ZIG ZAG UnSAFE zone

[JohnW2]

If so, you might be right linguistically, but there is absolutely no doubt of the intended meaning ...

Agreed.

That is surely the point?

You don't need "All of" in the first or "fully (or 'completely')" in the second. The meaning would be unaltered and correct.

Agreed, yet those unnecessary words are very often slipped in, in everyday language - and, as above, their addition does not to detract from the meaning.

"My house is half wired with harmonised colours cables, apart from (or 'except for' or 'other than') in the cooker circuit, which uses red/black cable." is the same but makes even less sense.

No, it's not the same - since (in contrast to what we've agreed above), the meaning is very far from clear.

Again, you can quibble about that linguistically if you wish, but there is absolutely no doubt what the statement means, is there?

No, but that is because it can't mean anything else.

Quite - as is the case with all of the examples I've cited. The only case in which there is doubt about meaning of the statement is your "half wired" one

It is just not correct.

Linguistically, quite probably not - but, again as above, this does not detract from clarity of meaning.

I wonder if you and/or stillp would be any happier if I removed the offending word and wrote something like "This work was compliant with the requirements [or maybe "... with all the other requirements"] of BS7671, other than the requirement of regulation ABC.D.E, and the reason that non-compliance with that one regulation does not detract from compliance Part P of the Building Regulations is as follows ...."??

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Regulation whatever of BS7671 says that new BS1363 sockets must be provided with 30mA RCD protection and you just add onto an existing circuit with 100mA protection? How is that not a departure?

It's a departure.

So we're agreed on that point.

One which you have said is perfectly OK, despite what 120.3 says.

What does 120.3 say in the current edition? Is that the one about providing a similar level of protection, or words to that effect? If so, then obviously if you have departed from following whichever regulation it is which specifies 30mA minimum then you've also departed from 120.3.

Feel free to argue that the protection provided by a 100mA device is materially the same as that of a 30mA one.

I've never suggested that a 100mA RCD provides the same level of protection as a 30mA device. What I've said is that I would still consider the sockets so protected to be "reasonably safe." And it seems especially reasonable if we're talking about the addition of one socket in a room when there are half a dozen others still on 100mA protection.

But in another recent thread you seemed quite happy to suggest that providing the 30mA protection on just the new socket is fine.

Yes, because you're not responsible for the provision of what is already provided.

According to BS7671 and even the law, perhaps not. But if you're going to try and take some sort of moral high ground by insisting that anyone suggesting that providing an extra socket with 100mA protection doesn't care if somebody dies because of it because you consider it to be a significant risk, then why not also strongly recommending that all the existing sockets be changed to 30mA as well? Or do you not care if somebody dies just so long as you've met the minimum requirements of BS7671?

I also pointed out that it's possible to get 10mA RCD sockets, which obviously provide a greater degree of protection than 30mA and could, similarly, mean the difference between electrocution and survival in some cases. But despite the fact that 10mA RCD protection is readily available, you are happy to recommend 30mA protection as specified by BS7671.

It's not.

It's not what?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Given the absence of any electrical need for a CPC for the new light, I see no safety issue at all - the only departure from BS7671 would seem to be failure to 'run a CPC to every point on the circuit'

No departure. The person adding the light is not responsible for the circuit, only for the work he does, so he is not required to run a cpc if the light doesn't need one.

The situation would not be so clear cut if he were replacing the CU.

 

[JohnW2]

Given the absence of any electrical need for a CPC for the new light, I see no safety issue at all - the only departure from BS7671 would seem to be failure to 'run a CPC to every point on the circuit'

No departure. The person adding the light is not responsible for the circuit, only for the work he does, so he is not required to run a cpc if the light doesn't need one.

Hmmmm. If, as per the example I mentioned, the work concerned consisted of the person adding a new light (and hence a new bit of cable), would (s)he not be strictly required to 'run a CPC' to that new 'point' (or 'points' if, as is quite likely, there was also a new switch) in the circuit that (s)he had created?

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

The person adding the light is not responsible for the circuit, only for the work he does, so he is not required to run a cpc if the light doesn't need one.

So where in BS7671 is the exemption from providing an earth connection at a new lighting point when extending a lighting circuit which doesn't have an existing earth?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If, as per the example I mentioned, the work concerned consisted of the person adding a new light (and hence a new bit of cable), would (s)he not be strictly required to 'run a CPC' to that new 'point' (or 'points' if, as is quite likely, there was also a new switch) in the circuit that (s)he had created?

So where in BS7671 is the exemption from providing an earth connection at a new lighting point when extending a lighting circuit which doesn't have an existing earth?

Yo - sorry - I wasn't thinking about the practical reality of there needing to be new cable(s) - just literally adding a new light.

 

[stillp]

Stillp never responded to my question,

Which one?

 

[stillp]

I wonder if you and/or stillp would be any happier if I removed the offending word and wrote something like "This work was compliant with the requirements [or maybe "... with all the other requirements"] of BS7671, other than the requirement of regulation ABC.D.E, and the reason that non-compliance with that one regulation does not detract from compliance Part P of the Building Regulations is as follows ...."??

If I had to write something like that, I would prefer to state "The installation conforms to the requirements of BS7671 except for the requirement of regulation ABC.D.E, in respect of which a comparable level of safety is achieved by conformity with ENXXXXX".

 

[stillp]

How that legal principle stands with respect to 'departures' from BS7671 I do not know, ....

Your statement above seems to imply that you do know - since you've just written that failure to comply with every normative provision of a standard (i.e. if there are any 'departures') means that it cannot be used to demonstrate compliance with the law!!

I do know the decision of a court, and the training offered to BSI committee members, is that compliance with a standard demands compliance with all its normative provisions. However BS7671 appears to undermine that legal principle by allowing undefined and unquantified departures.

 

[PBC_1966]

While we're talking about unanswered questions:

I also pointed out that it's possible to get 10mA RCD sockets, which obviously provide a greater degree of protection than 30mA and could, similarly, mean the difference between electrocution and survival in some cases. But despite the fact that 10mA RCD protection is readily available, you are happy to recommend 30mA protection as specified by BS7671.

It's not.

It's not what?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What does 120.3 say in the current edition? Is that the one about providing a similar level of protection, or words to that effect?

It says that if you depart "the resulting degree of safety of the installation shall not be less than that obtained by compliance with the Regulations."

So yo may not depart from the 30mA RCD requirement, even if you document that you have.

I've never suggested that a 100mA RCD provides the same level of protection as a 30mA device. What I've said is that I would still consider the sockets so protected to be "reasonably safe."

You can consider whatever you like, but you're wrong. If JPEL/64 have decided that 30mA is what is needed then it is not reasonable to ignore them. If they have decided that 30mA is what is reasonably safe then 100mA is not, and is therefore unlawful.

Things change, as I have told you more than once. I know you don't like it, I know you want to ignore changed requirements on the basis that if it was considered OK yesterday it must still be OK today, but it does not work like that. If it did we would still be using Edition 1 from 1882.

And it seems especially reasonable if we're talking about the addition of one socket in a room when there are half a dozen others still on 100mA protection.

Irrelevant. Today's regulations apply to work done today, and they do not require that existing sockets be changed to have 30mA.

According to BS7671 and even the law, perhaps not. But if you're going to try and take some sort of moral high ground by insisting that anyone suggesting that providing an extra socket with 100mA protection doesn't care if somebody dies because of it because you consider it to be a significant risk, then why not also strongly recommending that all the existing sockets be changed to 30mA as well?

I do, and I have done. But if I were adding a new socket I would have no control over or responsibility for what was already installed.

Or do you not care if somebody dies just so long as you've met the minimum requirements of BS7671?

Of course I do, but people die all the time because of things which are nothing to do with me, and I have no responsibility, moral or legal, for those things.

It's not what?

Readily available.

 

[JohnW2]

Yo - sorry - I wasn't thinking about the practical reality of there needing to be new cable(s) - just literally adding a new light.

Fair enough. As you know, they don't work too well without cables

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

If I had to write something like that, I would prefer to state "The installation conforms to the requirements of BS7671 except for the requirement of regulation ABC.D.E, in respect of which a comparable level of safety is achieved by conformity with ENXXXXX".[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. That wording is essentially the same as the ('non-oxymoronic') wording I suggested. The statement is obviously at it simplest when, as in your example, one is referring to compliance with another Standard in relation that that one exception. If one is producing an 'argument', that sentence could become dozens, or even hundreds, of pages

As I wrote yesterday, I hadn't really realised that we were essentially talking about the English, rather than the concept of what I was saying (which was clear, even to those who regarded my wording as 'oxymoronic').

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Fair enough. As you know, they don't work too well without cables

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=non+electric+(lights+OR+lighting)

 

[JohnW2]

I do know the decision of a court, and the training offered to BSI committee members, is that compliance with a standard demands compliance with all its normative provisions. However BS7671 appears to undermine that legal principle by allowing undefined and unquantified departures.

As I've said a number of times, I think we are talking about two rather different things. "Compliance with a Standard" (e.g. "Compliance with BS7671"), which, rarely, the law might require, clearly does require/demand "compliance with all its normative provisions" - and one doesn't really need a Court to 'decide' that, since it's totally obvious!!

However, I have been talking about something different. I have not been talking about "Compliance with a Standard" but, rather "Compliance with most of the normative provisions of a Standard" (with specified, and otherwise justified, exceptions). When it is one one or two or the provisions which are non-compliant, I still think that wording such as "... all provisions except...." (or "... all provisions other than") is, even if 'oxymoronic', the easiest and most natural way to express that - but I'm happy with any form of words which is clear.

Kind Regards, John