I was going to ask why nobody uses the search feature, but..

[JohnW2]

Rather than enter a long discussion I would just ask: Do legal forums often descend to law quoting? I fail to see how quoting or complying with the regulations to which we must adhere is other than the only way to reply.

I don't think that's really what we are talking about. The discussions (in which I am not infrequently a participant!) which undoubtedly get many OPs 'lost' and/or confused are those about details of interpretation of regs (opinions about which often vary, sometimes 'passionately', between discussants) and which, at least in some cases, DS would probably describe as attempts to 'bend' the regs (although such is never my intention - I seek to explore interpretations, not to 'twist' or 'bend' them). When, as is often the case, discussants (including electricians) disagree, it's hardly surprising that OPs get confused!

It is interesting to note that you offer pragmatic (contradictory?) advice in private. That I may do something in my own home does not mean I would do it in a customer's.

Indeed, and you, as an electrician are obviously in an even more difficult position than I am. I would not normally advise, either in public or private, something which I believed was significantly non-compliant with the regs, even if it were something I might do in my own home. The usual situation in which I attempt to give 'pragmatic' advice is when an OP has become totally confused by differing (sometimes 'contradictory') views being expressed by people involved in a discussion, usually about regs. Recent discussions about omission of overload protection, downstream protection of cables, the loading of double sockets and your own suggestion of a 4mm² unfused spur feeding two single sockets are all fairly good examples of that.

Occasionally, if I judge an OP to be sufficiently knowledgeable, intelligent and sensible, I may tell them 'what I would probably do if it were my house', but, if appropriate, I will explain that it is not (or not necessarily) strictly compliant with the regs (explaining the regs and, if possible, the reasoning behind them) and that it is for them to to make a judgement about what they want to do in their home, bearing in mind what the regs require.

You are really attempting to introduce a 'sensitive' discussion which, almost by definition, cannot really take place in public, even if it does relate to things that nearly all of us will have done/said at times 'in private'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Indeed regs are there for good reasons.... now back to the real world!

Would you care to share which regulations you ignore?

Sure.. none.

I apologise if I misinterpreted your post (and the thanks from DS).

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed regs are there for good reasons.... now back to the real world!

Would you care to share which regulations you ignore?

Sure.. none.

I apologise if I misinterpreted your post (and the thanks from DS).

You're not alone - I think I probably interpreted Eddie's post (and DS's thanks) in the same way as you did! It's almost like that 'pick and choose' phenomenon to which I referred earlier!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EddieM]

Indeed regs are there for good reasons.... now back to the real world!

Would you care to share which regulations you ignore?

Sure.. none.

I apologise if I misinterpreted your post (and the thanks from DS).

You're not alone - I think I probably interpreted Eddie's post (and DS's thanks) in the same way as you did! It's almost like that 'pick and choose' phenomenon to which I referred earlier!

Kind Regards, John

No apologies required, I don't and won't disregard regulations, but in a real world scenario, you have to be pragmatic. Eg. In my rather piffling example a couple of months ago I needed to add another socket to the loft conversion.

The rooms are empty over 90% of the time with absolutely no load on the existing spur that services them from the 1st floor ring.

When occupied they draw no more than 400w max.

To my admittedly limited knowledge 3 opitions

1) absolutely to reg and for clarity. Add new circuit to loft.. problem notifiable work and hassle.

2) incorporate loft into existing 1st floor ring. Problem .... hassle!

3) FCU spur and add another socket.

Well option 3 was chosen (well actually it wasnt as the new socket never went in) but it highlights pragmatism over what should really be done.

 

[JohnW2]

No apologies required, I don't and won't disregard regulations, but in a real world scenario, you have to be pragmatic.

No argument so far!

Eg. In my rather piffling example a couple of months ago I needed to add another socket to the loft conversion. The rooms are empty over 90% of the time with absolutely no load on the existing spur that services them from the 1st floor ring. When occupied they draw no more than 400w max. To my admittedly limited knowledge 3 opitions
1) absolutely to reg and for clarity. Add new circuit to loft.. problem notifiable work and hassle.
2) incorporate loft into existing 1st floor ring. Problem .... hassle!
3) FCU spur and add another socket.
Well option 3 was chosen (well actually it wasnt as the new socket never went in) but it highlights pragmatism over what should really be done.

Well, I suppose that's a sort-of 'pragmatism', but it's just a choice between three options, all of which would, AFAICS, be fully reg-compliant.

I suppose I have to admit that the more contentious matters of 'pragmatism' almost inevitably do involve some degree of 'disregard of regulations'. To give you an example, some time ago someone asked here about adding a single socket as an unfused spur from a ring final, fed from an adjacent socket on the ring, to power a modem, or something like that. The ring final in question was not RCD protected. He was therefore told that not only would the new socket require RCD protection, but he couldn't even satisfy that by using an RCD socket, since the 3 or 4 inches of new ('spur') cable (in a safe zone) would be buried <50mm in a wall, and therefore would need upstream RCD protection. He contacted me 'privately', pointing out that he had about 30 non-RCD-protected sockets in his house (two or three within touching distance of the new one), and dozens, if not hundreds, of metres of non-RCD protected buried cables, so "did it make any sense" to require that just one of those 30 sockets, and about 4 inches of those dozens/hundreds of metres of buried cable, should have RCD protection. I had to explain that, whether or not it "made sense", that is what the regulations require, but I may just have 'hinted' that he might wish to take a view of his own, but that he would have to do so in the knowledge of what was required by the regulations .

Kind Regards, John

 

[EddieM]

Well I did say it was rather piffling!

 

[JohnW2]

Well I did say it was rather piffling!

You did

...but I would be interested to know how you would have responded to the "does it make sense?" question that I was asked?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EddieM]

I will when I read it on my laptop, knackering on a mobile

 

[JohnW2]

I will when I read it on my laptop, knackering on a mobile

Fair enough - but, again, I think the answer you would be comfortable give in public might just possibly differ (at least in terms of 'hinting') from what you might say in private!

Kind Regards, John

 

[skotl]

I find it fascinating that my original rant was about OPs and their questions, yet most of the debate has centred on the responses to these posts!

I wonder, then, if people are re-asking the same questions because of the protracted responses to many questions. I guess that, in hindsight, I can see why a relatively new poster on diynot/electrics might not realise that their question has been answered because they can't follow the resultant debate.

However I would balance that by suggesting that diynot/electrics, more than most forums, has this ummm tendency to debate an answer to what may seem like a straightforward question. But I see the same tendency to re-ask a common question on other forums, so I don't think that this is a peculiarity of this particular (sub) forum.

 

[JohnW2]

I find it fascinating that my original rant was about OPs and their questions, yet most of the debate has centred on the responses to these posts!

Yes, that arose because DS and EddieM raised the issue of regulation-heavy responses!

I wonder, then, if people are re-asking the same questions because of the protracted responses to many questions. I guess that, in hindsight, I can see why a relatively new poster on diynot/electrics might not realise that their question has been answered because they can't follow the resultant debate.

I suspect you are also overlooking the fact that, although they very often raise very similar issues (for us), it is probably unusual for two questions to be absolutely identical. However, as I've said a number of times in response to your initial question, I think the simple answer is that, for most people, it is simpler, quicker and more 'reassuring' to ask a question and get a quick response from a human being than it is to trawl through old threads, the wiki or other reference material.

However I would balance that by suggesting that diynot/electrics, more than most forums, has this ummm tendency to debate an answer to what may seem like a straightforward question.

More often than not, that arises/evolves after the OP has been given a quick, straightforward and seemingly reasonable answer. Only too often, someone will pop up with an (often regs-based) "yes, but...." in relation to the initial answer the OP has been given - and then the debate/discussion often starts (and the OP, having got his/her initial answer,often abandons the thread at that point!)!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EddieM]

Well I did say it was rather piffling!

You did

...but I would be interested to know how you would have responded to the "does it make sense?" question that I was asked?

Kind Regards, John

I would guess the regs are written from the perspective of ideal world best practice and safety, I doubt they have a lot of regard for real world applications, hence why situations arise whereby regs get broken. I don't really condone that but we have to be realistic that it happens all the time. Your point is a very valid one would you or indeed anyone here knowingly offer advice they knew was non compliant on a public forum... well you'd certainly think twice about it!!

I am afraid I don't really know the answer to that. Say nothing and let them have a go, or give advice that you know isn't techically compliant but in your opinion is safe.... tricky one!

 

[JohnW2]

...but I would be interested to know how you would have responded to the "does it make sense?" question that I was asked?

I would guess the regs are written from the perspective of ideal world best practice and safety, I doubt they have a lot of regard for real world applications, hence why situations arise whereby regs get broken. I don't really condone that but we have to be realistic that it happens all the time. Your point is a very valid one would you or indeed anyone here knowingly offer advice they knew was non compliant on a public forum... well you'd certainly think twice about it!!

Exactly. I don't think that (whatever our personal view was) many of us would feel it appropriate/responsible to say, in a public forum "since it's just one out of 30 sockets, and only a few inches of buried cable, I suggest you should ignore the requirement of the regulations for RCD protection".

I am afraid I don't really know the answer to that. Say nothing and let them have a go, or give advice that you know isn't techically compliant but in your opinion is safe.... tricky one!

Again, exactly! So long as the individual is made fully aware of what the regulations actually require (hence that failing to adhere to them would be technical non-compliance), if I feel that the person is 'intellectually competent' to make the decision for him/herself (and, of course, provided that I was satisfied that what we were talking about was 'safe'), I would often be tempted to say (or at least imply), 'in private', that "...if it were my house, I would probably .... but I would have to accept that it was non-compliant with the regulations, and only you can decide what approach you are comfortable with in your house".

Kind Regards, John