Who said it was "discrete" ?
Actually there is no point in me discussing the matter with you any further.
At least you admit that the possibility of provocation leading to complaints had affected your style of posting.
2 consumer units?
- Thread starter JP_
- Start date
Actually there is no point in me discussing the matter with you any further.
Sponsored Links
Thank heavens for that.
You have also acknowledged that the definition of an "installation" in BS7671 is probably as vague as it is (potentially encompassing virtually anything electrical which 'has a purpose') in order to allow designers (or anyone else) to make their own decisions as to what is appropriately regarded as "an installation" in any particular case/context.
Why do you then complain when someone makes such a decision?
Kind Regards, John
My microwave oven, to name but one of countless things, must be an electrical installation.
Indeed, if one accepts that electronic equipment is 'electrical' (it's certainly not water, gas or steam-powered), then I must have hundreds of electrical installations in my house.
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
I know you've withdrawn, but I missed answering that question:
The phrase is, I admit, a little tautologous.
But it was you who said it was discrete. That's what an outbuilding is.
That "different decision" seems to be a one-way street, though.
It seems to be a case of 'that flexibility allows me/Bernard to make a different decision to you, but not you to make a different decision to me'.
Example:
There is no absolute need. It is a situation entirely created by the designer choosing a designation which the regulations do not mandate, and eschewing one which they allow. So if someone then regards the result of that decision as a snag it's quite reasonable for me to point out that a different decision would not give rise to that snag. And I think it reasonable to describe it as perverse. It's a lot like complaining of the burning effects of a hot curry in terms of 'the snag with eating curry is...' when what you do is to look at the menu and always go for the vindaloo and not the korma.
But what was the reaction when I pointed that out?
Was it along the lines of "That's true, that is a designation which would be fully compliant with BS 7671. It's not one I would make, nor what I would want in my premises, but I cannot criticise anybody who does make it, for it is clearly perfectly valid. If someone did not want to be forced to install an up-front isolator when they would rather not, then separating each CU and its final circuits into an installation would accomplish that design goal in a compliant manner."?
Example:
Like I said - it's a one-way street as far as you are concerned.
It seems to be a case of 'that flexibility allows me/Bernard to make a different decision to you, but not you to make a different decision to me'.
Example:
There is no absolute need. It is a situation entirely created by the designer choosing a designation which the regulations do not mandate, and eschewing one which they allow. So if someone then regards the result of that decision as a snag it's quite reasonable for me to point out that a different decision would not give rise to that snag. And I think it reasonable to describe it as perverse. It's a lot like complaining of the burning effects of a hot curry in terms of 'the snag with eating curry is...' when what you do is to look at the menu and always go for the vindaloo and not the korma.
But what was the reaction when I pointed that out?
Was it along the lines of "That's true, that is a designation which would be fully compliant with BS 7671. It's not one I would make, nor what I would want in my premises, but I cannot criticise anybody who does make it, for it is clearly perfectly valid. If someone did not want to be forced to install an up-front isolator when they would rather not, then separating each CU and its final circuits into an installation would accomplish that design goal in a compliant manner."?
Example:
That's a bit disingenuous. You seem to care enough to argue with me when I make a different decision to you and impart it to others. Not exactly a 2-way street when it comes to making one's own decision.
And where have you agreed that it could be common sense to regard a CU and its final circuits as an installation? Where have you accepted that even if you would not do it, no criticism can be levelled at anybody who does because it would be compliant?
Like I said - it's a one-way street as far as you are concerned.
Do you have an electrical installation certificate for it? Is it within the scope of BS 7671? Why do you, (and others here) say things which are ridiculous, thinking that by doing so you can pretend that what I'm saying is equally ridiculous?
Do you have hundreds of electrical installation certificates for them? Are they within the scope of BS 7671? Why do you, (and others here) say things which are ridiculous, thinking that by doing so you can pretend that what I'm saying is equally ridiculous?
- I did not say that it was perverse to have one. I said it was perverse to decide that the regulations required you to have one when you regarded having one as undesirable, given that the regulations don't actually force you to have one.
- I have not used the words "foolish", "wicked" or "unsafe", but you decided to use them in your rebuttal of my position as if I had.
- Why do you, (and others here) say things which are ridiculous, thinking that by doing so you can pretend that what I'm saying is equally ridiculous?
So "common sense" says that this site contains just one electrical installation? Just one plumbing installation?
Really?
Just as an aside, to anybody who thinks that a single up-front switch is desirable for use in some sort of emergency, none of these comply with the requirements for emergency switches:
Well, for a start, the issue we are discussing is that relating to a "single point of isolation" for an 'installation', not emergency switching.
However, even if we were talking about emergency switching, I still would not be sure what you're saying. Table 53.4 appears to indicates that RCDs are suitable for isolation, emergency switching and functional switching.
Kind Regards, John
I think you are being seriously over-sensitive. No-one has suggested that what you are saying is ridiculous.
All that has been said is that the regs' definition of "installation" is so vague as to require (you think possibly deliberately) that individuals have to make their own personal decision as to what it is appropriate to regard as "an installation" in a particular situation. Personal decisions being personal, they are very likely to vary - yet you seem to have been asserting that only your decision/interpretation can possibly be correct.
Kind Regards, John
But some here have tried to invoke emergencies as a reason for having that switch.
537.4.2.4
537.4.2.6
True, including myself - but the regulation we've been discussing is about isolation.
OK. The former just requires a label.
The latter seems a bit daft to me, since it doesn't seem to acknowledge the difference between isolation and emergency switching. In the face of many true 'emergencies' (particularly fires etc.), no-one is going to faff about 'locking off' the switch. If the situation presents a continuing potential hazard (after operation of an emergency switch) but is less of a real 'emergency' (hence giving one some time), what needs to be done is to isolate (and lock off that isolation).
Kind Regards, John
Last edited:
It is.
And you have suggested that the (or a) reason your interpretation is the right one, and the (or a) reason for having a single switch to isolate everything is the emergency scenario.
deleted - quoted instead of edited, again!
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
