17th Edition - RCD requirements and concealled cables

[ebee]

"In fact I do not read most of your posts past the first couple of lines. "

Then you are far too stupid too comment on them !

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In fact I do not read most of your posts past the first couple of lines.

You're not really competent to criticise them then, are you.

Your main critisism seems to focus on the point that most of things that I said were B******* were allowed in the 16th edition - so what - why bring that up it is irrelevant.

No - it is very relevant - the fact that they were allowed in the 16th is exactly why I highlighted what you said, and wondered what your position was - was it based on a genuine disapproval of those things, or not?

You see, nothing in the 17th changes the nature of any of them. There is a change in whether they are acceptable, possibly because of accumulating evidence that they aren't - who knows.

But it matters not why, nor does it matter whether they are or not b******* , the point is that you think they all are. If they are b******* today then they were b******* yesterday, they were b******* last week, they were b******* last year, last decade, last whatever, because their problems were the same yesterday, last week, last year etc as they are today.

So do you believe that they have always been b*******, or do you think that somehow they have only just become b*******?

The thing that has changed in the 17th is a general requirement to install rcd's to overcome problems caused by the aforementioned B*******.
And the simple solution to deal with these problems is to install rcbo's in a standard cu.

That simple solution has been available for years.

This is why your answer to whether you think those things have always been b******* is so important

Another question I'd like to ask you is this, and apologies to everyone else for making it so prominent, but it might make it catch your eye if you weren't going to read beyond the first few lines:

are you really going to carry out a high current earth leakage test on every piece of earthed conduit

Will you please tell us why you think this would be necessary? Where is the requirement for such a test defined?

 

[JohnD]

Is this the right room for an argument?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Fair enough - we'll all quite happily recognise that you cannot explain that there is any consistency in your attitude to concealed cable zones and depths etc, and that you cannot explain why you think that earthed conduit would need a high current earth leakage test.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[GaryMo]

A responsible spark will always carry out installation work in as safe a manner as possible and accept that however good his install is, it could be subject to abuse.

Therefore, he will ignore the b******* of safe zones (anybody ever heard of corner shelves), ignore the B******* of 50mm+ deep chases (ever had a brickie hit you with his trowel), ignore the B******* of instructed persons (nobody knows what will happen to ANY installation in the future), ignore the B******* of earthed conduit (are you really going to carry out a high current earth leakage test on every piece of earthed conduit).

You install single phase rcbo's in a standard cu or fuseboard - end of.
The extra cost of rcbo's over mcb's (say £150) for the average house is cheap in comparison with complying with nonsense of not installing them.

I agree with you on chases deeper than 50mm and earthed metallic metallic conduits but can't agree on ignoring safe zones.

You have to comply with any one of five options from 522.6.6 if cables are going to be concealed in walls or partitions at a depth of less than 50mm

(i) Cable with earthed metallic covering.....
(ii) Enclosed in earthed conduit.....
(iii) Enclosed in earthed trunking.....
(iv) mechanically protected against damage......
(v) Installed in safe zones.....

Now where 522.6.6 (above) applies and the installation is not intended to be under the supervision of a skilled or instructed person, a cable installed in accordance with 522.6.6(v) and not complying with 522.6.6 (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) shall be provided with additional protection by means of an RCD (or RCBO ).

Safe zones are still very much alive in the 17th edition, unless you use (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) from the above list.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well we are slowly getting places.

As you have always thought that "safe zones" are ridiculous, and you believe that responsible sparks will always carry out installation work in as safe a manner as possible, have you always used RCBOs for everything, or always insisted in specifications that they must be used?

Would you consider any spark who has not always used them to be irresponsible?

And could you please explain why you think that earthed metal conduit requires a high current test?

 

[GaryMo]

Gary, I'm just suggesting a way out, install rcbo's and forget all that nonsense.

You can't forget safe zones unless you install a cable to 522.6.6 (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv). An RCD is used for additional protection of cables installed in safe zones (522.6.6(v)) when the installation isn't under the control of a skilled or instructed person, not to replace safe zones.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm not saying you have changed anything. I've been trying to find out of you've always thought that zones etc were b******* and not the sort of thing a responsible spark would rely on.

As you have always thought that "safe zones" are ridiculous, and you believe that responsible sparks will always carry out installation work in as safe a manner as possible, have you always used RCBOs for everything, or always insisted in specifications that they must be used?

Would you consider any spark who has not always used them to be irresponsible?

And could you please explain why you think that earthed metal conduit requires a high current test?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ebee]

holmslaw,

"Try really hard and read and understand what I have previously said."

You will not be accussed of joined up thinking.

 

[equitum]

The NICEIC and from what I hear other scheme operators have made it abundantly clear (as far as they are concerned) that "under supervision of a skilled or suitably instructed person" does NOT apply to the vast majority of domestic situations and is clealy aimed at commercial/industrial installations

I hope you'll forgive me if

a) I don't give a stuff what they think as it is of no relevance to my situation.

b) I don't give a stuff what they think because they don't write the regulations.

c) I don't give a stuff what they think because I'm happy to make my own decisions.

So no matter how articulate or logical your argument, what is the point of continuing this stance, as no sensible electrical installer would cling to your argument that an RCD may not required in most if not all domestic situations where cables are concealed <50mm not in earthed conduit etc etc.

That's up to them.

What I do is up to me. Go back and read this and pay particular attention to the 2nd word of my reply, as it sets the context for what comes after

You may not "give a stuff" what recognized bodies such as the NICEIC suggest is their interpretation of the regs (for which they have a significant contribution to creating) . However my point is that such organisations have a wealth of experience, expertise and qualified employees, which, dare I say, carries more weight in my opinion than your own far fetched drivel.