Correct cable?

[pete01]

Ah.


It does not say that but that is irrelevant. It is ok - as per 433.

Not exhaustive means it does not list every possible - and permissible - option.


It does not show lots of things.

Agreed I was just saying what it does say.

 

[JohnW2]

I'll have to say no as appendix 15 says 2.5mm so it would be silly not to follow that, No?

Why silly? If something is compliant with the actual regulations in BS 7671, why 'silly' to not do it just because it isn't something which is mentioned in the 'informative guidance' of Appendix 15?

Appendix 15 is not exhaustive - it just gives examples. For example, it does not show a 4mm² unfused spur from a ring final supplying multiple sockets, even though that would be compliant with BS 7671.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

So if you did an EICR and found a socket fed from an FCU with 1m of 1.5mm, you would say C2?

Definitely not, since it would be fully compliant with BS 7671 (something which is not changed by App 15).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I know what I meant, 2.5mm from ring to FCU then 1.5 from there, or does appendix 15 say 1.5 is ok from ring to FCU? Didnt think so but not 100%.

Appendix 15 does not say that 1.5mm² from ring to FCU is OK, but the actual regulations in BS7671 (which are what matters) do.

Kind Regards, John

 

[pete01]

Appendix 15 does not say that 1.5mm² from ring to FCU is OK, but the actual regulations in BS7671 (which are what matters) do.

Kind Regards, John

Thats what I said.
As long as I know what I meant.

 

[JohnW2]

The BS rating for a socket (twin, single or whatever) is 13A ....

What do you mean by that? It sounds similar to what MK "Technical Data Sheets" say of single and double sockets (namely "13A per outlet"), but even the technical guy at MK could not tell me for certain what it meant (because "Technical Data Sheets" are written by the marketing dept!" !!)

, the type test for a twin is 14A + 6A, if a manufacturer decides to design and test a twin socket that they additionally test to draw 45.951749 amps for 10 years with no apparent damage well all well and good if they want to do that.

Exactly, as I said - and if the did that, they could state the rating of their product as "45A" if they wanted to. More realistically,they could certainly produce a double socket which could legitimately 'rated' at 26A total.

B/ Short Circuit - We could conspire to put a big resistance (Impedance) in circuit to satisfy the removal of this risk if we wish too. It would be a barmy way to approach the problem though in my humble opinion.

As you say (and despite the anecdote you go on to cite), pretty barmy!

.... C/ Earth fault - well on a TT system we might have no choice than needing to rely on RCDs but with earthy supplies such as TNS or TNC-S we usually consider the RCD as a secondary or back up protection to good earthing principles anyway.

Indeed - as I recently wrote.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Thats what I said. ... As long as I know what I meant.

Unless you disagree with me that 'what matters' is the requirements of BS7671 itself, I'm not sure why you are taking so much notice of the non-comprehensive examples in the guidance in App 15?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

Unless you disagree with me that 'what matters' is the requirements of BS7671 itself, I'm not sure why you are taking so much notice of the non-comprehensive examples in the guidance in App 15?

Kind Regards, John

Agreed,
If we understand that the regs themselves are normative and say App 15 is informative then App15 is guidance only just like the Onsite Guide, the Part P app Doc and Whitfield`s Guides. Good stuff but there again only guides.

I certainly reckon that me and thee are on the same page here John and I pretty much reckon the registered/time served lads will probably be pretty much with us too.

All of these guides are a pretty good useful way of achieving compliance with BS7671, which in itself is pretty much a good way of aiming to achieve (Likely to achieve according to HSE) our legal commitments.
You can go outside the guidance if you wish and still achieve to BS7671 if you use sound engineering judgement, you can even go outside BS7671 and still be compliant with the law but that could be so difficult to achieve that you`d probably need to be a reet determined nutter to attempt it. BS7671 is not statute but it is very sensible to treat it as if it actually is. Often, by contract, you need to comply anyway so yes treat it as if it is the law.

PS - a recent little bit of the actual law (home rentals) does in itself make some reference to a little bit of one version of BS7671 too.

 

[pete01]

Unless you disagree with me that 'what matters' is the requirements of BS7671 itself, I'm not sure why you are taking so much notice of the non-comprehensive examples in the guidance in App 15?

Kind Regards, John

No I do agree with you I follow it(appendix 15)when I need to it's a good guide nothing wrong with that surely.

In fact I read a lot of what you put and I always think this chap knows his stuff but then I dont do a lot of work these days so it doesnt really matter to me.

 

[JohnW2]

Agreed, If we understand that the regs themselves are normative and say App 15 is informative then App15 is guidance only just like the Onsite Guide, the Part P app Doc and Whitfield`s Guides. Good stuff but there again only guides.

Exactly

I certainly reckon that me and thee are on the same page here John and I pretty much reckon the registered/time served lads will probably be pretty much with us too.

Indeed - and perhaps we are not of dramatically different vintages - which, if so, might partially explain that.

All of these guides are a pretty good useful way of achieving compliance with BS7671, which in itself is pretty much a good way of aiming to achieve (Likely to achieve according to HSE) our legal commitments.

Indeed so. As with any 'cookbook', particularly for those who have limited ability to think for themselves, or maybe less-than-'complete' knowledge of the underlying principles and what the regulations 'actually say', but who are capable of following the instructions in a 'cookbook', they are pretty fool proof. The guidances invairiably either correspond to or are more conservative/cautious than the actual regs - i.e. I can think of no cases in which following the guidancees would result in non-compliance with BS 7671. However, the guidances may result in one doing things, or 'exercising caution', beyond what would actually be required to satisfy BS 7671.,

You can go outside the guidance if you wish and still achieve to BS7671 if you use sound engineering judgement, you can even go outside BS7671 and still be compliant with the law but that could be so difficult to achieve that you`d probably need to be a reet determined nutter to attempt it. BS7671 is not statute but it is very sensible to treat it as if it actually is.

Agreed. It's all very well saying (correctly) that it would sometimes be possible to successfully argue that the law was being complied with, despite non-compliance with BS7671, but that would almost certainly be an uphill struggle, particularly for someone whole lacked an imprrssive collection of professional and/or academic qualifications to wave about.

Often, by contract, you need to comply anyway so yes treat it as if it is the law.

Indeed so - and that 'by contract' appears to include membership of a CPS.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

No I do agree with you I follow it(appendix 15)when I need to it's a good guide nothing wrong with that surely.

As I've just written, all of the available 'guidance's' available (including Appendices of BS7671) are valuable as a 'cookbook' for those with limited knowledge and/or limited ability to think - since I think that following those guidances will invariably result in compliance with the regs themselves. However, as I've also said, if one relies on those guidances, one may sometime 'go further' than one would need to in order to satisfy BS7671 and/or may avoid doing things which would be perfectly OK in terms of BS 7671, despite what the (more conservative/cautious) guidances may say.

In fact I read a lot of what you put and I always think this chap knows his stuff but then I dont do a lot of work these days so it doesnt really matter to me.

If you're talking about what I write, then thanks! However, as an illustration of the fact that formal training/qualifications/experience/whatever (or the lack of them) do not necessarily mean very much (if anything!), bear in mind that I am not, never have been and never will be an electrician, nor anything directly related to matters electrical !!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

Yes John but, as I`ve said before, I would (from your posts) instinctively trust you more than some so called "Electricians" I have met.

 

[pete01]

Yes John but, as I`ve said before, I would (from your posts) instinctively trust you more than some so called "Electricians" I have met.

Agreed

 

[pete01]

As I've just written, all of the available 'guidance's' available (including Appendices of BS7671) are valuable as a 'cookbook' for those with limited knowledge and/or limited ability to think - since I think that following those guidances will invariably result in compliance with the regs themselves. However, as I've also said, if one relies on those guidances, one may sometime 'go further' than one would need to in order to satisfy BS7671 and/or may avoid doing things which would be perfectly OK in terms of BS 7671, despite what the (more conservative/cautious) guidances may say.

If you're talking about what I write, then thanks! However, as an illustration of the fact that formal training/qualifications/experience/whatever (or the lack of them) do not necessarily mean very much (if anything!), bear in mind that I am not, never have been and never will be an electrician, nor anything directly related to matters electrical !!

Kind Regards, John

Arr ok how is it you know so much about err electrical based stuff?

 

[JohnW2]

Yes John but, as I`ve said before, I would (from your posts) instinctively trust you more than some so called "Electricians" I have met.

Yes, you've made that flattering comment before, and there's not really anything I can (or should!) say other than to thank you!

However, at risk of compounding my 'arrogance', I would suggest that I'm probably pretty 'unusual'! It's obviously not easy to make such judgements via this medium, but there have been a few non-electricians here of whom I would say the same as you say of me - in particular, the infamous BAS!

I suppose one important point of all this is what I wrote - that it reminds us that one cannot read too much into the presence of absence of formal training/'qualifications' etc., such that one really has to judge people by 'how one finds them', regardless of conventional indicators of apparent 'competence'.

Kind Regards, John