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

[ban-all-sheds]

'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!

If, in order to operate in whatever field that is, they are required to write documents which are understandable, and cannot fulfill that requirement, then they are, IMO, undisputedly not leaders in their fields.

 

[JohnW2]

If, in order to operate in whatever field that is, they are required to write documents which are understandable, and cannot fulfill that requirement, then they are, IMO, undisputedly not leaders in their fields.

Agreed, but I suspect that you actually understand what I mean! I'm not talking about people for whom writing documents is required for them to 'operate in their field', or for whom writing documents has got anything to do with their being 'leaders in their fields'. I'm talking about people who are 'brilliant' ('hence leaders in their field') when 'operating as' engineers, scientists, mathematicians, doctors or whatever, who have very valuable things and ideas to communicate, but have grave problems in writing it down in an easily understandable fashion. Have we not 'all seen or met examples of them'? It's similar to the fact that, rather ironically, many 'top academics' are quite poor communicators/teachers.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm not talking about people for whom writing documents is required for them to 'operate in their field'

In that case if they cannot do it at all well then answer is to not do it.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not talking about people for whom writing documents is required for them to 'operate in their field'

In that case if they cannot do it at all well then answer is to not do it.

I'm not sure I completely understand. If you're saying that those who are at the top of their fields, but are poor communicators, should just stick to what they can do (well) and shouldn't attempt to communicate with others (and thereby share that knowledge, experience and wisdom), then that would be denying the world a lot.

Stephen Hawking cannot comminicate without an awful lot of assistance, but it would be a great pity if, for that reason, he did not attempt to share his wisdom with the wider world.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm not sure I completely understand. If you're saying that those who are at the top of their fields, but are poor communicators, should just stick to what they can do (well) and shouldn't attempt to communicate with others (and thereby share that knowledge, experience and wisdom), then that would be denying the world a lot.

So now you're saying that being at the top of one's field does bring with it a requirement to share ones knowledge by communicating. I wish you'd make your mind up.

Stephen Hawking cannot comminicate without an awful lot of assistance, but it would be a great pity if, for that reason, he did not attempt to share his wisdom with the wider world.

Somewhat of a special case, I suggest.

 

[JohnW2]

So now you're saying that being at the top of one's field does bring with it a requirement to share ones knowledge by communicating. I wish you'd make your mind up.

My mind is made up. It doesn't come with a requirement to share/communicate, but it's a sad state of the affairs for others in the field, and often the wider world, if they do not share and communicate - with assistance, if necessary.

Stephen Hawking cannot comminicate without an awful lot of assistance, but it would be a great pity if, for that reason, he did not attempt to share his wisdom with the wider world.

Somewhat of a special case, I suggest.

An extreme case, certainly, but nevertheless relevant as a demonstration of how the world can suffer if someone with important things to share doesn't share them because of a difficulty in communicating. Even if he had no physical disability but was simply very poor at expressing himself clearly, it would still be worthwhile to assist him in doing that.

Kind Regards, 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).

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.

Having been a member of various IEC and CENELEC committees for a few decades, I've seen the inside of airports and hotels around the world, and yes, sometimes there's a few hours for "jollies" although the expenses are severely limited. I've also spent many weekends travelling to meetings that start on a Monday and/or finish on a Friday, and many hours sitting at airports waiting for delayed flights. I know it looks like a glamorous life from the outside, but I'd be happier if all my committee meetings were in the UK.
Oh, and by "professional" I just meant people who get paid for their work, as defined in the OED. Paid workers are not necessarily more diligent, or more competent, than enthusiastic amateurs.

 

[stillp]

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

So, John, you feel competent to denigrate the committee's work on a public forum, yet not competent to join them and help them correct their mistakes?

 

[JohnW2]

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!

So, John, you feel competent to denigrate the committee's work on a public forum, yet not competent to join them and help them correct their mistakes?

I think you may have misunderstood me - it's not me, but 'the system' which prevents that happening. 'Competence' is a rather funny thing, not the least because it is often largely in the eye of the beholder, and because it is very often judged fairly superficially on the basis of 'tangibles' (qualifications, appointments, etc.) rather than by objective assessment of the actual individual.

Even though some will undoubtedly regard it as an arrogant viewpoint, I would like to think that I actually would have at least some useful input to offer in relation to to BS7671 and, if it were practicable, would like to be able to 'join them', as you put it, and see what I could do to assist. However, neither any of the letters after my name nor any of the appointments or statements about experience on my CV have any significant relationship to 'electrical wiring'. Hence, given the way the world works, I have absolutely no documented credibility in that field and do not think that anyone would be in any way inclined to 'examine me' to determine whether I had anything useful to offer.

In purely practical terms, you have told be that roughly half of the members of JPEL/64 are appointed by BSI, and the other half appointed by IET. Which of those two organisations were you thinking might consdier appointing me, and why on earth should they - particularly given that they presumably have an awful lot of far more 'obvious' contenders to consider?

If I can't 'join' them, making some of my views heard in a public place at least means that I am not 'keeping them to myself' (which gives me a little personal intellectual satisfaction), but there's also the outside chance that they might perhaps influence the thinking of others, and might even occasionally 'filter through' to someone who is in a position to make some difference.

Of course, if you have any suggesttions as to how I might be able to more formally 'join' those who are involved in drafting BS7671, I would be 'all ears'!

[and if anything deserved a sepaarte, 'spin-off' thread, I suspect that this one does!]

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

John, did you read BS0 on the link I posted?
Sorry I can't answer in more detail, but I'm travelling on one of those jollies that BAS mentioned and have only limited web access.

 

[bernardgreen]

if you have any suggesttions as to how I might be able to more formally 'join' those who are involved in drafting BS7671, I would be 'all ears'

When a hazardous situation arises with something that is compliant with BSxxxx then writing a concise description of how BSxxxx failed to prevent the hazard and sending your observations and report to the BSxxxx committee and to reputable and relevent watchdog organisations will open doors for you.

 

[JohnW2]

John, did you read BS0 on the link I posted?
Sorry I can't answer in more detail, but I'm travelling on one of those jollies that BAS mentioned and have only limited web access.

I did read it, actually, but I don't think it alters anything I wrote in my last post.

In terms of commitee membership, given that I obviously would not be nominated by IET or BSI, AFAICS, the only criteria for membership that seems to leave are "...be able to demonstrate expertise in some areas of the committee’s work." and "...if it can be demonstrated that their participation would be of wider benefit to the work of the committee ...". As I said, given my position, how on earth would/could such things be 'demonstrated' in relation to myself - even if there were 'spaces' available on the committee?

BS0 obviously does speak of the public consultation processes - and I am clearly as eligible as anyone else to participate in that. However, we've aleady discussed that and I would not describe that as 'joining them'. Even if I did use that route, I presume that input to the public consultation process is not not anonymous, and I therefore wonder how much serious consideration the committee would give to input which came from an individual who appeared to have no 'technical expertise' in the area. Maybe I'm underestimating them but, even if so, there is a limit to the impact one can achieved by a one-off written representation, rather than being able to discuss the matter concerned.

Have I missed some aspects of BS0 which you felt were relevent?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

if you have any suggesttions as to how I might be able to more formally 'join' those who are involved in drafting BS7671, I would be 'all ears'

When a hazardous situation arises with something that is compliant with BSxxxx then writing a concise description of how BSxxxx failed to prevent the hazard and sending your observations and report to the BSxxxx committee and to reputable and relevent watchdog organisations will open doors for you.

I would not call that "joining them" in the sense which I thought (perhaps wrongly) stillp intended.

In any event, the process you describe is very specific. Most of the alleged 'imperfections' of BS7671 we discuss are matters of ambiguities, lacks of clarity or insufficience of detail - and one could wait a lifetime before coming across and real-world 'hazardous situations' which has arisen as a result of such 'imperfections'.

In any situation, in any field, where I believe I have experienced a situation that rules, regulations or legistlation has resulted, or failed to prevent, a hazard, I often do report that to relevent bodies/ organisations/ whatever (my MP if necessary) - and usually get a polite reply sympathising with my concerns and saying that my comments have been noted and passed to the relevent people for consideration! However, again, that is very different from actually being 'involved'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

John,

The regs are targetted at professional electricians, in the same way the regs covering carbon emissions for car exhaust are aimed at mechanics.
Anybody (professional or diyer) working on an installation to 7671 should ensure they understand them.

What qualifications do you have? They may satisfy the requirement for membership of the IET.

I doubt the the JPEL would really want to consider opinions from diyers, when writing the regs. They would be inundated and would have no idea what qualifiactions/experince the diyer.

 

[JohnW2]

John, The regs are targetted at professional electricians, in the same way the regs covering carbon emissions for car exhaust are aimed at mechanics. Anybody (professional or diyer) working on an installation to 7671 should ensure they understand them.

Indeed so.

What qualifications do you have? They may satisfy the requirement for membership of the IET.

For my sins, I have qualifications and memberships of learned societies/bodies, in relation to a wide range of disciplines, 'coming out of my ears', but none are related to electrical engineering or electrical installation. In any event, even if I could somehow talk myself into IET membership, I certainly don't see why they would/should even consider nominating 'little me' for membership of JPEL/64 - I certainly have no experience of working in roles or industries which would be of interest to them. It's really a possibility which would only exist in fantasy!

I doubt the the JPEL would really want to consider opinions from diyers, when writing the regs. They would be inundated and would have no idea what qualifiactions/experince the diyer.

Exactly the point that I've been making to stillp. No matter what I may know, or what input I may theoretically be able to offer, it's almost farcical to suggest that there is any reason why they should take any notice of my opinion.

Of course, as stillp has indicated, BS0 obliges the BSI to undertake a public consultation, and theoretically also requires them to consider all comments (no matter who from) unless they are "offensive or vexatious comments or those that reflect a campaign on the part of a vested interest". However, as I wrote to stillp, and as you imply, I really do doubt that, in practice, they would give more than a few moments 'consideration', if that, (i.e. 'lip service') to comments received from members of the public ('diyers' or whatever) whom they had no reason to believe/know had any knowledge, qualifications, experience or expertise in the field in question.

For once, I think that we are totally agreed

Kind Regards, John