reason, which often happens, and part of the total short-circuit current will flow first into the house in ShchR, then from the house to your re-grounding. Do you need it?

That's when you need to be afraid of contact loss at points 1 and 2. With phase imbalance, currents that do not depend on you will regularly flow through your PE.

To summarize: the designers who create projects according to scheme No. 1 are really high-class and competent specialists.

Immediately missed, because I was not thinking about that :). I was baffled by the question of why people have such strange thoughts about promoting scheme No. 2.

Now I understand the reason. I would recommend that both competent and non-literate specialists who make projects to connect private houses and summer cottages put only 2-pole machines on the meter input. This is especially important when connecting the house from the overhead line.

In this case, there will be no thought to apply scheme 2 or something else as ridiculous.

And there will be one single and correct option - PEN is grounded in front of the machine and PE is already going from it to the switchboard and N to the meter.

For a long time I was away and with SURPRISE I DETECTED WHAT I WRITED 5 PART OF ITS ARTICLES. WHO THIS SO JOKED-YOU CAN ONLY PURPOSE. I WANT TO REPORT THAT I ARE NOT AUTHOR OF 5 PART. AUTHOR 5 PARTS, ATTENTION I READ CAREFULLY PART 2 WHERE I BRING THE DIAGRAM OF ENTRANCE TO THE HOUSE COMPLETED BY THE DIAGRAM No. 1 OF THE PART 5.
RESPECT FOR MIRONS S. AND

This article is complete nonsense that runs counter to existing norms and practice.

I agree!!! Well, take a look at diagram No. 2. With the described malfunctions No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 there simply will be no more grounding, there is none - it has come off! And there will be no “zero”, because PEN conductor is not divided into PE and N.

Alexey, you are right of course :), but the fact is that this is the author who sets the goal of scheme No. 2, this sees its advantage.

Good day.
Entrance to the house VL 16 sq. Mm.
A conductor with a cross-section of 25 sq. Mm goes from the grounding electrode to the GZSh of the switchgear, from the switchgear to the apartment panel there is a 3x10 cable (copper) Is such a cross-section of the protective conductor (10 sq. Mm) permissible?