Part P inspection in regards to IEE 17th, regulation 526.3

[ban-all-sheds]

Is that the full document??

Sounds like it.

If Paul Cook's book is accurate, which it probably is.

For everyone else, the only reference the 1st Ed. makes to joints is this:

10. It is most essential that joints should be electrically and mechanically perfect and united by solder.

Seems like an apt time to re-post this link:

http://www.markhellerelectric.com/solder.pdf

 

[Spark123]

The one I have a photocopy of is from June 21st 1882, has that regulation that Simon speaks of but is no 13.
Think soldering is referring to the example joint?

 

[securespark]

That's odd!

My copy has the "committee appointed" date of May 11 1882, but the date at the bottom of page 4 is April 11 1883.

 

[Spark123]

Mine says May 11 1882 on page 1 but June 21st 1882 on page 4.
Maybe corrigendums aren't a new thing afterall

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm inclined to believe the April 11th date.

It may only be 4 pages long, but even so what is the likelihood that a committee could have produced it in only 6 weeks?

9 months OTOH....

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

 

[ericmark]

Are the instructions valid for Lead Free solder?????????????????

 

[17thman]

On a periodic, if the inspector sees a lighting arangement where there is no ceiling rose, such as spot lighting or cabinet lighting switched via a wall plate switch and there is no switch wiring arrangement in the switch back box or no choc near/behind the light fitting. then surley he will smell an inaccessible jb?

 

[DCC]

But if it was legal when it was done?

 

[Spark123]

Periodics are done to the current version of the regs

 

[plugwash]

On a periodic, if the inspector sees a lighting arangement where there is no ceiling rose, such as spot lighting or cabinet lighting switched via a wall plate switch and there is no switch wiring arrangement in the switch back box or no choc near/behind the light fitting. then surley he will smell an inaccessible jb?

He will know there is some kind of junction but if there are no previous records he will not know whether it is a type that can legitimately be inaccessible.

 

[DCC]

Periodics are done to the current version of the regs

Yes but surely the point is (almost) any house inspected unless its freshly rewired to the latest regs would have items that dont meet the current regs?

 

[Spark123]

Yes - that is correct
Anything that doesn't meet current regs needs to be noted on the PIR. It doesn't matter when it was done and what version of regs it was done to, the PIR is to todays current standard. As another example, there will be a lot of installations done to the 16th which don't comply with the RCD requirements for concealled cables. This needs to be noted on a 17th edition PIR and coded as appropriate - personally I'd go for a 4.

 

[kevsterdiy]

The accessability part of it has been around for a long while now, possibly since 15th ed. (anyone?)

At LEAST since the 14th Ed. of 1966 (I don't have older editions, save for a copy of the first edition (1882!)).

B73:

Where joints in cable conductors and bare conductors are required, they shall be mechanically & electrically sound and, except in cables buried underground and special cables designed for heating, they shall be accessible for inspection. Joints in non-flexible cables shall be made either by soldering or by means of mechanical clamps or compression-type sockets which shall securely retain all the wires of the conductors. Flexible cables and flexible cords shall not be jointed except as provided in Regulation B78.

With this all in mind, this is non applying to the regulations, if the box is to be hidden under say a floor:
//www.diynot.com/wiki/electrics:socket_circuits:a1_ring_final_circuit

it could do with a note to say that?