'Unhelpful posts' ??

[JohnW2]

I must admit I find English is a politician language, it is so easy to say some thing, and the reverse being perceived. You don't want that cake, is answered as yes which means you don't want it, however many think the are saying the reverse. The BS 7671 seems to have small changes, traditionally and historically for example, one needs to be an English student to work out what it means.

Yes, I wrote that discussions here about 'the meaning of words' were 'primarily' down to one individual, but you are sometimes a second.

However, I think there are differences. When you talk about 'words', it's usually in the context of trying to interpret unclear/undefined (or sometimes frankly ambiguous) regulations and legislation etc. - situations in which it's quite often the case that none of us can be certain what was 'intended'. That's very different from talking about a use of words which is understood by the great majority of people, even if technically/grammatically 'incorrect'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[foxhole]

I avoid posing questions on Electrics forum , can’t spare 6 weeks to read all the replies .

 

[ebee]

Yes I do think that there is mainly one member of this forum who has a bit of a go at John very often and the reason for it I have no idea. Perhaps there is some sort of personality clash or some particular thread or three when opposing stances prevailed . Like I said. I have absolutely no idea why.

Although I have a tendency to agree with pretty much of what John says in threads, that does not mean I will automatically agree 100% of what he says 100% of the time and I reserve the right to disagree if I see the opposing view. I`m sure that John would not mind that and vice versa.

Having said that - Eric - can I just disagree with your comment a bit please?
I think that the IEE when writing the regs are explaining yes you are correct when you state that every update/amendment does not require an upgrade at every turn.
However, things that might have been compliant and acceptable practice at one time in history does not necessarily mean that it still complies/is acceptable today, Whether that was last year, 5, 10 years ago or 50 years ago but it merely stands or falls on the way we perceive things today in terms of safe/unsafe or satisfactory/unsatisfactory. That makes the determination. Not whether it once complied or when it complied.
Anyway I think we disagree slightly there, unless of course I have misunderstood you.

And, like others, I have been guilty of going off on a tangent or putting in too many of the what ifs and buts and yes but only and what about xxx though. Sometimes I would like to give a simple yes or no but often I realise there is no straightforward yes or no so I put caveats in or decide not to participate because I`m fearful of misleading and causing financial or safety concerns.

Anyway, if someone accuses me of ruining a thread I would probably wear it as a badge of honour

 

[JohnW2]

I avoid posing questions on Electrics forum , can’t spare 6 weeks to read all the replies .

Relevant/useful answers to questions posed in an OP usually appear within hours, sometimes minutes, and certainly on 'page 1'. If' having addressed the OP's question,the discussion goes off at a tangent, then those who are not interested in that do not have to spend any further timee looking at the thread.

If (unusually) no relevant/useful answer has appeared within 24 hours or so, that's likely to mean that no-one has anything useful to say,in which case one can give up on the thread at that point.

 

[Jurassicspark]

having addressed the OP's question,the discussion goes off at a tangent, then those who are not interested in that do not have to spend any further timee looking at the thread.

I usually watch the debates during my break. It does get interesting sometimes.

 

[JohnW2]

I usually watch the debates during my break. It does get interesting sometimes.

That's obviously your choice but, as I said, those who aren't interested do not need to continue looking at a thread

Kind Regards, John

 

[Why Not Indeed]

You don't need to reply to literally every post in a thread. Sometimes you are just stating the obvious, for no evident benefit.

 

[Murdochcat]

I avoid posing questions on Electrics forum , can’t spare 6 weeks to read all the replies .

Hit, nail and head.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes I do think that there is mainly one member of this forum who has a bit of a go at John very often and the reason for it I have no idea. Perhaps there is some sort of personality clash or some particular thread or three when opposing stances prevailed . Like I said. I have absolutely no idea why.

Nor do I understand. It can't really be a 'personality clash in the normal sense, since we don't know each other from Adam, only knowing what each other writes (as is also seen by everyone else).

It's not the moaning about 'ruining of threads'which worries me, since I fully understand that a good few people are probably irritated or annoyed by the ways in which discussions sometimes develop here. My unhappiness is in being 'singled out' for such criticism, particularly when (as in the most recent case) it is quite apparent that someone other than myself initiated the 'ruining'.

One possibility comes to mind, since it's something I have encountered ('suffered from') it in the past. Some people tend to resent a situation in which someone with no relevant background, training or qualifications know a little about the subject of 'their profession', perhaps to the point at which many might think that they were a member of that profession, and even more so if the person 'dared to question' views or statements of a member of that profession.

I think I've seen this 'singling out' with one other member of this forum (not seen for some time), who used to come to the forum once every few weeks and seemed to do little other than to 'single out' messages posted by me and 'criticise' them. However, he was a little more explicit in a manner that suggested his problem was primarily related to my lack of background/experience - which I suppose is sort=of fair enough (up to a point!).

Although I have a tendency to agree with pretty much of what John says in threads, that does not mean I will automatically agree 100% of what he says 100% of the time and I reserve the right to disagree if I see the opposing view. I`m sure that John would not mind that and vice versa.

None of us is omniscient or 'always right'. Whether in my working life, here or anywhere else, if anyone were to "100% agree with what I said/wrote for 100% of the time" I would seriously doubt their knowledge of the subject concerned and/or their intelligence!

However, things that might have been compliant and acceptable practice at one time in history does not necessarily mean that it still complies/is acceptable today, Whether that was last year, 5, 10 years ago or 50 years ago but it merely stands or falls on the way we perceive things today in terms of safe/unsafe or satisfactory/unsatisfactory. That makes the determination. Not whether it once complied or when it complied.

Exactly. As I always say, whilst it's obviously true that a particular situation or practice cannot be any less safe today than it was X years ago, there have been considerable changes over time in what 'we' regard as an 'acceptable' degrees of safety (or risk). That's true across the board but, in terms of electrical matters, there are many things which were considered 'acceptable' when I was a child but which, although they cannot be any 'less safe' today than they were back then, would be essentially 'unthinkable' today.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

You don't need to reply to literally every post in a thread.

Few people do.

Sometimes you are just stating the obvious, for no evident benefit.

I'm not sure whether that 'you' relates to me, or whether you meant 'one', but the fact is that most things are fairly 'obvious' to those who know those things, but often far from 'obvious' to others.

 

[ericmark]

I remember chatting to a guy at work, who asked how to do some electrical work, months latter I visited his house, and that was not what I had intended him to do. It is so easy for some one not to understand what has been said.

I read

The bi-colour combination green-and-yellow shall be used exclusively for identification of a protective conductor and this combination shall not be used for any, other purpose.

and noted the full stop, after the full stop it continues with "Single-core cables that are coloured green-and-yellow" etc. OK new edition has made it plain, but I have heard so many say it is OK to over sleeve a core which is green-and-yellow in a multi-core cable, and that rule only applies to single core cables.

I am sure they knew what they were doing was wrong, they simply did not have any 4 core cable on the van, and since the tank thermostat was class II thought it was OK to use earth as a live wire. Since part of the installation not portable equipment the rule saying

A circuit protective conductor shall be run to and terminated at each point in wiring and at each accessory except a lamp holder having no exposed-conductive-parts and suspended from such a point.

it was clearly not permitted, yet seen it done so many times.

As to lamp holder, I would think of something like this which allows one to remove and refit lamps with easy, we have some think like them on all the carriages and engines and the red and white lamps are swapped at each end of the railway line so white at front and red at rear. However I would think it is referring to a bulb holder in this case. In the home having lamps which could be raised or lowered or removed from the wall to light and fill has long since gone, however having tried to order a head lamp bulb and missed out the word bulb, and got everything but the bulb, I realise how silly it is to say bulbs grow in the ground, we know it refers to a bulbous shape.

 

[JohnW2]

I read ....

The bi-colour combination green-and-yellow shall be used exclusively for identification of a protective conductor and this combination shall not be used for any, other purpose.

.... and noted the full stop, after the full stop it continues with "Single-core cables that are coloured green-and-yellow" etc. OK new edition has made it plain, but I have heard so many say it is OK to over sleeve a core which is green-and-yellow in a multi-core cable, and that rule only applies to single core cables.

We've been through this many times before.

As you say,the situation has now changed, such as to now outlaw over-sleeving of a G/Y-insulated conductor in a multi-core cable (as well as in a single-core one). However, I have never understood why you think it was not allowed prior to that change.

Thee regs have always recognises that over-sleeving is, in general, an acceptable way of identifying conductors - and it is then the colour of thee sleeving which 'identifies' the conductor. As you say, it said that G/Y "shall be used exclusively for identification of a protective conductor", but there is nothing in that statement which says that a G/Y-insulated conductor could not be over-sleeved to identify it as something other than a protective conductor. The 'full stop' doesn't alter the fact that the statement says what it says, not more.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

Only a personal comment here (not an opinion of what an authoritative statement translates to).
My take is that a G/Y conductor "should" not be used for anything else and "should not be oversleeved as anything else.
That is my goal, my ambition and I don`t like folk oversleeving it to use as something else.
Some might think it to be one of my little quirks.
Now I think the latest IEE wording clears it up and it was probably that intention for quite a while but I can not say definitely though.
So I can not in all honesty state that folk who considered it acceptable were, in practice, actually being a non-conformity. I can live with that, I can not state that they were actually doing something wrong.

Eric = my Bulbs in Gardens and Lamps in Lampholders statement is said a little bit "Tongue in Cheek". Similarly with the age old plumbers motto "you do not (usually) have a sink in a bathroom, you might well have a "lavatory hand basin" or just a plain "hand basin" but usually not a sink. In a kitchen, and other places, you might have a sink but no "LHB or HB" except you might have a plastic basin in the sink though.

In fact, how many folk say "you can`t" rather than "you may not"? I do it a lot.
Non of us speaks absolutely correctly all of the time (except perhaps a Lawyer in court) but we usually know what is meant though.
Except, perhaps, 12PM and 12AM

 

[Odds]

but the fact is that most things are fairly 'obvious' to those who know those things, but often far from 'obvious' to others.

Your take on the use of words could be seen as pedantic but instructions and advice regarding electical questions means a misunderstanding could prove disastrous in certain situations. Sometimes i'll have a go at diy electrics but don't ask me to rewire a circuit board! so instructions must be clear to a novice if they want to tackle a diy problem themselves. Hiring an electrician is expensive but if you don't know what you're doing it can be much worse than a costly bill.
GD is a different matter and i can understand why you don't venture in there, but sometimes...well, occasionally....okay, once in a blue moon - a discussion will break out where actual words are used in a constructive, interesting manner. Pop in, sometime if you've now't better to do.

 

[JohnW2]

Your take on the use of words could be seen as pedantic but instructions and advice regarding electical questions means a misunderstanding could prove disastrous in certain situations. Sometimes i'll have a go at diy electrics but don't ask me to rewire a circuit board! so instructions must be clear to a novice if they want to tackle a diy problem

I'm not too sure whether you are agreeing with me or what!

As you know, I was responding to a criticism that I often write "the obvious" - but I pointed out that what is 'obvious' to me me (and to the person criticising me) may well be far from obvious to a reader (who may be 'a novice'), so that "stating the obvious" is, in my mind, essentially for clarity and in order to avoid potentially dangerous misunderstandings on the part of some readers.

Kind Regards, John