Economy 7

[holmslaw]

And (this is a genuine Q - I've not got any books with me), if the heaters were on BS3036s is there an absolute guarantee that disconnection times will be low enough for handheld appliances?

I'm amazed for once you have made a constructive comment - but you don't realise it. I have checked all the previous posts and NOBODY has referred to disconnection times.

The disconnection times for the storage heaters *fixed appliances" would (should) have been 5 secs, but for s/o outlets the disconnection time should be 0.4 secs.

For this reason, and ONLY for this reason the op should make sure that the 0.4 sec disconnection time can be achieved - before changing the spurs to s/o.

I will edit my previous posts to reflect this, I think this has been educational for everyone.

And please don't start a bombardment of "I told you so's" none of you came with a valid reason for not changing spurs to s/o.

 

[GaryMo]

TN systems require that all final circuits (not including distribution circuits) 32A and under achieve a disconnection time within 0.4s.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm amazed for once you have made a constructive comment - but you don't realise it.

You just can't help carping and being condescending, can you.

I have checked all the previous posts and NOBODY has referred to disconnection times.

Maybe, like me, that was for everybody else just one of the items under the heading "doing it safely"?

The disconnection times for the storage heaters *fixed appliances" would (should) have been 5 secs, but for s/o outlets the disconnection time should be 0.4 secs.

For this reason, and ONLY for this reason the op should make sure that the 0.4 sec disconnection time can be achieved - before changing the spurs to s/o.

I will edit my previous posts to reflect this, I think this has been educational for everyone.

And please don't start a bombardment of "I told you so's" none of you came with a valid reason for not changing spurs to s/o.

Nowhere have I suggested that they can't be. If you look back, you'll see that what I took isuue with was this:

You do NOT have to comply with Part P because you are only replacing some spurs with sockets.

And none of whether a DIYer could do it safely or not, whether it couldn't help be safe enough or not, makes any difference to the fact that you were wrong and irresponsible to tell the OP that the law did not apply to him.

 

[GaryMo]

I think he's getting mixed up with Part P and notification.
Just because all domestic electrical work falls under Part P, a statutory document, doesn't automatically mean notification to LABC is required, for example, changing socket faces.

 

[RF Lighting]

And if he new anything about BS7671:2008 he would have also realised that ALL socket outlets <20A for use by ordinary persons MUST be protected with an RCD.

If you work on a circuit, you must leave it compliant with the current edition of BS7671. (If that is the standard you work to)

 

[Softus]

Yep, but at the same time you must ensure what you are doing complies with P1 i.e. it has to be safe.

I agree with your thoughts, but the point is part p doesn't say he has to have it tested, just replace like for like (almost) job done. The job is so simple that is extremely unlikely to make the installation unsafe(r) - and I know their are people who could screw it up - but thats beside the point.

If you replaced a s/o or a switch in your home and did'nt have any way of testing it was safe would you be bothered - I don't think so.

I'm quoting the above post in its entirety so that later on, when holmslaw edits it, we all know what he originally wrote and how unsafe his thinking was.

Now then...

Yep, but at the same time you must ensure what you are doing complies with P1 i.e. it has to be safe.

I agree with your thoughts, but the point is part p doesn't say he has to have it tested

You're wrong. Installing can't be considered to have been done safely without designing beforehand and testing afterwards.

just replace like for like (almost) job done. The job is so simple that is extremely unlikely to make the installation unsafe(r)

It isn't like for like, and you thinking so makes it obvious that (a) you're not competent and (b) you're not interested in safety.

I know their are people who could screw it up - but thats beside the point.

On the contrary - it's precisely the point.

You haven't read the Building Regulations [properly], you don't know what the law is, you don't know what BS7671 says, and you don't know how to design and test a circuit.

For these reasons you're one of the people who would screw it up, and therefore you shouldn't be advising on this topic or on this forum.

 

[Pensdown]

Yep, but at the same time you must ensure what you are doing complies with P1 i.e. it has to be safe.

I agree with your thoughts, but the point is part p doesn't say he has to have it tested

You're wrong. Installing can't be considered to have been done safely without designing beforehand and testing afterwards..

If the works are DIY and notified to BC then P1/Part P does not require any testing by the installer nor BC. BC may or may not want to test but it's their call.

But if the installation is done by a person or company who has been approved to self certify then it must be tested in accordance with 7671.

 

[holmslaw]

And if he new anything about BS7671:2008 he would have also realised that ALL socket outlets <20A for use by ordinary persons MUST be protected with an RCD.

Yes, on a new installation/circuit only.

The regs are not retroactive, replacing sockets, spur etc does not require any other modification to the circuit, and a diyer does not have to test.

If a spark is doing the job then he should test, before (if he has any sense) and after.

If you work on a circuit, you must leave it compliant with the current edition of BS7671. (If that is the standard you work to)

Thats wrong as well, you must leave it no less safe than it was before you started work. Do you tell your customers that all red and black wiring must be replaced?

 

[holmslaw]

Yep, but at the same time you must ensure what you are doing complies with P1 i.e. it has to be safe.

I agree with your thoughts, but the point is part p doesn't say he has to have it tested, just replace like for like (almost) job done. The job is so simple that is extremely unlikely to make the installation unsafe(r) - and I know their are people who could screw it up - but thats beside the point.

If you replaced a s/o or a switch in your home and did'nt have any way of testing it was safe would you be bothered - I don't think so.

I'm quoting the above post in its entirety so that later on, when holmslaw edits it, we all know what he originally wrote and how unsafe his thinking was.

Why would I edit something that is 100% correct.

Yep, but at the same time you must ensure what you are doing complies with P1 i.e. it has to be safe.

I agree with your thoughts, but the point is part p doesn't say he has to have it tested

You're wrong. Installing can't be considered to have been done safely without designing beforehand and testing afterwards.

No, I am not wrong

Ignoring the rest of your drivel.

Softus/bas, your problem is you do not have any common sense - was my spelling ok.

 

[TopTrumper]

Yep, but at the same time you must ensure what you are doing complies with P1 i.e. it has to be safe.

I agree with your thoughts, but the point is part p doesn't say he has to have it tested, just replace like for like (almost) job done. The job is so simple that is extremely unlikely to make the installation unsafe(r) - and I know their are people who could screw it up - but thats beside the point.

If you replaced a s/o or a switch in your home and did'nt have any way of testing it was safe would you be bothered - I don't think so.

I'm quoting the above post in its entirety so that later on, when holmslaw edits it, we all know what he originally wrote and how unsafe his thinking was.

Why would I edit something that is 100% correct.

Yep, but at the same time you must ensure what you are doing complies with P1 i.e. it has to be safe.

I agree with your thoughts, but the point is part p doesn't say he has to have it tested

You're wrong. Installing can't be considered to have been done safely without designing beforehand and testing afterwards.

No, I am not wrong

Ignoring the rest of your drivel.

Softus/bas, your problem is you do not have any common sense - was my spelling ok.

WELL PUT HOLMSLAW.
EXPECT SOME SORT OF REPLY QUOTED FROM A DOCUMENT FROM SAID ***Removed***

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And if he new anything about BS7671:2008 he would have also realised that ALL socket outlets <20A for use by ordinary persons MUST be protected with an RCD.

Yes, on a new installation/circuit only.

No - that is not true.

The work that you do should comply with BS7671. If you wish to claim that the work that you do complies with it then the work that you do must be in accordance with the current version.

So sockets that you add must have RCD protection.

The regs are not retroactive, replacing sockets, spur etc does not require any other modification to the circuit,

Agreed - nothing has to be done to the existing circuit to bring it up to current specs, but the work that you do should comply. So, for example, if you were moving a switch drop from one side of a doorway to the other so that the door could be re-hung the other way round, then the buried cable that you install would have to comply with the new regs for those. You could do that by having just that drop in earthed metal conduit, or done in Flexishield. You would not have to rewire the existing circuit, or put it on an RCD unless you chose not to provide earthed mechanical protection etc for your new cable.

and a diyer does not have to test.

There's no explicit requirement to test, but if a DIYer has extended or broken into a ring final, for example, then IMO he's not made reasonable provision for safety if he doesn't confirm that he still has ring continuity on the conductors.

If you work on a circuit, you must leave it compliant with the current edition of BS7671. (If that is the standard you work to)

Thats wrong as well, you must leave it no less safe than it was before you started work.

Agreed here, too - if you add things to a circuit you don't have to bring the bits you don't touch up to 17th standards.

But your comment about colours prompts another observation about the work you do complying with the current version.

Do you tell your customers that all red and black wiring must be replaced?

I suspect not.

But if you are extending an existing circuit, what colours do you use? The ones which comply with the version of the regulations that were in force when the orignal circuit was installed?

Or the ones which comply with the current version of the regs, on the grounds that that is the version with which the work that you do should comply?

Softus/bas, your problem is you do not have any common sense - was my spelling ok.

Three questions:

1) Why do you think that pointing out that you were wrongly telling someone that the law did not apply to him indicates a lack of common sese?

2) Why do you keep conflating me and Softus?

3) Why are you so concerned about your spelling - aren't you able to check it for yourself?

 

[Softus]

Why would I edit something that is 100% correct.

I don't know.

I also don't know why you would write something in the first place that wasn't 100% correct, but you did. On multiple counts.

 

[holmslaw]

And if he new anything about BS7671:2008 he would have also realised that ALL socket outlets <20A for use by ordinary persons MUST be protected with an RCD.

Yes, on a new installation/circuit only.

No - that is not true.

The work that you do should comply with BS7671. If you wish to claim that the work that you do complies with it then the work that you do must be in accordance with the current version.

So sockets that you add must have RCD protection.

The regs are not retroactive, replacing sockets, spur etc does not require any other modification to the circuit,

Agreed - nothing has to be done to the existing circuit to bring it up to current specs, but the work that you do should comply.

and a diyer does not have to test.

There's no explicit requirement to test,

If you work on a circuit, you must leave it compliant with the current edition of BS7671. (If that is the standard you work to)

Thats wrong as well, you must leave it no less safe than it was before you started work.

Agreed here, too - if you add things to a circuit you don't have to bring the bits you don't touch up to 17th standards

bas/softus, so after removing all of the diversionary comments and drivel you seem to more or less agree with me- sticking to the point is not one of your strongest traits. And also you contradict yourselves in the first two responses.

As for your demand for answers, who are you to demand anything from anyone on this forum, especially as you never answer a direct question yourselves. You're just another anonymous poster - but less honest and more cowardly than most.

The majority of your posts ARE pernickity ARE nitpicking ARE arrogant ARE derisory and are pointless. They just suffocate any meaningful converstion and frighten off posters wanting to ask a simple question.

But you do create a lot of laughter so for that reason, I say long live bas and softus

 

[Softus]

you seem to more or less agree with me

Overall that has to be a no.

I agree with some of what you've written; the correct bits happen to be just regurgitations of what other posters have pointed out to you - nothing original that you've written has been correct.

And also you contradict yourselves in the first two responses.

Please explain which of my posts are not consistent.

As for your demand for answers, who are you to demand anything from anyone on this forum

Please explain which of my posts have demanded any answers from anybody.

You're just another anonymous poster - but less honest and more cowardly than most.

Please show me what I've written that isn't 100% honest, and please explain which act has been cowardly.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So I more or less agree with you?

The regs and part p are not retroactive for that reason you do not have to install an RCD - although it might be a good idea to do so.

[So sockets that you add must have RCD protection.

and a diyer does not have to test.

There's no explicit requirement to test, but if a DIYer has extended or broken into a ring final, for example, then IMO he's not made reasonable provision for safety if he doesn't confirm that he still has ring continuity on the conductors.

Why did you remove the highlighted words when you quoted me above? They don't exactly show unqualified agreement with you - is that the reason? Was your plan to try and make me appear inconsistent by removing highly relevant words that disagreed with you, in the manner that the unscrupulous have been known to do with book and film reviews?

No - there is no explicit requirement to test. But there is an explicit requirement to make reasonable provision for safety, and I believe that if you do something where there's a risk that you could inadvertently create an unsafe situation, like a broken ring conductor, or disappearance of the cpc from part of a radial circuit, that it is not reasonable to not test that you haven't.

So I believe that in practice there are times when a DIYer needs to test to comply with the law.

bas/softus, so after removing all of the diversionary comments and drivel you seem to more or less agree with me- sticking to the point is not one of your strongest traits.

It's more a case of when you remove comments that don't agree with you.

I agree with you when you say things I agree with, and disagree with you when you don't. The only sort of person who would think that wasn't sticking to the point is the sort of person who has decided in advance to disagree with anything another says, whatever its merits.

And also you contradict yourselves in the first two responses.

Earlier you asked if your spelling was OK. It would be more profitable for you to ask if your grammar was OK. It's hard to make sense of things when you switch, context free, from the singular to the plural.

"you contradict yourselves"? Who are you addressing?

You quoted, almost entirely, a post of mine, and didn't separately quote anybody else, so you must surely have been addressing only me, which make the plural "yourselves" a tad nonsensical.

But in any event - can you please show, without removing words to change the apparent meaning, where I contradicted myself?

That's not a demand, BTW - it's a reasonable request for you to back up an assertion.

As for your demand for answers, who are you to demand anything from anyone on this forum, especially as you never answer a direct question yourselves.

There you go with that "yourselves" again...

I didn't "demand" any answers - I asked some reasonable questions. If you're going to object to reasonable questions and term them "demands" then maybe you shouldn't write things that generate reasonable questions.

I'd also like to ask if you have any evidence that I've never answered a direct question. I don't demand that you do - feel free to fail to prove the veracity of that accusation by ignoring the request.

You're just another anonymous poster - but less honest and more cowardly than most.

Do you have any grounds to accuse me of dishonesty and cowardice?

Now I am going to demand something.

I demand that you either prove that accusation, or apologise.

The majority of your posts ARE pernickity ARE nitpicking ARE arrogant ARE derisory and are pointless.

The ony reason you could have for objecting on those grounds is that you don't like people to point out that you are (sometimes) wrong.

They just suffocate any meaningful converstion and frighten off posters wanting to ask a simple question.

I doubt it.

But what they do do, hopefully, is to prevent you from giving answers that are misleading.