Twin and Earth

[ban-all-sheds]

I think the same might well be true in the UK IF (which is not the case) the law explictly required compliance with BS7671.

Not sure about that. For example, AIUI if you want to make plugs and sockets to sell here you have to make them so that they comply with BS 1363. But you don't get a copy of that for free. I'm sure there must be other examples.

As for those 'restrictions', as far as I can see, the on-line version of NFPA 70 cannot be downloaded, cannot be printed and cannot be copied from - so the only opportunity to 'steal' is to take screen shots of tiny bits.

Where there's a will....

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/lego-machine-removes-drm-from-kindle-e-books/

The NFPA website also has reports of lawsuits relating to people who have somehow managed to put NFPA-copyrighted material onto their websites - so they clearly are 'bothered'.

Public access to the NEC

The NEC is available as a bound book containing approximately 1000 pages. It has been available in electronic form since the 1993 edition. Although the code is updated every three years, some jurisdictions do not immediately adopt the new edition.

The NEC is also available as a restricted, digitized coding model that can be read online but not saved, copied and pasted, or printed, free of charge on certain computing platforms that support the restricted viewer software.

In the United States, statutory law cannot be copyrighted and is freely accessible and copyable by anyone.[6] When a standards organization develops a new coding model and it is not yet accepted by any jurisdiction as law, it is still the private property of the standards organization and the reader may be restricted from downloading or printing the text for offline viewing. For that privilege, the coding model must still be purchased as either printed media or a CD-ROM. Once the coding model has been accepted as law, it loses copyright protection and may be freely obtained at no cost.

Archive.org and many state or local government sites allow download of the NEC without the registration that the NFPA requires.

External links to both the restricted NEC online access and free public access sites are referenced at the end of this article.

Presumably if a State or other jurisdiction decides to make the NEC a legal requirement they have to make it freely available.

 

[JohnW2]

I think the same might well be true in the UK IF (which is not the case) the law explictly required compliance with BS7671.

Not sure about that. For example, AIUI if you want to make plugs and sockets to sell here you have to make them so that they comply with BS 1363. But you don't get a copy of that for free. I'm sure there must be other examples.

Yes, you may be right.

Presumably if a State or other jurisdiction decides to make the NEC a legal requirement they have to make it freely available.

I suppose so - but, as I've said, if any such compulsion for an 'independent organisation' to make their products 'freely available' went to the extent of making their operation commercially non-viable, they would presumably have to stop producing the document (or 'go bust'). As NFPA said in that bit I quoted, sale of 'codes' represents their primary source of income.

Kind Regards, John

 

[mbrooke]

Im sure NFPA 70 looses some money, but not enough to bother them. In the US anything that is used for law purposes (like the NEC) must be disclosed free of charge.

As I said, I think the same might well be true in the UK IF (which is not the case) the law explictly required compliance with BS7671. However, what NFPA says on their website does not seem indicate a compulsion to 'disclose', when they write:

...NFPA is proud to have been the first organization to provide free public access to privately developed codes and standards, and are pleased to see other organizations following our lead.

As for 'not being bothered', they go on to say:

There are some who argue that we should do more and immediately make all of our documents available online without any restrictions. It is essential that NFPA maintain copyright and the ability to charge for the codes and standards. Most of the money NFPA needs to fund our process and other vital mission activities comes from the sale of codes.

As for those 'restrictions', as far as I can see, the on-line version of NFPA 70 cannot be downloaded, cannot be printed and cannot be copied from - so the only opportunity to 'steal' is to take screen shots of tiny bits. The NFPA website also has reports of lawsuits relating to people who have somehow managed to put NFPA-copyrighted material onto their websites - so they clearly are 'bothered'.

Kind Regards, John

Actually, if you sign up for NFPA, you can view the NEC for free. The viewer is fidgety, but you could view the whole thing if you wanted

http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/free-access

http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/document-information-pages?mode=code&code=70


Anyone can go to their state/town building code site and download the NEC.

From Wikipedia explaining why that is:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Electrical_Code

Public access to the NEC[edit]

The NEC is available as a bound book containing approximately 1000 pages. It has been available in electronic form since the 1993 edition. Although the code is updated every three years, some jurisdictions do not immediately adopt the new edition.

The NEC is also available as a restricted, digitized coding model that can be read online but not saved, copied and pasted, or printed, free of charge on certain computing platforms that support the restricted viewer software.

In the United States, statutory law cannot be copyrighted and is freely accessible and copyable by anyone.[6] When a standards organization develops a new coding model and it is not yet accepted by any jurisdiction as law, it is still the private property of the standards organization and the reader may be restricted from downloading or printing the text for offline viewing. For that privilege, the coding model must still be purchased as either printed media or a CD-ROM. Once the coding model has been accepted as law, it loses copyright protection and may be freely obtained at no cost.

Archive.org and many state or local government sites allow download of the NEC without the registration that the NFPA requires.

External links to both the restricted NEC online access and free public access sites are referenced at the end of this article.

And of course Google "NEC PDF" its legally available from several resources, mostly towns and states disclosing what is used to enforce their codes:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=national+electrical+code+pdf

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=nec+pdf


I still think its wrong that the UK does not disclose BS7671 to the public free of charge, one reason being a person could begin DIY work without educating himself on applicable codes required to do it safely. I can not think of much that would be to code and yet still dangerous at the same time.

 

[mbrooke]

OK, just saw the post above, it has the same wiki link. My mistake

 

[mbrooke]

As NFPA said in that bit I quoted, sale of 'codes' represents their primary source of income.

Kind Regards, John

That is true, the publications made and sold by the NFPA is their income, however the NEC has been available for decades unrestricted to the public and in so far the NFPA is still going strong. The UK and the IET may know something where it will not work out for them, but IMO I still think its one of the daftest things Ive heard.

FWIW most electricians in the States will obtain a free copy online for their computer while they purchase the book for $100 ($80 if an NFPA member) to reference out in the field. In the end it works out for everyone.

 

[JohnW2]

OK, just saw the post above, it has the same wiki link. My mistake

As I keep saying, I think the crucial point made in that wiki article is:

Once the coding model has been accepted as law, it loses copyright protection and may be freely obtained at no cost.

BS7671 certainly has not (and, to the best of my knowledge, nor has any other Standard) ever been "accepted as law" in the UK. If it had, then it probably would, as in the US, have to lose its copyright protection, and become freely available without charge.

As BAS pointed out, there is some UK legislation which requires compliance with Standards (such as BS1363 for plugs), but that is very different from the Standard "being accepted as law".

Kind Regards, John

 

[mbrooke]

OK, just saw the post above, it has the same wiki link. My mistake

As I keep saying, I think the crucial point made in that wiki article is:

Once the coding model has been accepted as law, it loses copyright protection and may be freely obtained at no cost.

BS7671 certainly has not (and, to the best of my knowledge, nor has any other Standard) ever been "accepted as law" in the UK. If it had, then it probably would, as in the US, have to lose its copyright protection, and become freely available without charge.

As BAS pointed out, there is some UK legislation which requires compliance with Standards (such as BS1363 for plugs), but that is very different from the Standard "being accepted as law".

Kind Regards, John

BS7671 may not be technically accepted into law (I think that is a mistake) but surely inspectors must use some means or measure to judge an installation as safe? Or site something claiming its not?

In theory then, I could wire a massive home in a single 4mm2 radial circuit, 50amp MCB, no RCD; and with the correct engineering equations argue that the cable will never be overheated and that load diversity will provide adequate for the system?

Just thinking lol

 

[JohnW2]

BS7671 may not be technically accepted into law (I think that is a mistake) but surely inspectors must use some means or measure to judge an installation as safe?

Maybe, but that's not what we're talking about. We are talking about the fact that, just as in the US, a Standard/Code probably would not lose its copyright protection in the UK unless/until it IS "accepted into law" (which I'm not aware of ever having happened in the UK).

In theory then, I could wire a massive home in a single 4mm2 radial circuit, 50amp MCB, no RCD; and with the correct engineering equations argue that the cable will never be overheated and that load diversity will provide adequate for the system?

As I've said, as far as UK law (part P of the Building Regs) is concerned all you have to do is to demonstrate, using valid engineering or other arguments and, where appropriate, calculations, that it is 'safe'.

With the example you give, I don't think you would be able to achieve that. If it were a sockets circuit, then (not having any control over what loads might be plugged in, so you could not invoke any diversity concepts) you could not guarantee that the total load would never exceed the CCC of the cable, and I think you'd probably be hard-pressed to find an acceptable argument as to why having non-RCD-protected sockets would not diminish 'safety', given that it appears to now be generally accepted that RCD protection of sockets is a 'necessary' safety measure.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BS7671 may not be technically accepted into law (I think that is a mistake)

I've never been sure why they didn't.

Because then they would have to give it away? IANAL, but I would have thought that not a real concern as nobody would expect the Govt to have to give away the training and equipment which people also need.

Because the IET/BSI don't want it to become statutory? Wouldn't blame them - they get into enough of a mess when it's only engineers writing it - adding parliamentary law makers would be a disaster

Because legally we can't due to EU membership? Someone should tell Nigel Farrago that he's got something else to rant about.

but surely inspectors must use some means or measure to judge an installation as safe? Or site something claiming its not?

That's not as hard as it seems.

The law requires that you make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury. So if you are notifying work in advance because it's not being done by a registered Competent Person you have to tell them how you're going to ensure that.

You may freely choose to do so by complying with BS7671, in which case they would also want some kind of documented evidence that you were actually able to do that.

Or you may freely choose to do so by complying with NF C 15-100, or VDE-100 etc. Whereupon they may freely choose to charge you the full cost of shipping a bilingual electrician in from France or Germany etc to check what you have done.

If the work is done by a registered electrician he will certify BS7671 compliance.

In theory then, I could wire a massive home in a single 4mm2 radial circuit, 50amp MCB, no RCD; and with the correct engineering equations argue that the cable will never be overheated and that load diversity will provide adequate for the system?

Indeed you could if you can get your Building Control Officer to agree.

 

[mbrooke]

Maybe, but that's not what we're talking about. We are talking about the fact that, just as in the US, a Standard/Code probably would not lose its copyright protection in the UK unless/until it IS "accepted into law" (which I'm not aware of ever having happened in the UK).

I agree with that part, in the US anything that is not law is copyrighted and restricted as the publisher sees fit. However, the part that bewilders me, is why BS7671 isn't excepted into law when its so commonly used (close to 100% of the time).

As I've said, as far as UK law (part P of the Building Regs) is concerned all you have to do is to demonstrate, using valid engineering or other arguments and, where appropriate, calculations, that it is 'safe'.

But how would the inspector determine its safe vs none safe? Surely he must have some set of standards to rule against or judge work against? And how could he enforce this without having laws to back him up as a final say in the matter?

For example, in the US, if a danger existed such as 2.08mm2 Twin and earth wire fused with a 60amp MCB going to sockets, the inspector can point to rule 240.4 (D), table 310.15 (B) (16) and rule 334.80, all 3 of which restrict 2.08mm2 twin and earth to a 15 amp MCB. The inspector can overrule the electrician because a black and white law document backs him up.

With the example you give, I don't think you would be able to achieve that.

But I could in theory demonstrate that as a single occupant I am unlikely to ever draw more than 3.2 kw of load. This of course would be really bad design, but again, how would the inspector be able to dispute my analysis?

If it were a sockets circuit, then (not having any control over what loads might be plugged in, so you could not invoke any diversity concepts) you could not guarantee that the total load would never exceed the CCC of the cable, and I think you'd probably be hard-pressed to find an acceptable argument as to why having non-RCD-protected sockets would not diminish 'safety', given that it appears to now be generally accepted that RCD protection of sockets is a 'necessary' safety measure.

Kind Regards, John

I agree, I would never take an argument against RCDs.

But to a building regs inspector, I could make the argument that a brick home is unlikely to catch fire if an insulation failure occurred within a cable where an RCD would pick up. I could also argue that since sockets are shuttered (require a ground pin to open) and I have earth fault loop impedance tests that it would be unlikely a faulty appliance would remain energized from a broken PE relying on an RCD as a last means of disconnect.

Of course I would not make such an argument in real life, but how would an inspector dispute my theories if no law exists for him to rule with? If such a system existed in the US EEs would repeatedly make papers resembling thesis statements why X or Y should be approved.

[/quote]

 

[mbrooke]

I've never been sure why they didn't.

Because then they would have to give it away?

They would, but IMO that would be of help, as it would let people reference the very rules which dictate a safe installation.

IANAL, but I would have thought that not a real concern as nobody would expect the Govt to have to give away the training and equipment which people also need.

BS7671 is pretty much the most important training. What sparky does not reference everything against it?

I get your logic in a sense that if the regs are like tools, then gov should give testers and MCBs away, something I think no one would agree with, even the US.

Because the IET/BSI don't want it to become statutory? Wouldn't blame them - they get into enough of a mess when it's only engineers writing it - adding parliamentary law makers would be a disaster

I am not say have them amend it, but rather just use it as a tool for enforcement.

Because legally we can't due to EU membership? Someone should tell Nigel Farrago that he's got something else to rant about.

Not sure how the process works, but is that a deal worked out with the IET?

That's not as hard as it seems.

The law requires that you make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury. So if you are notifying work in advance because it's not being done by a registered Competent Person you have to tell them how you're going to ensure that.

This is extremely relative as reasonable provisions are not explicitly defined. What one might consider safe or adequate another may not. A registered competent person could choose to ignore BS7671 because the law does not force him to? If the only law the inspector has is a few sentences long being supported by relative terms, how can anything be enforced?

You may freely choose to do so by complying with BS7671, in which case they would also want some kind of documented evidence that you were actually able to do that.

Or you may freely choose to do so by complying with NF C 15-100, or VDE-100 etc. Whereupon they may freely choose to charge you the full cost of shipping a bilingual electrician in from France or Germany etc to check what you have done.

If the work is done by a registered electrician he will certify BS7671 compliance.

But why have that option to differing standards some of which could even be concocted by an Electrical Engineer?


Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand how it works Excellent replies so far

 

[ban-all-sheds]

This is extremely relative as reasonable provisions are not explicitly defined. What one might consider safe or adequate another may not.

Indeed. Which is one reason why compliance with BS7671 is a sensible idea.

A registered competent person could choose to ignore BS7671 because the law does not force him to?

No - the rules of all the schemes mandate that the members work to BS7671.

If the only law the inspector has is a few sentences long being supported by relative terms, how can anything be enforced?

Because they won't give you the approval to go ahead until they are satisfied that what you plan to do will comply with Part P of the Building Regulations. And good luck getting them to agree to some design you've plucked out of the air which does not comply with BS7671. It may well be reasonably safe, and I guess you would be free to commence legal proceedings against them if they refused to allow it. Free, but barking mad.

But why have that option to differing standards some of which could even be concocted by an Electrical Engineer?

You'd have to ask them. The guidance document never explicitly identified other standards - it used to just say

A way of satisfying the fundamental
principles would be to follow:
a. the technical rules described in the
body of BS 7671: 2001, or an
equivalent standard approved by a
member of the EEA that includes
issuing an electrical installation
certificate to the person ordering the
work;

Now it just says

Electrical installations should be designed and installed in accordance with BS 7671:2008 incorporating Amendment No 1:2011.

just trying to understand how it works

Not very well.

 

[mbrooke]

Electrical installations should be designed and installed in accordance with BS 7671:2008 incorporating Amendment No 1:2011.

In the US that would be enough to publicly disclose the regs. Perhaps DIY work is less likely to be performed or perhaps indirectly discouraged, hence no effort to disclose them.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In practice it would be pointless.

We see people here all the time who have started doing things even though they know they haven't got the first clue. They've not taken the trouble to read any DIY manual, and didn't see why they should. We get people who are looking to be told what cable to use for something, etc, and who flatly refuse to read anything educational - they think that other people should do their work for them.

Making the regulations available FOC would do SFA to raise people's game.

 

[mbrooke]

In practice it would be pointless.

We see people here all the time who have started doing things even though they know they haven't got the first clue. They've not taken the trouble to read any DIY manual, and didn't see why they should. We get people who are looking to be told what cable to use for something, etc, and who flatly refuse to read anything educational - they think that other people should do their work for them.

Making the regulations available FOC would do SFA to raise people's game.

I agree with that part. Ive been on DIY sites where people haven't got a clue just wanting to hear what they want to hear. Doing anything takes education, and understanding where your skills may fall short.