'17th CU' thread

[holmslaw]

..

 

[FingRinal]

I think the correct answer lies in whether you are a DIYer or a professional electrician.

I'm surprised that you think that different wiring regulations apply, or apply in different ways, to DIYers.

I'm surprised you think I think different wiring reguations apply, as this is not what I said

I have yet to speak to an electrician who is a member of any organisation that would agree with BAS (a DIYer).

All I've done is ask questions.

I'm surprised you think your point in any way makes sense or is relevant.

I'm afraid, whether anyone likes it or not, it's a fact. I think it's because of 131.8.

So it's a fact, but you only think you know why it's a fact?

A fact is a fact regardless of how many people believe it or choose to not believe. For an example, please research heliocentrism and the remarkable Galileo.

So the fact is, as regards this fact, you are factually wrong.

It is very easy to nit pick at the Regs and segue into clever arguments. Clever, but pointless if the sole reason is just to harp on.

I'm not asking anybody to nit-pick, just asking questions about what people believe to be the extent of their "responsibility" etc.

You do so much nit-picking, you leave no nits for others to pick

Now, I don't believe in slavish adherence to the strict letter of the Regs. As such, I believe there might be situations when 131.8 might be overlooked.

Example:
.
.

What of the examples I listed?

Would you refuse to make a rewirable circuit safer if you were not allowed to add RCD protection?

I'm not aware that any 'circuit' is rewireable or not in the terms you've expressed.

Would you refuse to add a spur if you were not allowed to add RCD protection?

A spur on what exactly? Add RCD where and to what exactly?

If you were asked to replace switches or socket fronts would you refuse if you were not allowed to add RCD protection?

What have sockets and switch fronts go to do with this post?

Would other people here?

Are you looking for support because this is what you do, in your own house as a DIYer?

Of course, a DIYer can do anything he or she wants to do. Afterall, who would know?

A DIYer is still legally obliged to make reasonable provision for safety etc, which in practice means adhering to BS 7671.

You persistently rant about BS7671 not being the law, yet here you're making the explicit point that it is.

But a professional electrician offering a professional level of service, such DIY thinking should never be a part of their function as a law-abiding, Regs-abiding, professional electrician.

It would be helpful if you could stop introducing imagined DIY thinking and concentrate on explaining, rationally, when, where and why the case exists for saying that existing components which you are not touching have to be updated to the current regulations....

There is nothing imaginary in the minds of most people as to the differences imposed in law on professionals selling a service and a DIYer doing a bit of weekend pottering about the house.

The fact that you wish to persistently introduce lies and misdirection into your posts is indicative of your addiction to those traits.

It would also be helpful if you stopped assuming that I'm automatically going to disagree with you just because I'm asking questions.

It would also be helpful if you didn't use lies and misdirection to bully through your points of view.

 

[FingRinal]

Until yesterday I would have agreed with “sealeon” in that only way is with separate rcbo’s but reading this quarters “Wiring Matters” http://www2.theiet.org/Publish/Wire...8_autumn_wiring_matters__complete_adverts.pdf I am not longer sure. Page 24 shows section of new on site guide which seems to favour the 3 way split boards.

The 3 way split board does not comply with reg 314.

I note the IET disclaimer "the IET is not as a body responsible for the opinions expressed"

Well, we might as well all throw the big red book, guidance notes, on site guide and Part P books in the bin.

What a relief!

 

[GaryMo]

I for one would be very surprised if all consumer unit manufacturers created a new dual RCD protected board on a whim!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm surprised you think I think different wiring reguations apply, as this is not what I said

OK - so when I was asking what people thought was required in terms of complying with the regulations when replacing a CU, what did you mean by "I think the correct answer lies in whether you are a DIYer or a professional electrician"?

I'm surprised you think your point in any way makes sense or is relevant.

I've asked questions, not made points - can you not answer them?

A fact is a fact regardless of how many people believe it or choose to not believe. For an example, please research heliocentrism and the remarkable Galileo.

Your exact words were "it's a fact. I think it's because of 131.8". Was it not reasonable to express my puzzlement that you stated it was a fact but didn't say with any certainty why you thought it was?

So the fact is, as regards this fact, you are factually wrong.

Can you show me where I've said something factually wrong? I'm asking questions - if we're not to follow the regulations slavishly then can it be wrong to ask questions?

You do so much nit-picking, you leave no nits for others to pick

I've asked questions - can you not answer them?

Would you refuse to make a rewirable circuit safer if you were not allowed to add RCD protection?

I'm not aware that any 'circuit' is rewireable or not in the terms you've expressed.

Sorry - I thought that when I used the term "rewirable circuit" when referring to this question: "What if you had a rewirable CU with a circuit was on a fuse that was too big, and the customer was OK with you putting the right rewirable in, but wouldn't pay for CU replacement or an outboard RCD - would you refuse to do the work?" then you would know what I meant.

Would you refuse to add a spur if you were not allowed to add RCD protection?

A spur on what exactly? Add RCD where and to what exactly?

What if you had a rewirable CU with a circuit was on a fuse that was too big, and the customer was OK with you putting the right rewirable in, but wouldn't pay for CU replacement or an outboard RCD - would you refuse to do the work?

What about adding a spur? You could ensure compliance of your bit of cable by using conduit or BS8436 etc - do you think you have to bring the existing circuit up to 17th requirements?

What have sockets and switch fronts go to do with this post?

They're an example of work you might be asked to do on an existing installation, so what they have to do with it is trying to establish when & where you feel that you cannot do work without bringing the existing installation to 17th standards.

Would other people here?

Are you looking for support because this is what you do, in your own house as a DIYer?

No - it's because I'm interested in what different people think about this.

You persistently rant about BS7671 not being the law, yet here you're making the explicit point that it is.

I think "rant" is a bit OTT, but be that as it may, I'm not making an explicit point that BS 7671 is the law, only that it is probably the way that most people would choose most of the time to comply with the law. So if a DIYer chooses it then surely he's obliged to follow it?

However, if you wish to proceed on the basis that it is the law, then "I think the correct answer lies in whether you are a DIYer or a professional electrician" seems even stranger.

There is nothing imaginary in the minds of most people as to the differences imposed in law on professionals selling a service and a DIYer doing a bit of weekend pottering about the house.

Of course there are differences but if there are non-imaginary differences in the requirements of the Building Regulations, or in any other regulations which apply, I'd be interested to know what they are.

The fact that you wish to persistently introduce lies and misdirection into your posts is indicative of your addiction to those traits.

Will you please provide evidence of lies and misdirection in my posts?

It would also be helpful if you didn't use lies and misdirection to bully through your points of view.

Will you please provide evidence of lies and misdirection in my posts?

 

[Pensdown]

I for one would be very surprised if all consumer unit manufacturers created a new dual RCD protected board on a whim!

....unlike our huge financial institutions that never miss-sell products, services and pensions to the gullable....?

 

[FingRinal]

I'm surprised you think I think different wiring reguations apply, as this is not what I said

OK - so when I was asking what people thought was required in terms of complying with the regulations when replacing a CU, what did you mean by "I think the correct answer lies in whether you are a DIYer or a professional electrician"?

I'm surprised you think your point in any way makes sense or is relevant.

I've asked questions, not made points - can you not answer them?

A fact is a fact regardless of how many people believe it or choose to not believe. For an example, please research heliocentrism and the remarkable Galileo.

Your exact words were "it's a fact. I think it's because of 131.8". Was it not reasonable to express my puzzlement that you stated it was a fact but didn't say with any certainty why you thought it was?

So the fact is, as regards this fact, you are factually wrong.

Can you show me where I've said something factually wrong? I'm asking questions - if we're not to follow the regulations slavishly then can it be wrong to ask questions?

You do so much nit-picking, you leave no nits for others to pick

I've asked questions - can you not answer them?

Would you refuse to make a rewirable circuit safer if you were not allowed to add RCD protection?

I'm not aware that any 'circuit' is rewireable or not in the terms you've expressed.

Sorry - I thought that when I used the term "rewirable circuit" when referring to this question: "What if you had a rewirable CU with a circuit was on a fuse that was too big, and the customer was OK with you putting the right rewirable in, but wouldn't pay for CU replacement or an outboard RCD - would you refuse to do the work?" then you would know what I meant.

Would you refuse to add a spur if you were not allowed to add RCD protection?

A spur on what exactly? Add RCD where and to what exactly?

What if you had a rewirable CU with a circuit was on a fuse that was too big, and the customer was OK with you putting the right rewirable in, but wouldn't pay for CU replacement or an outboard RCD - would you refuse to do the work?

What about adding a spur? You could ensure compliance of your bit of cable by using conduit or BS8436 etc - do you think you have to bring the existing circuit up to 17th requirements?

What have sockets and switch fronts go to do with this post?

They're an example of work you might be asked to do on an existing installation, so what they have to do with it is trying to establish when & where you feel that you cannot do work without bringing the existing installation to 17th standards.

Would other people here?

Are you looking for support because this is what you do, in your own house as a DIYer?

No - it's because I'm interested in what different people think about this.

You persistently rant about BS7671 not being the law, yet here you're making the explicit point that it is.

I think "rant" is a bit OTT, but be that as it may, I'm not making an explicit point that BS 7671 is the law, only that it is probably the way that most people would choose most of the time to comply with the law. So if a DIYer chooses it then surely he's obliged to follow it?

However, if you wish to proceed on the basis that it is the law, then "I think the correct answer lies in whether you are a DIYer or a professional electrician" seems even stranger.

There is nothing imaginary in the minds of most people as to the differences imposed in law on professionals selling a service and a DIYer doing a bit of weekend pottering about the house.

Of course there are differences but if there are non-imaginary differences in the requirements of the Building Regulations, or in any other regulations which apply, I'd be interested to know what they are.

The fact that you wish to persistently introduce lies and misdirection into your posts is indicative of your addiction to those traits.

Will you please provide evidence of lies and misdirection in my posts?

It would also be helpful if you didn't use lies and misdirection to bully through your points of view.

Will you please provide evidence of lies and misdirection in my posts?

I refer the gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago...

 

[FingRinal]

I for one would be very surprised if all consumer unit manufacturers created a new dual RCD protected board on a whim!

....unlike our huge financial institutions that never miss-sell products, services and pensions to the gullable....?

There's nothing to stop you reporting these things to Trading Standards and the HSE.

Keep us posted.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I refer the gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago...

FR - simply repeating an accusation is not evidence of its veracity.

Please provide the evidence, or stop, once and for all, making false accusations.

And will you also tell me please whether I can expect any proper answers from you to the questions I've asked.

 

[Pensdown]

I for one would be very surprised if all consumer unit manufacturers created a new dual RCD protected board on a whim!

....unlike our huge financial institutions that never miss-sell products, services and pensions to the gullable....?

There's nothing to stop you reporting these things to Trading Standards and the HSE.

Keep us posted.

Whatever....

 

[sealeon]

So was mine the best answer then
just kiddin

 

[FingRinal]

I refer the gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago...

FR - simply repeating an accusation is not evidence of its veracity.

So why did you set the precedent and continue it?

Please provide the evidence, or stop, once and for all, making false accusations.

Ditto. Read your own words. The search facility is quite useful.

And will you also tell me please whether I can expect any proper answers from you to the questions I've asked.

All answers I give are proper answers. If you can't understand them or you disagree with them, that's your affair. Perhaps it would be easiest if you posted 2 or 3 answers to each of your questions so that we can be sure that the answer meets your narrow criteria of approval.

 

[ericmark]

I wonder why

Moderator 11
Moderator Comment Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:25 pm This message will expire on Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:25 pm Comment:
please feel free to have a new one without people abusing each other.

made this comment? I do agree with.

FingRinal
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:05 pm Post Subject:
holmslaw wrote:
ericmark wrote:
Until yesterday I would have agreed with “sealeon” in that only way is with separate rcbo’s but reading this quarters “Wiring Matters” http://www2.theiet.org/Publish/Wire...8_autumn_wiring_matters__complete_adverts.pdf I am not longer sure. Page 24 shows section of new on site guide which seems to favour the 3 way split boards.


The 3 way split board does not comply with reg 314.

I note the IET disclaimer "the IET is not as a body responsible for the opinions expressed"


Well, we might as well all throw the big red book, guidance notes, on site guide and Part P books in the bin.

What a relief! icon_lol.gif

It seems we can't make our minds up. It is however refreshing to see thought going into answers not just that's what it says so there.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So why did you set the precedent and continue it?

I did not and I have not.

You accused me of introducing lies and misdirections into my posts, and all I have continued to do since then is to ask you to provide evidence of that, which I think is quite reasonable.

What is unreasonable in the extreme is for you to keep on making accusations like that and flatly refusing to provide any evidence that what you are saying is true.

All answers I give are proper answers.

I cannot see a proper answer from you to any of the questions I have asked you, even after I'd replied to your requests for clarification.

You don't have to type them out again - just provide references to where you have answered the following:

Your customer has a rewirable CU with a circuit on a fuse that is too big, and he's OK with you putting the right rewirable in, but won't pay for CU replacement or an outboard RCD - would you refuse to do the work?

You're asked to add a spur to a socket circuit without RCD protection. You could ensure compliance of your bit of cable by using conduit or BS8436 etc - do you think you have to bring the existing circuit up to 17th requirements?

You're asked to replace, for aesthetic reasons, sockets or switches on non-RCD circuits. Do you think you have to bring the existing circuit up to 17th requirements?

 

[Pensdown]

I wonder why

Moderator 11
Moderator Comment Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:25 pm This message will expire on Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:25 pm Comment:
please feel free to have a new one without people abusing each other.

made this comment? I do agree with.

FingRinal
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:05 pm Post Subject:
holmslaw wrote:
ericmark wrote:
Until yesterday I would have agreed with “sealeon” in that only way is with separate rcbo’s but reading this quarters “Wiring Matters” http://www2.theiet.org/Publish/Wire...8_autumn_wiring_matters__complete_adverts.pdf I am not longer sure. Page 24 shows section of new on site guide which seems to favour the 3 way split boards.


The 3 way split board does not comply with reg 314.

I note the IET disclaimer "the IET is not as a body responsible for the opinions expressed"


Well, we might as well all throw the big red book, guidance notes, on site guide and Part P books in the bin.

What a relief! icon_lol.gif

It seems we can't make our minds up. It is however refreshing to see thought going into answers not just that's what it says so there.

Maybe there should have been someone on the committee that asked "WHY" before they introduced some of the new regs. And that goes back to the bonding in the 15th that was dropped in the 16th.

Roll on the 18th