'Unhelpful posts' ??

[Murdochcat]

Few people do.

But you do have extreme form at replying, replying, replying when its totally unnecessary and then ruins the threads as people simply won't wade through the minutia that you seem to want to add.

Why you do it is way beyond me.

As I wrote, if you want to debate to this extent leave the thread and start on in parallel

Most of the threads that you ruin are because the answer(s) are there in a few replies ................ Keep It Simple Stupid springs to mind

 

[JohnW2]

My take is that a G/Y conductor "should" not be used for anything else and "should not be oversleeved as anything else.

That may be 'your take', but it's not what the sentence says, is it?

As far as BS7671 is concerned, a conductor can be 'identified' by insulation colour, colour of over-sleeking at terminations or 'labelling' to name a few. Hence,when it said that G/Y should only be used 'to identify' anything other than a protective conductor, it surely meant just that, whether the identification was achieved by insulation colour, over-sleeving colour or whatever, didn't it? It did not say that one cannot use over-sleeving as a means of 'identification' if the underlying insulation colour is G/Y.

I agree it was a rather odd (and probably unnecessary/redundant) statement. They could just as easily have said that "the colour blue should be used exclusively for identifying neutral conductors" (or similar), and, that would not have precluded over-sleeving blue with an 'identifying' sleeving.

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.

That's fair enough, whether a 'quirk' or not, but, as enough it does not appear to be what the regs used to actually say.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

As I wrote, if you want to debate to this extent leave the thread and start on in parallel

You've even be known to accuse me of 'ruining' threads I have started myself, for the purpose of discussing what I was discussing

 

[ebee]

That may be 'your take', but it's not what the sentence says, is it?

John - my take "should" is what I think it should be in so far as I think that it should be.
That does not imply that I think that the regs state that, because it is not what the regs says.
It is merely what I says and thinks.
In essence I am actually agreeing with you not disagreeing with you.

My quirks are my quirks, does not mean to say I am actually right but I do think I might actually have a good point or two but yess I readily accept they might be my quirks.
So again not disagreeing with you

 

[ebee]

the answer(s) are there in a few replies ................ Keep It Simple Stupid springs to mind

Yes maybe sometimes but the answers nice and short as we`d all like them to be can sometimes give rise to a misunderstanding so further explanations are often required to elaborate to, hopefully, avoid such.
I`ve seen many statements (not just on a forum like this one) that can be misconstrued to such an extent that some readers take it to even mean the opposite of what was intended in the first place.

Caveats and inane ramblings like I sometimes make might annoy some but hopefully help to reduce such things.
Well that is my intention and I am pretty sure it is John`s too, as with many others.

Remember a while back I told of a bloke who worked with my Dad and he stated that I should not install burglar alarms in houses because it increased the risk of other homes nearby being burgled.
I had seen the same TV prog the previous evening and that was not what was said or what was actually meant. But the bloke twisted the meaning and I will admit with some "logic" that view could be taken. In fact, strictly speaking, it could be taken as he was correct. But that was not the intention.
I could probably start a thread with such things I have observed in everyday life.
It manifests quite often too when people just want a quick "Yes or No!" and there simply isn`t one - I have been known to answer "Purple" and just walk away because there just is not a simple yes or no, right or left, up or down black or white and any such answers must be qualified by additional statements to prevent mistakes. If such mistakes could potentially have serious consequences than we endeavour more so to avoid them.

 

[JohnW2]

John - my take "should" is what I think it should be in so far as I think that it should be.
That does not imply that I think that the regs state that, because it is not what the regs says.
It is merely what I says and thinks.

Fair enough - and they have now 'sorted' it anyway - so, as you say ...

In essence I am actually agreeing with you not disagreeing with you.

Not unusual However, nothing alters the fact that I never understood why eric thought that the 'old wording' prohibited the ever-sleeving of G/Y-insulated conductors in multicore cables.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Yes maybe sometimes but the answers nice and short as we`d all like them to be can sometimes give rise to a misunderstanding so further explanations are often required to elaborate to, hopefully, avoid such. I`ve seen many statements (not just on a forum like this one) that can be misconstrued to such an extent that some readers take it to even mean the opposite of what was intended in the first place.

Quite so - and that's why I think it was very wrong that I was recently criticuised for 'stating the obvious' - as I said, things are only 'obvious' to thosee who know those things. We really want to avoid situations like "you didn't tellme that I shoudlk switch off the eelectricity before changing the sicket"!

Havinbg said that, if you look you'll probably fins that my initial/early rsponses to an OP's question are pretty 'short and simple'.It's when others jump in with things like "but what if .....", "but you have not considered the possibility that ..." or "but you are assuming..." (possible because my initial posts were 'short and simple') that threeads can become complicated and lengthy.

Caveats and inane ramblings like I sometimes make might annoy some but hopefully help to reduce such things. Well that is my intention and I am pretty sure it is John`s too, as with many others.

Exactly.

It manifests quite often too when people just want a quick "Yes or No!" and there simply isn`t one - I have been known to answer "Purple" and just walk away because there just is not a simple yes or no, right or left, up or down black or white and any such answers must be qualified by additional statements to prevent mistakes. If such mistakes could potentially have serious consequences than we endeavour more so to avoid them.

Another very good point - and I see this quite often in my work. I have to say that if someone keeps insisting on a 'yes' or 'no' answer to a "can I do X" question, when the only possible answer is "it depends" (upon XYZ), then I tell them that the only (binary) answer I can give is "No"'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Fair enough - and they have now 'sorted' it anyway - so, as you say ...

Not unusual However, nothing alters the fact that I never understood why eric thought that the 'old wording' prohibited the ever-sleeving of G/Y-insulated conductors in multicore cables.

Kind Regards, John

shall not be over-marked at their terminations for single core is quite expletive, as does bi-colour combination green-and-yellow shall be used exclusively for identification of a protective conductor. Singles designed to carry 230 volt to earth not inside an enclosure are double insulated so the colour is only shown at the terminations. This is not the case with earth cables, I have used these a lot with earth cables, and would not want extra thick insulation. Often laid on tray work, and used to earth the tray, with multi-core I have in the past where damaged opened them up without cutting the cable, and there is no reason why one should not tap into the earth core, UK talking about 150 mm² not 1.5 mm² and I was well aware of where they run to and from.

But I have opened up that main wiring centres, and thermostats where the earth colours are not even over sleeved, but used for live wires, I have lost count, I would like to think done by some one DIY, but I am sure plumbers have also done some. I remember daughters first house, a new build with a mechanical wall thermostat, and the green/yellow of the three core was neutral, used for the anti hysteresis heater, test it with a meter and the voltage is same as an earth wire, the only way one realises it is neutral not earth is when one looks at the other end of the cable, which is often inside a gas boiler, and we tend not to open a gas boiler in case there is a gas seal.

 

[Odds]

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

Couldn't agree more.

Cheers.

 

[JohnW2]

shall not be over-marked at their terminations for single core is quite expletive,

Indeed, it is very explicit. ...

as does bi-colour combination green-and-yellow shall be used exclusively for identification of a protective conductor.

... as also is that.

However, there was nothing in either of those sentences, separately or taken together, which said that a G/Y-insulated conductor in a multicore cable could not be identified as being something other than a protective conductor by over-sleeving with an appropriate colour of sleeving.

So, regardless of what one feels 'should' have been the case, and despite the fact that changes in BS7671 have now altered things, I really don't understand why, prior to those changes, anyone should have thought that over-sleeving of a GY-insulated conductor in a multicore cable was 'not allowed'.

... But I have opened up that main wiring centres, and thermostats where the earth colours are not even over sleeved, but used for live wires ...

I imagine that most of us have seen that, but it is obviously simply wrong (should not be done), and always has been non-compliant with regs.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

Except, perhaps, 12PM and 12AM

I've got round that one by never using those terms and if someone uses them to me I'll always ask what they mean if it's not ovbious.

 

[JohnW2]

I've got round that one by never using those terms and if someone uses them to me I'll always ask what they mean if it's not ovbious.

I never use them, either, particularly when setting alarm clocks and timers etc. which use the '12-hour clock' (plus AM/PM) - if I want those times, I always set them as 11.59 AM or 11.59 PM - since there's no doubt what they mean

Even using a 24h clock does not always remove the potential confusion - I've seen, say, 0:00 and/or 24:00 being used in ways which I'm likely to misinterpret!


Kind Regards, John

 

[jurassic sparkk]

Another thread ruined

 

[JohnW2]

Another thread ruined

 

[ericmark]

I never use them, either, particularly when setting alarm clocks and timers etc. which use the '12-hour clock' (plus AM/PM) - if I want those times, I always set them as 11.59 AM or 11.59 PM - since there's no doubt what they mean

Even using a 24h clock does not always remove the potential confusion - I've seen, say, 0:00 and/or 24:00 being used in ways which I'm likely to misinterpret!


Kind Regards, John

In the summer what time is midday? 12 or 1? As middle of day does not change with daylight saving, but most forget daylight saving and think it means 12, same with midnight.