Electricians' tedious bickering

[FingRinal]

Only a couple of months before 'some' people can start to ignore it's guidance and spirit...

Only a couple of months before 'some' people can start to follow its guidance and spirit regarding fused or non-fused spurs from radial circuits...

I'm glad you've finally agree to jump aboard BAS. Welcome aboard!

 

[Softus]

You were wrong FingRinal - have the good grace to admit it.

 

[FingRinal]

Those in the trade would not say so. And the 17th Edition finally decided to make it explicit due to the fact that some people couldn't take the hints in the OSG and other publications etc.

 

[Softus]

Those in the trade would not say so.

Those in the trade have already said so. Many of them. Repeatedly.

And the 17th Edition finally decided to make it explicit due to the fact that some people couldn't take the hints in the OSG and other publications etc.

The 16th Edition was also explicit - it just happened to be a definition that you didn't like, so you pretended you couldn't read it.

And as soon as you saw what the 17th Edition said, which Pensdown had already declared earlier in the topic, you started pretending that it has precedence over the 16th Edition.

But it doesn't.

 

[FingRinal]

Yawn...you've bored me to death...not the first time a plumber has done that I must admit...

 

[Softus]

you've bored me to death.

Well I wouldn't wish that to happen literally, but it would solve a problem for a lot of people on the forum.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Those in the trade would not say so. And the 17th Edition finally decided to make it explicit due to the fact that some people couldn't take the hints in the OSG and other publications etc.

There were no hints in the OSG.

There was guidance concerning spurs.

The definition of "spur" in the regulations to which the OSG explicitly relates (see pp 8 & 9) is crystal clear.

As clear as the fact that you were wrong about it all along, as clear as the fact that everybody else here told you you were wrong about it all along, as clear as the fact that someone in the IET told you you were wrong about it all along and as clear as the fact that you trying to say you were right then because something is different now makes you look even more ridiculous.

And I don't know about anybody else, but I feel insulted that you thought I'd be stupid enough to accept your "justification"....

 

[partpdoctor]

hi
i have seen the 17th edition osg draft, there is no definitions. it tells you to refer to part 2 of bs 7671.
when ever a new regs come out a sheet will follow telling you where to strike out mistakes and add wording. i think its called an addendum or errata or something (help me out here )
the definition of spur in the new book is wrong and will be changed as it is wrong, just like the OP is VERY WRONG

 

[Spark123]

Where can we get our hands on the free draft copy of the OSG?
Errata sheet sounds good to me

 

[partpdoctor]

hi spark 123

it has no page numbers and is riddled with authors notes and hand drawn diagrams

guess it will be along may or june...

 

[FingRinal]

Those in the trade would not say so. And the 17th Edition finally decided to make it explicit due to the fact that some people couldn't take the hints in the OSG and other publications etc.

There were no hints in the OSG.

There was guidance concerning spurs.

The definition of "spur" in the regulations to which the OSG explicitly relates (see pp 8 & 9) is crystal clear.

As clear as the fact that you were wrong about it all along, as clear as the fact that everybody else here told you you were wrong about it all along, as clear as the fact that someone in the IET told you you were wrong about it all along and as clear as the fact that you trying to say you were right then because something is different now makes you look even more ridiculous.

And I don't know about anybody else, but I feel insulted that you thought I'd be stupid enough to accept your "justification"....

And I feel insulted that you thought I'd be stupid enough to accept YOUR justification!

 

[pdcelec]

And we must remember that either the definition of a radial circuit in the 17th has either changed or the definition is not correct(mis print)!

 

[Pensdown]

it has no page numbers and is riddled with authors notes and hand drawn diagrams

That must be a bit like Fing Rinal's copy of the 16th - the definitions that are printed in his copy are nothing like the ones printed in mine

 

[FingRinal]

It's not my fault some people are a bit too dim to understand what is written.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It's not my fault some people are a bit too dim to understand what is written.

I don't think you are too dim to understand what is written in the 16th edition of the Wiring Regulations.

But it is your fault that you have chosen, for some reason, to ignore what is written and to pretend that some other words are on the page.

I wonder, does anybody here agree with you in the context of the 16th?