Work on TN installations come "the 18th"

[EFLImpudence]

One small thing I have noticed.

Part 2 - a new definition.

Non-compliance. A non-conformity which may give rise to danger.

That won't cause any arguments, will it?

 

[JohnW2]

One small thing I have noticed. ....
Part 2 - a new definition. Non-compliance. A non-conformity which may give rise to danger. That won't cause any arguments, will it?

My goodness! I'd forgotten that one (it was in the DPC, so we may have discussed it before) - and I reckon may well deserve a thread of its own!

Stillp always used to remind us that 'compliance' is the incorrect term to use in relation to a Standard, and that 'conformity' was the correct term. However, "... which may give rise to danger" is a whole different story, which might deserve a hundred threads

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Going by the printed page numbers in that doc, the 18th is 79% bigger than the 17th, 886pp vs 495

 

[JohnW2]

Although there are 886 numbered pages in the April '18 draft, there is an awful lot of 'crossed-out' material, so we have to wait until next week to see how many pages there actually are in the 'clean' version of "the 18th" - clearly a lot less than 886, but, I would guess, probably appreciably more than 495.

 

[JohnW2]

Going by the printed page numbers in that doc, the 18th is 79% bigger than the 17th, 886pp vs 495

Although there are 886 numbered pages in the April '18 draft, there is an awful lot of 'crossed-out' material, so we have to wait until next week to see how many pages there actually are in the 'clean' version of "the 18th" - clearly a lot less than 886, but, I would guess, probably appreciably more than 495.

The 'clean' printed paper version of "the 18th" has 559 numbered pages, although the last three are blank, and several others are effectively blank since they exist only as 'placeholders' for removed chapters.

That's therefore about 12% - 13% (rather than 79%) more than the 495 pages of Amd3 of "the 17th", which I would say was probably around 'par for the course - I can't recall any new versions/editions of rules/regulations/legislation etc. that were shorter than the preceding version!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Committees producing shorter standards documents are like turkeys voting for Christmas.

 

[JohnW2]

Talking generally, there are occasionally exceptions to prove the rule - for example, the current rules for notification of electrical work in England are considerably shorter than the rules they replaced. Anyway, the point is that BS 7671:2018 is not markedly longer than its predecessor.

 

[JohnW2]

Fear ye not. It has not come to pass.

For the avoidance of any possible doubt. the published version of BS 7671:2018 does not include the requirement for all installations to have an earth rod that appeared in the DPC.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Talking generally, there are occasionally exceptions to prove the rule

What does that mean?

 

[JohnW2]

It means that, although rare, it is occasionally the case that "new versions/editions of rules/regulations/legislation etc." are shorter than those which they replace.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The 'clean' printed paper version of "the 18th" has 559 numbered pages, although the last three are blank, and several others are effectively blank since they exist only as 'placeholders' for removed chapters.

Bought one already?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It means that, although rare, it is occasionally the case that "new versions/editions of rules/regulations/legislation etc." are shorter than those which they replace.

What rule does that prove, and how?

 

[JohnD]

In the old expression "It's the exception that proves the rule"

"prove" is derived from the meaning "test"

In the sense that a proof house is a place where things are tested to see if they meet specification, and a proof mark indicates that the thing has passed test.

A proof copy of a document is one that is to be examined for errors so that they can be corrected before publication.

In modern English, it is often understood that "proof" means successfully proven, but the saying is an old one which predates that usage.

An exception tests the rule.

e.g.

"All cows are brown"

"No, here's a black and white one"

the exception tests the rule, and shows it to be wrong.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's one interpretation, but I believe it is disputed. And in any event, isn't it that the exception proves the rule by being caught by it?

i.e. it's not a case that an exception shows that the rule is wrong, it is that the exception being identified as breaking the rule proves that the rule works.

The other interpretation is that it is the presence of an exception which proves the existence of a rule.

"You may stay up late tonight to watch the football" is stating an exception which indicates that there is a rule concerning bedtime.

 

[JohnD]

cf. "the proof of the pudding is in the eating"

makes sense if "proof" means "test"

Middle English preve, from Old French proeve, from late Latin proba, from Latin probare ‘to test, prove’.