Simple question - simple answer - will you - yes or no?
How many times do you want me to answer? No matter how much you badger, harrass and twist, I've given my answer. What
you have not done is to give any logical or reasonable reply to my answer.
There is no regulation (AFAIK) which discriminates between changing a light and adding one - 131.8 for example groups alterations and additions together.
131.8 for the umpteenth time
(and to prevent a nit-pick, we are talking about a like for like replacement).
131.8 does not discriminate between alterations and additions - it classes them as one in terms of what you have to do to ensure their safety.
Then what are you blithering on about? How many times are you going to change your mind? I've lost count.
I've not changed my mind once - what I said there was exactly the same as what I said earlier.
There is no regulation (AFAIK) which discriminates between changing a light and adding one - 131.8 for example groups alterations and additions together.
There probably isn't in B
AS7671...who cares ?
If there is one in BS 7671:2008 which supports your position will you tell us what it is?
Simple question - simple answer - will you - yes or no?
How many times do you want me to answer? No matter how much you badger, harrass and twist, I've given my answer. What you have not done is to give any logical or reasonable reply to my answer.
Actually, I have:
Is a like for like replacement an alteration - No.
According to my dictionary it is.
How many times do you want me to answer? No matter how much you badger, harrass and twist, I've given my answer.
Are we to take it then that your position is based on the notion that you can change something on a circuit and not alter it?
Alter:
vb to make or become different in some respect; change.
If you replace a light, the light is not the same one that was there before, it's a different one, therefore there has been a change, therefore, as BS 7671 does not define the term "alteration", the normal English definition applies, therefore replacing a light is an alteration.
I have never conjoined extracts, phrases or words from different posts to make them appear to be a complete sentence or post that never actually existed.
But I'll be ultra-scrupulous now, so I'll ask people's forgiveness for what will be a long series of quotes. I'll quote posts in their entirety- that way the entire post can be seen, and I can't be accused of only quoting what suits me, but I'll highlight the relevant parts that I would normally have cut out so that it's easier to follow the thread,
The exchange with eric:
What about adding lights to the circuit?
Then your addition must comply with the current edition of the Regs.
This is like pulling teeth isn't it.
If you were adding lights to an existing bathroom circuit, do you think that you would have to add RCD protection to that circuit?
It's a circuit with cables concealed in walls or partitions at a depth of less than 50mm in an installation not under the supervision of a skilled or instructed person.
See above.
See above.
If you were changing a fuse or MCB for one of a different rating because the existing one was the wrong size, and the circuit had cables concealed in walls or partitions at a depth of less than 50mm in an installation not under the supervision of a skilled or instructed person would you expect to add RCD protection?
Then assume you were wrong
OK - so in a topic concerned with what people felt should be done in various scenarios of electrical installation work, I wrote the phrase "as soon as you've opened your toolbox and isolated a circuit" and you thought I was talking about someone turning off an MCB before going on holiday.
Fair enough
You've made an alteration to every circuit. It has everything to do with a CU change. The paid job you have taken on is to change the protection of the entire installation, so what excuse can there be for changing the protection to not comply with the 17th?
That was never my suggestion. My
observation was that your comment, "
If someone hasn't inspected 1st fix (i.e most of Cables and Conductors), it hasn't been signed for and it hasn't been done." was irrelevant to the issues surrounding replacing a CU.
To fingRinal it is immaterial if it is an MCB which is in turn feed from an RCD or to RCBO’s to cure the problem one way would be to combine both circuits and yes I also think in the main will be the norm in my house all lights from day one have always been on one circuit and to prevent danger should the MCB or RCD trip the stairs/landing and garage both have battery backed lights.
To ban-all-sheds “If you were adding lights to an existing bathroom circuit, do you think that you would have to add RCD protection to that circuit?” yes as it is an addition if the customer does not want the expense he/she has no need to add to the circuit. If however I was replacing a faulty existing lamp then no.
I do see a problem if a new lamp wired in Ali-tube cable is added to a circuit which has some areas where the cable is buried to less than 50mm then since the new bit conforms no you don’t need to add RCD protection.
“If you were changing a fuse or MCB for one of a different rating because the existing one was the wrong size” if you can’t use a RCBO and the MCB was wrong size due to something that happened in the past than changing the MCB for another MCB of different rating is OK. However if the board would take a RCBO or the reason why the MCB required changing was due to some upgrade you had just completed i.e. change of shower size then one does need to upgrade to take a RCD. If good cause can be given i.e. 7kW showers no longer produced then I would say it was OK just to fit a replacement MCB.
“Quote:You've made an alteration to every circuit. It has everything to do with a CU change. The paid job you have taken on is to change the protection of the entire installation, so what excuse can there be for changing the protection to not comply with the 17th?”
I can’t see how this holds true remember we are not just talking about domestic and if I changed a distribution board I would only be concerned with cables directly leaving that board if one of those cables in turn feed another DB then I would not be concerned with the second DB. Returning to domestic a radial wired surface to first socket I would check the first socket before and after and if that’s OK that’s as far as I would go. If the customer wants a PIR he can pay for one it don’t come free with a Consumer unit change. We are permitted to stipulate limitation of work and that is what I would do.
Using a single RCD to protect all is not automatically against the 17th Edition only if it is likely to trip would it be against the 17th Edition and with caravans one is forced to use two RCD in series not parallel one outside caravan and one inside so where a customer is unwilling to pay for multi RCD protection then I see using a single RCD as only option left.
Again there comes a point where one has to use some common sense. If one reads “Best Practice Guide 1” from “The Electrical Safety Council” on lack of earths on lights it goes through a procedure of first trying to persuade the owner to do best option and if this fails it goes through other options one at a time and only if the owner insists on using Class I items does one refuse and walk away. And I think the same applies to every other job we do. First try for best and only if your actions would make the installation more dangerous than existing do you need to walk away from the job.
Eric
You and eric claim that the former allows you to leave the circuit non-compliant with the 17th but the latter does not.
Another scandalous lie from you - should we expect any different? I'd ask you to point out where both us explicitly said that, but you'll probaby revert to your usual desperate trick of cutting a word from here, another from there and pasting them to make it look like a complete answer.
So I think that's covered off the eric exchange - I asked "
If you were adding lights to an existing bathroom circuit, do you think that you would have to add RCD protection to that circuit?" and eric said "
yes as it is an addition if the customer does not want the expense he/she has no need to add to the circuit. If however I was replacing a faulty existing lamp then no."
The exchange with you:
"Minimize" is an unfortunate word to have used, as it means to reduce to the least possible degree or amount, and the least possible amount of inconvenience in the event of a fault would be a CU with several 10's of RCBOs, with each individual socket, light, FCU and fixed appliance on their own dedicated circuit. And that's never going to happen.
In my opinion, you're focusing on the wrong word. 'Minimize' is attached to the word 'inconvenience'. It is the word
inconvenience that is the main thrust of things. Once we have established what the inconvenience is or could be, we can decide what to do about it. The Regs would like us to 'minimise' it.
So, first of all we need to define what 'inconvenience' is. Inconvenience will change from installation to installation and from use to use.
Inconvenience to me is likely to mean something different to someone else. Also, in 10 years time, inconvenience may mean something different to me. But by then, a PIR will be due and the Inspector should take this into consideration.
For example, if you were replacing a light or a switch in a bathroom, would you expect to add RCD protection to the circuit?
Not at all. Assuming the replacement is of the original specification, the replacement can't be considered to be an addition or an alteration.
If you were changing a fuse or MCB for one of a different rating because the existing one was the wrong size would you expect to add RCD protection?
This would depend on the type of circuit, its use and other factors.
I don't believe that 131.8 means that as soon as you've opened your toolbox and isolated a circuit you're not allowed to turn it back on and leave until it complies with BS 7671:2008.
It doesn't state that at all. It refers to making additions and alterations and not to switching an mcb on or off (which you might do if you went away on holiday for example).
yet there also seems to be an insufficiently thought-through belief about "taking responsibility" for what's already there, particularly when replacing a CU.
Insufficiently thought-through by whom? It's insufficiently through-through if someone thinks responsibility can be ignored for reasons of convenience. If someone hasn't inspected 1st fix (i.e most of Cables and Conductors), it hasn't been signed for and it hasn't been done. I suppose the solution would be to amend the standard forms of BS7671 to include extras that the constructor could sign for as Inspector - assuming he is competent to do so.
In my opinion, you're focusing on the wrong word. 'Minimize' is attached to the word 'inconvenience'. It is the word inconvenience that is the main thrust of things. Once we have established what the inconvenience is or could be, we can decide what to do about it. The Regs would like us to 'minimise' it.
So, first of all we need to define what 'inconvenience' is. Inconvenience will change from installation to installation and from use to use.
Inconvenience to me is likely to mean something different to someone else.
Which is basically what I said when I talked about the user being the one who should decide what inconvenience is acceptable, but I appreciate the problems of having an informed discussion.
But if the idea is to "avoid danger and reduce inconvenience to a level acceptable to the user in the event of a fault", then if the user is happy with a dual RCD board it complies.
Not at all. Assuming the replacement is of the original specification, the replacement can't be considered to be an addition or an alteration.
What about adding lights to the circuit?
This would depend on the type of circuit, its use and other factors.
It's a circuit with cables concealed in walls or partitions at a depth of less than 50mm in an installation not under the supervision of a skilled or instructed person.
It doesn't state that at all. It refers to making additions and alterations and not to switching an mcb on or off (which you might do if you went away on holiday for example).
Was I wrong to assume that in the context of this topic people would take "opening your toolbox and isolating a circuit" to mean that they were doing some kind of work on it, not going on holiday?
yet there also seems to be an insufficiently thought-through belief about "taking responsibility" for what's already there, particularly when replacing a CU.
Insufficiently thought-through by whom? It's insufficiently through-through if someone thinks responsibility can be ignored for reasons of convenience. If someone hasn't inspected 1st fix (i.e most of Cables and Conductors), it hasn't been signed for and it hasn't been done.
That's nothing to do with a CU replacement.
In my opinion, you're focusing on the wrong word. 'Minimize' is attached to the word 'inconvenience'. It is the word inconvenience that is the main thrust of things. Once we have established what the inconvenience is or could be, we can decide what to do about it. The Regs would like us to 'minimise' it.
So, first of all we need to define what 'inconvenience' is. Inconvenience will change from installation to installation and from use to use.
Inconvenience to me is likely to mean something different to someone else.
Which is basically what I said when I talked about the user being the one who should decide what inconvenience is acceptable
Then we agree.
But if the idea is to "avoid danger and reduce inconvenience to a level acceptable to the user in the event of a fault", then if the user is happy with a dual RCD board it complies.
The Designer takes on an assumed responsibility to minimize to a reasonable level. He is the comptent person and can't ignore it altogether so a reasonable distribution of circuits in a dual RCD boards should suffice in many situations.
Not at all. Assuming the replacement is of the original specification, the replacement can't be considered to be an addition or an alteration.
What about adding lights to the circuit?
Then your addition must comply with the current edition of the Regs.
This would depend on the type of circuit, its use and other factors.
It's a circuit with cables concealed in walls or partitions at a depth of less than 50mm in an installation not under the supervision of a skilled or instructed person.
See above.
It doesn't state that at all. It refers to making additions and alterations and not to switching an mcb on or off (which you might do if you went away on holiday for example).
Was I wrong to assume that in the context of this topic people would take "opening your toolbox and isolating a circuit" to mean that they were doing some kind of work on it, not going on holiday?
Then assume you were wrong
yet there also seems to be an insufficiently thought-through belief about "taking responsibility" for what's already there, particularly when replacing a CU.
Insufficiently thought-through by whom? It's insufficiently thought-through if someone thinks responsibility can be ignored for reasons of convenience. If someone hasn't inspected 1st fix (i.e most of Cables and Conductors), it hasn't been signed for and it hasn't been done.
That's nothing to do with a CU replacement.
You've made an alteration to every circuit. It has everything to do with a CU change. The paid job you have taken on is to change the protection of the entire installation, so what excuse can there be for changing the protection to
not comply with the 17th?
So I think that's covered off the exchange with you - if it hasn't, and I'm wrong, then I've genuinely made a mistake, and have not been posting scandalous lies.
If I
have made a mistake, either because you've not been clear enough for me to understand you, or I've not paid close enough attention, then I will of course admit my error, and apologise.
So it seems to me that the quickest way to resolve this is for you to make an explicit clarification.
Consider a circuit with no faults, fully in compliance with the requirements of the 16th, but not in compliance with the 17th because it does not have RCD protection.
Here is the post where I made the the statement about what you and eric were saying - again I must apologise to the other readers of this forum, but I'm going to quote it in its entirety, with highlighting, so as to avoid any chance of being accused of desperately cutting a word from here, another from there and pasting them to make it look like a complete answer.
FR - why do you persist in telling lies?
Surely if you want to show that what you say is true then when I ask you "where?" you should show us where, not just respond with 64 identical smileys?
How many times?
64 - what's the matter, can't you count?
131.8 does not discriminate between alterations and additions - it classes them as one in terms of what you have to do to ensure their safety.
Then what are you blithering on about? How many times are you going to change your mind? I've lost count.
I've not changed my mind once - what I said there was exactly the same as what I said earlier.
There is no regulation (AFAIK) which discriminates between changing a light and adding one - 131.8 for example groups alterations and additions together.
Let's assume there are no other defects (as you like to assume things)...
It's the only way to get you to give a non-evasive answer to a simple and straightforward question...
Is a like for like replacement an alteration - No.
According to my dictionary it is.
Then what the heck are you talking about?
An existing lighting circuit which does not have the RCD protection required by the 17th, but other than that has no faults, and is part of an installation which has no other related faults.
On which we are either going to replace a luminaire or add a luminaire.
You and eric claim that the former allows you to leave the circuit non-compliant with the 17th but the latter does not.
I'm interested in a logical and consistent reason why.
So to clear this up once and for all, can you please tell us in which of the following two scenarios you would leave the circuit without an RCD, and thus leave it non-compliant with the 17th, and in which you would add an RCD and thus leave it compliant with the 17th:
1) replacing an existing luminaire
2) adding a luminaire.
So your tactic will be to inflame the situation to provoke responses which in turn will lock the thread - thus saving you from the shame of being wrong and being seen to be wrong.
We can all make mistakes - I'm not ashamed of being wrong, which is why I keep inviting you to show where I did say that you should be able install a new 'split load' consumer unit (let's call it a '16th')- RCD protection for sockets, none for lights (without cpc remember).
===========================
Edited to remove accidentally duplicated text.
