Order Elec items for a 2 storey extn, + BS7671 imperfections

[ban-all-sheds]

So power circuits include lighting circuits and power circuits are all power circuits with the exception of lighting circuits unless wired in 1.5mm² or larger cable.

They aren't exactly engendering respect, or giving the impression of being able to write specifications as soundly as required for engineering or standards documents, are they?

 

[JohnW2]

So power circuits include lighting circuits and power circuits are all power circuits with the exception of lighting circuits unless wired in 1.5mm² or larger cable. They aren't exactly engendering respect, or giving the impression of being able to write specifications as soundly as required for engineering or standards documents, are they?

Very true. However, this one is a fairly trivial case, in as much as there is actually no uncertainty, in either table, as to what they are saying. The inconsistency is sloppy, and is at least partially facilitated by their failure to define 'power circuit' (and maybe 'lighting circuit') in Part 2. Nevertheless, I need not tell you that there are far worse things in BS7671, some of which definitely do impair clarity, or worse!

I assume that they undertake in-house 'proof reading', but wonder whether they do any 'field testing' of editions of Standards (including BS7671) before they publish them. In other fields, it is not unusual for me to be asked to read documents (regulations, rules, specifications, instructions, manuals, protocols etc. etc.) "with the eye of a user" to identify any issues of readability of 'usability'. Indeed, in some fields there is a regulatory requirement for formal approval and/or 'field testing' of some such documents.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

There was a public consultation on the revision of BS7671 to become the 17th edition of the IEE regs, and I remember making some comments, but IHNI if they were accepted or not.

 

[JohnW2]

There was a public consultation on the revision of BS7671 to become the 17th edition of the IEE regs, and I remember making some comments, but IHNI if they were accepted or not.

Interesting. If they ever take any notice of comments from the 'public', that certainly is a step in a good direction. However, I fear that, with the best will in the world, very few people, even those with appreciable interest, are going to read their way through the entirety of something as large as BS7671 and given careful thought to each bit they read, as a voluntary act in the context of a public consultation. Only if (appropriate) people are paid reasonable amounts for their time in carefully reviewing the document pre-publication is it likely that a lot of the 'issues' would be picked up ... but, of course, none of that would achieve anything unless they are prepared to act upon the feedback they get.

What does surprise me is that there appear to be at least some things in BS7671 about which there is an appreciable consensus that they are 'daft' or far too poorly/inadequately worded or inconsistent) - and I would have expected that such things would have been picked up even by their internal review processes.

Kind FRegards, John

 

[stillp]

John, remember that no-one gets paid for their contributions to any standard, except perhaps as part of their salary where their job includes contributing to standards (like mine).
Whose internal review processes are you talking about? BSI have some editors, but they are not very technical and just pick up typos, incorrect cross-references etc. The technical content depends on a number of people voluntarily contributing their time to attend meetings, review documents and make suggestions.
If you want BS7671 to be written by professionals, you'd have to pay a lot more than you do now for a copy.

 

[JohnW2]

John, remember that no-one gets paid for their contributions to any standard, except perhaps as part of their salary where their job includes contributing to standards (like mine). ... . The technical content depends on a number of people voluntarily contributing their time to attend meetings, review documents and make suggestions.

Yes, I understand that, and it’s probably a good thing. There is certainly a clear need for their to be extensive input/involvement from those who have real-world expertise in relation to the fields concerned and who will have to apply the Standards once they are written. Paid employees of Standards organisations are not often (if ever) going to have enough specific knowledge/expertise to write Standards without external input. I recall that my father who (very many moons ago), in the latter parts of his career, was a Standards Engineer (in the aeronautical industry) spent a fair amount of time at BSI and other similar meetings provided ‘input’ to the development of Standards – and, like you, was only paid for that time as part of his salary from his employer.

Whose internal review processes are you talking about? BSI have some editors, but they are not very technical and just pick up typos, incorrect cross-references etc. The technical content depends on a number of people voluntarily contributing their time to attend meetings, review documents and make suggestions. If you want BS7671 to be written by professionals, you'd have to pay a lot more than you do now for a copy.

I meant internal review by whatever organisation published the Standard – usually, I presume, BSI but it gets a bit more complicated in the case of BS7671 because of the what I assume is involvement (the nature/details of which I don’t fully understand) of the IET.

It goes without saying that the writing (or, at least, ‘conception’) of highly technical Standards can only be done by people with high degrees of technical knowledge – which , as you say, is usually achieved by the voluntary involvement of many outsiders. The documents may be literally ‘written’ by, say, BSI personnel but I presume usually only on the basis of high levels of input from ‘expert advisors’, many of whom will be external people, unpaid by the organisation. So, in some senses, the documents are, indeed, ‘written’ by professionals.

However, as you say, the BSI editors are not generally in a position to undertake a ‘technical review’ of the documents, and nor are those who have been involved in the creation of a document such as a Standard the best people to be undertaken a ‘final’ technical review of it. To pay external professionals/experts to undertake that task would seem appropriate, and would not appreciably impact on what I have to pay for a copy of, say, BS7671. I don’t have anything to do with Standards, but it’s not uncommon for me to be paid by organisations, companies or sometimes even government departments to act as an external (‘technical’) and ‘independent’ reviewer of a document in its late stages of development.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

I meant internal review by whatever organisation published the Standard – usually, I presume, BSI but it gets a bit more complicated in the case of BS7671 because of the what I assume is involvement (the nature/details of which I don’t fully understand) of the IET.

It goes without saying that the writing (or, at least, ‘conception’) of highly technical Standards can only be done by people with high degrees of technical knowledge – which , as you say, is usually achieved by the voluntary involvement of many outsiders. The documents may be literally ‘written’ by, say, BSI personnel but I presume usually only on the basis of high levels of input from ‘expert advisors’, many of whom will be external people, unpaid by the organisation. So, in some senses, the documents are, indeed, ‘written’ by professionals.

However, as you say, the BSI editors are not generally in a position to undertake a ‘technical review’ of the documents, and nor are those who have been involved in the creation of a document such as a Standard the best people to be undertaken a ‘final’ technical review of it. To pay external professionals/experts to undertake that task would seem appropriate, and would not appreciably impact on what I have to pay for a copy of, say, BS7671. I don’t have anything to do with Standards, but it’s not uncommon for me to be paid by organisations, companies or sometimes even government departments to act as an external (‘technical’) and ‘independent’ reviewer of a document in its late stages of development.

Kind Regards, John

BS 7671 is written by a committee known as JPEL/64, which is a joint panel of the BSI committee responsible for mirroring the work of IEC TC64, and the IET. Roughly half the members are appointed by BSI, after the usual nomination by for example trade associations, and the other half appointed by IET. Some are paid employees of IET. There's a complicated arrangement for the shared copyright in the resulting document.
One problem with paying someone to review the document is in finding the right person. Like you, I've done some of that work but have also declined a lot because I don't feel I'm the best person for the job. Usually the 'best person' has already contributed as a member of the committee that drafted the document. There are other problems, such as auditing the impartiality of the paid reviewer. Hence the public consultations, which take place as defined in BS 0, see http://www.bsigroup.com/Documents/standards/bs0-pas0/BSI-BS0-Standard-for-Standards-UK-EN.pdf

 

[JohnW2]

BS 7671 is written by a committee known as JPEL/64, which is a joint panel of the BSI committee responsible for mirroring the work of IEC TC64, and the IET. Roughly half the members are appointed by BSI, after the usual nomination by for example trade associations, and the other half appointed by IET. Some are paid employees of IET. There's a complicated arrangement for the shared copyright in the resulting document.

Yes, I'd heard about JPEL/64, although I didn't know quite how it was constituted.

One problem with paying someone to review the document is in finding the right person. Like you, I've done some of that work but have also declined a lot because I don't feel I'm the best person for the job. Usually the 'best person' has already contributed as a member of the committee that drafted the document.

Yes, that's a problem and, like you, I quite often turn down such offers. The fact that 'the best person for the (review) job' has often been involved in its creation is, indeed, another potential problem, but perhaps not all that serious. There will usually be plenty of people perfectly competent to review even though there were perhaps not one of the 'best people' to be actually involved in the drafting. One can, after all, be a very competent art, theatre or food critic/reviewer, withoutout personally have the skills to paint, act or cook to anything like the standard of those whose work they are reviewing/criticising! Having said that, I have known situations in which a person who was 'obvious for the job' has deliberately been excluded from at least the early stages of drafting, in order that (s)he can bring their unbiased expert eyes to bear at a later stage in the process.

There are other problems, such as auditing the impartiality of the paid reviewer.

Indeed, and in some fields it would be almost impossible to find an appropriate expert who was impartial. However, one can do one's best with the auditing and can also use more than one such reviewer, chosen such as their potential 'partialities' don't overlap too much!

Hence the public consultations, which take place as defined in BS 0, see http://www.bsigroup.com/Documents/s...-BS0-Standard-for-Standards-UK-EN.pdf[/QUOTE]
In many situations, it's totally appropriate that there should be public consultation. However, I fear that this often/usually happens only because it is 'mandated' by regulations or legislation, and so often seems little more than 'lip service', in the sense that input received in the course of the publication so rarely seems to result in any action.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

In many situations, it's totally appropriate that there should be public consultation. However, I fear that this often/usually happens only because it is 'mandated' by regulations or legislation, and so often seems little more than 'lip service', in the sense that input received in the course of the publication so rarely seems to result in any action.

Kind Regards, John

You seem to have a very jaundiced view of the consensus process by which standards are written!

Yes, there could be a different system, that might or might not be 'better' in some way, but the system that exists is defined in BS 0.
If you feel strongly that there are drafting problems in BS7671, or indeed any other standard, why not get involved and help make the standard a better one? That would be far more productive then spending so much time on this forum!

 

[JohnW2]

In many situations, it's totally appropriate that there should be public consultation. However, I fear that this often/usually happens only because it is 'mandated' by regulations or legislation, and so often seems little more than 'lip service', in the sense that input received in the course of the publication so rarely seems to result in any action.

You seem to have a very jaundiced view of the consensus process by which standards are written!

I wasn't talking specifically about Standards but, rather, about 'public consultation' processes in general!

Yes, there could be a different system, that might or might not be 'better' in some way, but the system that exists is defined in BS 0.

I wouldn't want to see the public consultation process go, but it's existence does not preclude the sort of 'expert review' I've been discussing.

If you feel strongly that there are drafting problems in BS7671, or indeed any other standard, why not get involved and help make the standard a better one? That would be far more productive then spending so much time on this forum!

In fields in which I'm qualified and experienced to offer an 'expert view', I often do 'get involved'. However, no matter how much I may 'know' about the subject, I am not in that position in relation to matters of electrical wiring!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

BSI have some editors, but they are not very technical and just pick up typos, incorrect cross-references etc.

I should have added that the (minor, some would say trivial) issue raised by BAS which started this discussion is something which I would have expected a BSI editor to be able to pick up. On one page there is a table with a row labelled "Power circuits", with an associated foonote saying "Power circuits include lighting circuits". A few pages later, there is another table in which two separate rows are labelled "Power circuits" and "Lighting circuits" respectively, theoretically begging the question as to what "Power circuits"means in this second table. Neither are included in the Definitions section of the Standard. As I said to BAS, there is no uncertainty as to the intended meaning in either case, but it is nevertheless 'sloppy'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

John, remember that no-one gets paid for their contributions to any standard, except perhaps as part of their salary where their job includes contributing to standards (like mine).

Maybe not, but having known someone who for many years was on one of the IEEE standards committees, they do (if they pick the right standards) get to go to lots of expenses-paid jollies to foreign parts.

If you want BS7671 to be written by professionals, you'd have to pay a lot more than you do now for a copy.

If by "professional" you mean "people who can write a coherent document with as few ambiguities and as little need for 'interpretation' as is practicable" then IMO it's a poor show that we haven't already got that.

 

[JohnW2]

If by "professional" you mean "people who can write a coherent document with as few ambiguities and as little need for 'interpretation' as is practicable" then IMO it's a poor show that we haven't already got that.

Yes, I have to agree with that. As per my most recent post, I would expect the writer/editor to be able to avoid the sort of sloppiness you mentioned this morning, even if they had to turn to 'electrical experts' in relation to much of the technical content.

That's often the best way for it to be. 'Technical experts', in any field, are often hopeless at communication/writing. Over the years, I've often been asked to try to turn the writings of undisputed 'leaders in their fields' into something approaching understandable English!

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

If you want BS7671 to be written by professionals, you'd have to pay a lot more than you do now for a copy.

Joking aside, to move on from what Ban said, in their defence, from the 15th Edition onwards, the IEE/T have deliberately moved away from what in one phone conversation I had with them was described as "Jack and Jill" instructions of previous Editions to regulations that needed more thought, input and interpretation from the reader.

 

[JohnW2]

joking aside, to move on from what Ban said, in their defence, from the 15th Edition onwards, the IEE/T have deliberately moved away from what in one phone conversation I had with them was described as "Jack and Jill" instructions of previous Editions to regulations that needed more thought, input and interpretation from the reader.

Do you regard an increased need for thought, input and interpretation on the part of the reader as being a good or bad thing in what are (at least from the IET's viewpoint) a set of 'regulations'?

Kind Regards, John