Anyone seen this before

[morqthana]

Let's look back at how all this started.

What limits the current on the tails/T&E? Tails longer than 3metres cannot rely on the service fuse for protection.
DNO rules IIRC.

And straight away EFLImpudence started going on about it not making sense. Well, maybe it doesn't make sense to him, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, isn't real, and doesn't have to be followed. I became increasingly uncomfortable with his line of argument, and his repeated objections and rhetorical questions about an aspect which didn't matter, i.e. did it make sense to him.

The world is full of regulations which don't make sense to everyone, but not making sense doesn't matter - whatever the regulations are, they remain in existence.

I didn't come at this from the POV of being an expert, so I tried to find what the regulation, or contractual terms, or whatever actually say, and it didn't take long to find that UKPN document, and it didn't take long to find that NICEIC website. Say what you like about NICEIC, or DNOs, and the relationship between their claims and views, and actual wiring regulations, but unless they've falsified the things they say there are actual wiring regulations, and it's clear that the latter do say that you have to have your own fuse if the DNO don't agree you can use theirs.

If the DNO do not agree to you using their fuse then you have to install your own. You simply may not point to their fuse when asked to show where in your installation you've provided a fuse for the tails.

The fact that there's no way to stop the DNOs fuse from operating instead of yours, and thus actually being the device acting to protect the tails doesn't matter.

The fact that 3m is a length seemingly plucked out of the air doesn't matter.

The fact that different DNOs pluck different lengths, or no length at all, doesn't matter.

If the regulations say they have to agree to something you want to do, and they don't agree to it, then you're in breach of the regulations if you nevertheless do it.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Let's look back at how all this started.

And straight away EFLImpudence started going on about it not making sense. Well, maybe it doesn't make sense to him,

I think you will find I said it was nonsense; that is not the same.

 

[pete01]

2m tails compared to 4m tails ain't gonna make a jott of difference

 

[morqthana]

I would remove the DNO fuse and insert another.

So you'd tamper with their equipment, remove their fuse and put yours in, so that you could say "It's not your fuse, it's mine, so I don't need your permission to use yours, and you can't stop me using mine". (Best read using a petulant, childish voice for maximum effect).

Unbelievable. And I wouldn't be surprised if was illegal.

 

[morqthana]

I think you will find I said it was nonsense; that is not the same.

 

[morqthana]

2m tails compared to 4m tails ain't gonna make a jott of difference

Doesn't matter.

 

[pete01]

Doesn't matter.

I know that's what I said

 

[EFLImpudence]

(Best read using a petulant, childish voice for maximum effect).

That doesn't make me wrong. Is your voice like Starmer's?

 

[morqthana]

That doesn't make me wrong. Is your voice like Starmer's?

Wrong about what?

Wrong about the rule not making sense? No.

Wrong about banging on and on and on about it not making sense when that lack of sense is of no relevance whatsoever to the existence of the rule, to the enshrining of the rule in the wiring regulations, and to the fact that breaking the rule creates a contravention of the wiring regulations? Yes.

Wrong about it being OK for you to remove their fuse and replace it with one of yours? Yes - that would be altering the connection.

Again - I didn't know, so I did some research, and was led to The Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002

Can't see how removing their fuse and replacing it with a different one is not an alteration.

Removing then fuse then later replacing the same one so as to be able to change a CU is one thing. Swapping the fuse for a different one is quite another.

 

[EFLImpudence]

You seem to misunderstand nearly everything. Is English not your first language?

 

[JohnW2]

The fact that there's no way to stop the DNOs fuse from operating instead of yours, and thus actually being the device acting to protect the tails doesn't matter.
The fact that 3m is a length seemingly plucked out of the air doesn't matter.
The fact that different DNOs pluck different lengths, or no length at all, doesn't matter.

If the regulations say they have to agree to something you want to do, and they don't agree to it, then you're in breach of the regulations if you nevertheless do it.

As you say in the final sentence I quote above, all of those things you mention "don't matter" in terms of compliance with the DNO's rules/regulations.

However, although I accept that opinions about this will vary, I personally believe that it very much does matter if an organisation like a DNO (or IET/BSI) creates rules/regulations/whatever which make no sense in terms of the underlying scientific principles of their discipline/trade/industry, which they, of all people, ought to fully understand. If that happens, it will undermine confidence in the 'competence' / 'fitness for purpose' of the organisation concerned and, at worst, could well result in some people ignoring others of their rules/regulations which do make sense and which may be important for safety.

You, I, Mr Kirchoff and (one would hope) a high proportion of electricians and electrical engineers presumably know that it is an inevitable consequence of the Laws o Physics that an Overcurrent Protective Device will provide the same degree of protection to (all of) a downstream cable regardless of the length of that cable - but the three things above which you say "don't matter" all imply that DNOs do not seem to understand this.

What BS 7671 says, about protection against both overload and fault currents, is not actually 'wrong'. However, by saying, in both cases, that an 'additional' protective device can be omitted only if the DNO 'agree' that their cutout fuse provides protection for the full length of the meter tails (however long), they are implying that there are circumstances in which it would make sense for a DNO to 'not agree' - despite the fact that, as above, it is difficult to see how, if 'competent' any DNO could disagree with something which appears to be an inevitable consequence of the Laws of Physics ... so I suppose that might reduce confidence in the competence/understanding of the authors of BS 7671 (again, with the risk that some may, as a consequence. become less concerned about compliance with BS 7671).

 

[sparkwright]

I remember Ban All Sheds...

 

[morqthana]

You seem to misunderstand nearly everything. Is English not your first language?

I misunderstand nothing, and English is my first language.

 

[morqthana]

As you say in the final sentence I quote above, all of those things you mention "don't matter" in terms of compliance with the DNO's rules/regulations.

However, although I accept that opinions about this will vary, I personally believe that it very much does matter if an organisation like a DNO (or IET/BSI) creates rules/regulations/whatever which make no sense in terms of the underlying scientific principles of their discipline/trade/industry, which they, of all people, ought to fully understand. If that happens, it will undermine confidence in the 'competence' / 'fitness for purpose' of the organisation concerned and, at worst, could well result in some people ignoring others of their rules/regulations which do make sense and which may be important for safety.

You and EFLImpudence would do well to consider his charge of misunderstanding everything.

The DNO "rule" exists. (For some/most/all DNOs)

The wiring regulations exist.

NONE OF WHAT YOU OR EFLIMPUDENCE RAISE AS OBJECTIONS MATTER IN THE SLIGHTEST TO THE REALITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE "RULES" AND REGULATIONS.

You, I, Mr Kirchoff and (one would hope) a high proportion of electricians and electrical engineers presumably know that it is an inevitable consequence of the Laws o Physics that an Overcurrent Protective Device will provide the same degree of protection to (all of) a downstream cable regardless of the length of that cable - but the three things above which you say "don't matter" all imply that DNOs do not seem to understand this.

THEY DON'T MATTER IN THE SLIGHTEST TO THE REALITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE "RULES" AND REGULATIONS.

What BS 7671 says, about protection against both overload and fault currents, is not actually 'wrong'. However, by saying, in both cases, that an 'additional' protective device can be omitted only if the DNO 'agree' that their cutout fuse provides protection for the full length of the meter tails (however long), they are implying that there are circumstances in which it would make sense for a DNO to 'not agree' - despite the fact that, as above, it is difficult to see how, if 'competent' any DNO could disagree with something which appears to be an inevitable consequence of the Laws of Physics

WHATEVER REASONS THEY HAVE DON'T MATTER IN THE SLIGHTEST TO THE REALITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE "RULES" AND REGULATIONS.

... so I suppose that might reduce confidence in the competence/understanding of the authors of BS 7671 (again, with the risk that some may, as a consequence. become less concerned about compliance with BS 7671).

What will most undermine compliance with BS7671 is people expressing any suggestion that it's OK for people to ignore anything which they think is silly, and that it's OK to carry out criminal acts to get round regulations which they don't like.

 

[JohnW2]

The DNO "rule" exists. (For some/most/all DNOs)
The wiring regulations exist.
NONE OF WHAT YOU OR EFLIMPUDENCE RAISE AS OBJECTIONS MATTER IN THE SLIGHTEST TO THE REALITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE "RULES" AND REGULATIONS.
THEY DON'T MATTER IN THE SLIGHTEST TO THE REALITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE "RULES" AND REGULATIONS.
WHATEVER REASONS THEY HAVE DON'T MATTER IN THE SLIGHTEST TO THE REALITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE "RULES" AND REGULATIONS.

If I didn't know better, I would also be starting to wonder whether you are able to understand written English.

In my most recent post above, I thought that I fairly clearly indicated that I agree with all the above - yet you throw all of those points back at me in emboldened uppercase, implying that you think I disagree with them!

However, as I wrote, I personally believe that, for totally different reasons, it "does matter" (quite a lot) if an organisation like a DNO acts in a manner, any manner, which suggests that they do not understand the fundamental principles underlying the industry in which they should be an authority.