18th edition draft now available for comment

[flameport]

Also achieving the values required for touch voltage are likely not to be met,

Very likely, given that electrodes are currently seldom used, there will be plenty of electricians/installers who have never encountered one, and in many cases shoving a 3ft piece of metal in the ground is totally inadequate.

 

[333rocky333]

thanks could you quote 542.1.2.1 to 3 please

 

[flameport]

thanks could you quote 542.1.2.1 to 3 please

Anyone can register on the BSI site for free in about a minute and then view the entire thing.

 

[John D v2.0]

I did that and it let me in but every time I clocked one of the headings it didn't let me in. If I opened in a new tab I got the same page.

 

[EFLImpudence]

 

[John D v2.0]

Very likely, given that electrodes are currently seldom used, there will be plenty of electricians/installers who have never encountered one, and in many cases shoving a 3ft piece of metal in the ground is totally inadequate.

To be honest the only adequate thing possible would be a metallic connection directly to the substation earning terminal. The resistance of the actual earth is high enough that your return path to the substation and any (still) bonded metalwork that's also earthed in the area is not going to help much.
But a metallic connection back to the substation is basically given in a tn system and that's what they're worried about losing.
It would all make sense if they said it was just to trip the RCD rather than reducing touch voltages.

 

[D4N1EL]

Can anyone read this or do you have to be a registered electrician?

Will this tell me all the rules and regs I need to know about doing jobs in my home?

 

[John D v2.0]

Antone can read it but it's not finalised yet, also it's not really in an intelligent format for learning. More like a dictionary then a book to learn if you get my drift.
I'll get flamed for this, but if you have a job you need to do and not sure, post a new thread and we will try to help. Just whatever you do don't mention anything about your sparky being on holiday!

 

[EFLImpudence]

No, it's (just) proposed alterations for consultation.

 

[flameport]

New definitions in Part 2:

Combined short circuit current capability
Combined short circuit protection
Conditional short circuit current
Continuity of service
Control and protective switching device
Co-ordination of electrical equipment
Departure
Energy efficiency (with obvious error, I have submitted a comment on this already)
Foundation earth electrode
Inland navigation vessel
Non-compliance
Overcurrent protective device
Partial selectivity
Short circuit current rating
Short circuit protective device

 

[securespark]

I can't see 542.1.201 getting off the ground (scuse the pun...), at least not in its current format.

 

[securespark]

Regulations are NOT retrospective, so no need to fit one or 25,000,000.

Except where 132.16 is concerned. That was EFLI's point, or have I misunderstood?

EFLI: what's this I hear about the 19th Ed.?

The gaps between regs since the 1st Ed. have been:

6 years, 9 years, 6 years, 4 years, 4 years, 5 years, 8 years, 3 years, 7 years, 5 years, 11 years, 5 years, 11 years, 15 years, 10 years, 17 years and 10 years, if the 18th is released in '18.

An average of 8 years between editions.

For anybody wondering (well, I did.....!), the 8th Ed. was not issued in 1918, but in 1924.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Can anyone read this or do you have to be a registered electrician?

Yes and no.

Will this tell me all the rules and regs I need to know about doing jobs in my home?

No.

 

[EFLImpudence]

EFLI: what's this I hear about the 19th Ed.?

Just being sarcastic.

Actually, everything is now covered and there will be no more - oops doing it again.



Seriously, though - apart from amendments for new things, should not everything have been thought of by now?

I often wonder why the IET has discussions on a forum for the wiring regulations.

Surely there should be someone who just answers questions - yes, no, do this, do that.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Seriously, though - apart from amendments for new things, should not everything have been thought of by now?

No, because new evidence can come to light showing that old things are no longer safe enough.

With the disclaimer that I haven't read it yet, this:

No more labeled non rcd sockets.

must surely be because no matter how much of an engineering need there might be for a non-RCD socket, they simply cannot be tolerated because of the number of people dying from electric shock from using faulty equipment plugged into them.

What else could be the justification?