Help required with my pond and pump wiring… (no plug)

[ban-all-sheds]

I can find no exclusions from the scope of BS 7671 which means that if you bury the cable for a mobile appliance you don't have to comply with the regulations for buried and underground cables.

And I'm not sure that BS 7671 uses the term "fixed electrical installation" in any scope-related sense. Or at all.

Eric can search his copy easily.

 

[JohnW2]

I can find no exclusions from the scope of BS 7671 which means that if you bury the cable for a mobile appliance you don't have to comply with the regulations for buried and underground cables. ... And I'm not sure that BS 7671 uses the term "fixed electrical installation" in any scope-related sense. Or at all.

As I said, I'm just not sure. The very first words of BS7671, in 110.1.1, say that it applies to 'electrical installations' - which certainly leaves some scope to wondering/debating whether an appliance/whatever, particularly if it is plugged into a 13A socket (as the OP in this thread was proposing) actually constitutes part of an 'electrical installation'. The 'fixed' may well be a red herring - the real question relates to what does (and does not)form part of 'an electrical installation'.

I have submersible pumps with 13A plugs on their cables which I use in a truely 'portable' sense, and I presume that no-one would suggest that they are, per se, part of 'an electrical installation' (any more than are the electric drills, hairdryers, table lamps, TVs, IT equipment or whatever in my house). However, if I decied to bury the flex of ones of these, even if only temporarily (maybe to prevent people tripping over it), would it suddenly become 'part of an electrical installation'? What if I just covered the cable with some sort of protector? What if I temporarily clipped the cable to a fence? Would any of those things transform this 'portable appliance', plugged into a 13A socket, into part of 'an electrical installation'?

As I said, I really don't know.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The very first words of BS7671, in 110.1.1, say that it applies to 'electrical installations' - which certainly leaves some scope to wondering/debating whether an appliance/whatever, particularly if it is plugged into a 13A socket (as the OP in this thread was proposing) actually constitutes part of an 'electrical installation'.

It does according to Part 2.

I have submersible pumps with 13A plugs on their cables which I use in a truely 'portable' sense, and I presume that no-one would suggest that they are, per se, part of 'an electrical installation' (any more than are the electric drills, hairdryers, table lamps, TVs, IT equipment or whatever in my house).

Part 2 does more than "suggest" that.

However, if I decied to bury the flex of ones of these, even if only temporarily (maybe to prevent people tripping over it), would it suddenly become 'part of an electrical installation'?

No, it already was, but you would "suddenly" be bringing it into the scope of the regulations for buried cables.

What if I just covered the cable with some sort of protector? What if I temporarily clipped the cable to a fence? Would any of those things transform this 'portable appliance', plugged into a 13A socket, into part of 'an electrical installation'?

It already was.


Electrical Installation (abbr: Installation). An assembly of associated electrical equipment having co-ordinated characteristics to fulfil specific purposes.

Electrical equipment includes appliances.

And your submersible pump is an appliance

 

[JohnW2]

The very first words of BS7671, in 110.1.1, say that it applies to 'electrical installations' - which certainly leaves some scope to wondering/debating whether an appliance/whatever, particularly if it is plugged into a 13A socket (as the OP in this thread was proposing) actually constitutes part of an 'electrical installation'.

It does according to Part 2.

I have submersible pumps with 13A plugs on their cables which I use in a truely 'portable' sense, and I presume that no-one would suggest that they are, per se, part of 'an electrical installation' (any more than are the electric drills, hairdryers, table lamps, TVs, IT equipment or whatever in my house).

Part 2 does more than "suggest" that.
Electrical Installation (abbr: Installation). An assembly of associated electrical equipment having c o-ordinated characteristics to fulfil specific purposes.
Electrical equipment includes appliances. And your submersible pump is an appliance

Hmmm. Well, I welcome your opinion. However, I'm not at all sure that everyone will agree. That Part 2 definition of 'electrical installation' is too vague to be useful.

Your interpretation is such that anything that may be plugged into a 13A socket counts (at least whilst it is plugged in) as 'part of the electrical installation', such that BS7671 would apply to everything to do with that something - including everything going on inside it. I really find it hard to believe that BS7671 (aka the IET Wiring Regulations) was ever intended to have that scope. Are you suggesting that every plugged-in 'appliance/equipment' has to be inspected/tested as part of an EICR (noting what the 'EI' means, and given your interpretation thereof)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Hmmm. Well, I welcome your opinion. However, I'm not at all sure that everyone will agree. That Part 2 definition of 'electrical installation' is too vague to be useful.

What you mean is that you don't agree, and therefore you don't want Part 2 to mean what it plainly says.

Your interpretation is such that anything that may be plugged into a 13A socket counts (at least whilst it is plugged in) as 'part of the electrical installation', such that BS7671 would apply to everything to do with that something - including everything going on inside it.

No - what's inside it is explicitly out of scope.

I really find it hard to believe that BS7671 (aka the IET Wiring Regulations) was ever intended to have that scope. Are you suggesting that every plugged-in 'appliance/equipment' has to be inspected/tested as part of an EICR (noting what the 'EI' means, and given your interpretation thereof)?

No, because there is nothing applicable. But that does not mean that it's not in scope of other requirements which are applicable.

If it is not in scope then it would still not be in scope if you lengthened the flex and ran it concealed in walls in contravention of 522.6.6/7/8.

Doing that would make the installation of the flex subject to 522.6.6/7/8 were it already within the scope of BS 7671, but it could not do so were it not already within the scope.

 

[JohnW2]

Hmmm. Well, I welcome your opinion. However, I'm not at all sure that everyone will agree. That Part 2 definition of 'electrical installation' is too vague to be useful.

What you mean is that you don't agree, and therefore you don't want Part 2 to mean what it plainly says.

No, what I mean is that I welcome your opinion, and look forward to hearing the opinions of others.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I will be interested to see what opinions people have, given the unambiguous wording of the definitions in Part 2.

 

[JohnW2]

I will be interested to see what opinions people have, given the unambiguous wording of the definitions in Part 2.

Ambiguity is almost moot with a defintion as wide-ranging as "An assembly of associated electrical equipment having c o-ordinated characteristics to fulfil specific purposes" ... a pile of electrical accessories selected so as to have co-ordinated characteristics (in terms of shape, size and mechanical strength) piled up to fullfil the specific purpose of supporting the weight of my workbench would satisfy that 'unambiguous' definition, wouldn't it?! As I said, that definition is far to vague to serve any particularly useful purpose.

Like you. I'll be very interested to hear of other opinions.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well - let's hope there are no more with the same level of tw*ttishness which you have just displayed with that pathetically ludicrous "example" of why the definition is too vague.

 

[JohnW2]

Well - let's hope there are no more with the same level of tw*ttishness which you have just displayed with that pathetically ludicrous "example" of why the definition is too vague.

You are the one who called the definition 'unambiguous'. In what way do you think that my (obviously and intentionally ludicrous) 'example' fails to satisfy that allegedly unambiguous definition?

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Well - let's hope there are no more with the same level of tw*ttishness which you have just displayed with that pathetically ludicrous "example" of why the definition is too vague.

And you seriously don't think you have a problem communicating with people?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes I do.

No doubt JohnW2 will soon pop up suggesting that as the shelves on the shop floor of Currys contains an assembly of associated electrical equipment having co-ordinated characteristics to fulfil specific purposes, that too brings toasters on display in cardboard boxes into the scope of the Wiring Regulations because they contains a definition which is insufficiently precise.

Well - that's b*ll*cks, and anybody who tries to use that kind of an argument as the basis for dismissing what the Wiring Regulations say really is behaving like a t**t.

And if you find that communication difficult to understand, I suggest the problem lies with you, not me.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You are the one who called the definition 'unambiguous'. In what way do you think that my (obviously and intentionally ludicrous) 'example' fails to satisfy that allegedly unambiguous definition?

I'm not going spend any more time discussing something with you when you deliberately engage in behaviour which you know to be ludicrous.

 

[JohnW2]

You are the one who called the definition 'unambiguous'. In what way do you think that my (obviously and intentionally ludicrous) 'example' fails to satisfy that allegedly unambiguous definition?

I'm not going spend any more time discussing something with you when you deliberately engage in behaviour which you know to be ludicrous.

I'll take that to mean that you cannot indicate any way in which my hypothetical 'example' fails to satisfy the 'unambiguous' definition.

Kind Regards, John

 

[doorBell]

You are the one who called the definition 'unambiguous'. In what way do you think that my (obviously and intentionally ludicrous) 'example' fails to satisfy that allegedly unambiguous definition?

I'm not going spend any more time discussing something with you when you deliberately engage in behaviour which you know to be ludicrous.

I'll take that to mean that you cannot indicate any way in which my hypothetical 'example' fails to satisfy the 'unambiguous' definition.

Kind Regards, John

Game, set and match to JohnW2!