You appear to have the lowest opinion of electricians that I have come across.
That's simply not true. As in all walks of life, I'm sure that there are some 'bad' electricians', and some 'exceptionally good' electricians, with the vast majority being somewhere in-between - but that's not what I was talking about. I was referring to the fact that a lot of electricians will not have been trained to test, and will have little, if any, experience of testing, circuits of the type we were discussing, and that not all of them will inevitably find it easy to work out for themselves how that testing should be done.
If an electrician has been trained to BS7671 they will know what to expect when they find an interconnection in a ring final cicuit.
To the extent you have stated that yourself, and a select few other atypical diyers, should be regarded as equal to trained/qualified/experienced electricians - despite having no training, qualifications or provable experience.
If you believe that I have stated or claimed that, either I expressed myself very badly or you misunderstood. As you say, I have no training or qualifications, and little experience. What may be true is that I, and a few other non-electricians, have an understanding of the principles involved (and 'the regulations') which is comparable with that of many electricians - but that in no way makes me "equal to" a trained, qualified and experienced electrician.
I was referring to a post were you stated you would prefer a change to Part P to allow registered electricians and atypical diyers to self certify their jobs.
Are you now seriously saying you believe the people behind the regs omit things because mere electricians would not be able to undertand what was written?
I am saying that I could understand "the people behind the regs" being hesitant to 'promote' a type of circuit which required appreciably more complex testing than most electricians have been taught to undertake, or have been called upon to undertake. However, that is pure speculation, and there are countless other reasons why they might no want to 'promote' such a circuit - particularly given that they are probably under some pressure to disallow ring circuits of any type.
As I said, this is not some amazing design by a super electrician - it's a ring with an interconnection. As such it doesn't require a phd in physics to undersstand the readings on the test meter.
Some of us actaully know what the numbers on our test equipment represent and can even (I know you won't believe this) understand what is happening in the circuit we are testing. Of course, as you have NEVER met an electrician with anywhere near your grasp of all things electrical, you won't believe a word of this.
Sarcasm is not necessary, and will not help your argument. Of course I accept that many electricians have a very good understanding of what their test results mean and "what is happening" in the circuit concerned.
You frequently tell us about the electricians you come into contact with and how little they understand about the principles of electrical theory. I have never seen you post that you have met one who has demonstrated this understanding.
If I came across this circuit in a test, I'd note it but not code it.
That seems very reasonable, but I presume that is not all that you would do. Detecting the presence of a cross-link is the start, but, having detected it, I presume that you would then take the necessary steps to confirm that there was satisfactory continuity (of L, N and CPC) within each of the 'sub-rings' - since, if any such continuity was absent/unsatisfactory, I imagine that you probably
would feel the need to 'code' it. That additional testing obviously can be done, although it is appreciably more complex than the testing that most electricians are used to, but it probably is not often taught, and does not appear in, for example, GN3.
I didn't think I needed to specify that this only applies when the tests are all passed.
As I said, this whole discussion started because a significant proportion of electricians appear to believe that a cross-connection in a ring is non-compliant - and therefore should, in itself, be 'coded'.
Did it? Reading back, it was you who decided that thius is beyond the wit of most (or at least a large majority of) electricians.
If I was asked to work on it, I'd only do so after removing the interconnection. If you would do differently, then that's fine.
I would probably do the same, just as I would never deliberately install such a circuit in the first place - primarily because I don't want to make life more difficult/confusing than it need be for anyone who may work on the circuit in the future.
In my post I did say this would be an example of good practice.
Kind Regards, John
]
