Anyone seen this before

[morqthana]

I've asked for anybody who can to quote the applicable regulation(s) in full, but for now all we can go on is what UKPN and NICEIC claim are quotes from them and they would appear to be explicit that you are not allowed to use the DNO fuse for that purpose unless they agree.

And please don't pointlessly and childishly go on again about the laws of physics meaning that their fuse will provide protection - the regulation(s) appear to be clear that you're not allowed to rely on that, to use the provision of that, to identify that device as providing protection, without their permission.

The regulation(s) appear to be clear that if you don't have their permission you don't have protection which complies with the regulations.

 

[morqthana]

Why do you keep saying that? As I've said numerous times, I have never suggested that it is relevant to the fact that such rules/regulations do exist.

Why do you keep saying things about the "Laws of Physics"? As I've said numerous times, I have never suggested that such facts have anything to do with the point that such rules/regulations do exist, nor that I have ever been talking about anything other than the fact that such rules/regulations do exist, irrespective of what Mr Kirchoff, or any of his colleagues, have to say on the matter.

 

[JohnW2]

Why do you keep saying things about the "Laws of Physics"?

... because it is in relation to such Laws that the rules/regulations make no sense - and it is the "not making sense" that is the point (the ONLY point) I have been making.

As I've said numerous times, I have never suggested that such facts have anything to do with the point that such rules/regulations do exist, nor that I have ever been talking about anything other than the fact that such rules/regulations do exist, irrespective of what Mr Kirchoff, or any of his colleagues, have to say on the matter.

... and nor have I ever suggested that the failure of the rules/regulations to make sense does nothing to remove or weaken the fact that the rules/regs do exist and that they therefore probably ought to be complied with.

You are talking about something very different from me.

 

[morqthana]

The problem is that right back at the start, EFLImpudence was using that lack of sense to counter the idea that such a regulation does exist, and is still doing so, and by hijacking my original "that doesn't matter" to argue that a totally unrelated aspect of "not making sense" does matter you are encouraging his blind refusal to accept reality.

 

[JohnW2]

The problem is that right back at the start, EFLImpudence was using that lack of sense to counter the idea that such a regulation does exist, and is still doing so, and by hijacking my original "that doesn't matter" to argue that a totally unrelated aspect of "not making sense" does matter you are encouraging his blind refusal to accept reality.

EFLI is EFLI and I am myself - so there's no pint in you complaining to/about me in relation to a problem you have with him.

As I wrote at the very start, whilst I've always agreed that the "not making sense" did not "matter" in relation to the fact that there are rules/regs which theoretically should be complied with, I personally believe that it very much does "matter" in a totally different sense.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't think that I have actually ever said that any regulations should be ignored; just that the rules themselves from the DNO were nonsense.

 

[JohnW2]

I don't think that I have actually ever said that any regulations should be ignored; just that the rules themselves from the DNO were nonsense.

That's exactly "just what I've been saying", too, but it seems that some people have interpreted your words about saying something different/extra and, in turn, that seems to have rubbed off in terms of what they are thinking I have said!

 

[morqthana]

OK - I give up.

Despite this:

two people talking:

A: "I'm going to do XYZ"
B: "You can't do that, it's against the law"
A: "That doesn't make any sense"
B: "Doesn't matter"

I would never think that what B was doing was taking a position in an argument about the "philosophy" of laws/rules/regulations having to make sense.

I would always think that what B was doing was pointing out to A that it didn't matter that he thought the law made no sense, he still couldn't do XYZ.

You are all determined to ignore what EFLImpudence is doing, what he's been doing from the start, and what he is continuing to do.

 

[JohnW2]

OK - I give up. .... Despite this: .... You are all determined to ignore what EFLImpudence is doing, what he's been doing from the start, and what he is continuing to do.

I can't speak for others, but I haven't been commenting on, or reacting to, "what EFLI is doing" - I have merely been making my own point, repeatedly as some people keep trying to criticise/challenge it.

 

[martygturner]

Rules on Max Length Of Meter Tails​

Regulations regarding the maximum length of meter tails can vary and are often specified by the Distribution Network Operators (DNOs) rather than following the standards outlined in BS7671. It’s essential to be aware of these DNO-specific requirements, as they may differ from one area to another. Here are some important points to consider:

1. Maximum Length of Meter Tails: Many DNOs stipulate that the maximum allowable length of meter tails should not exceed 3 metres without implementing another method of fault protection between the main service head and the consumer unit or distribution board. This requirement is in place to ensure that electricians don’t rely solely on the main service fuse (usually a BS1361 type 2) for fault protection.

 

[JohnW2]

Maximum Length of Meter Tails: Many DNOs stipulate that the maximum allowable length of meter tails should not exceed 3 metres without implementing another method of fault protection between the main service head and the consumer unit or distribution board. This requirement is in place to ensure that electricians don’t rely solely on the main service fuse (usually a BS1361 type 2) for fault protection.

Yes, we know that, but it doesn't answer the "Why?" question.

I'm not at all sure why DNOs would feel that their fuses were not reliable enough to provide protection of tails, let alone why they would think that the reliability of the protection would depend upon the length of the tails! None of that makes any real sense.

 

[ebee]

If the DNO makes a one size fits all rule for their installations (under their control by virtue of the fact they are agreeing to allow a continuing connection to them) and over that length that they can easily check if not hidden , then that is what they allow is the rule they have made and they will agree to,
It keeps it simple for them.
If they were to agree to another 10 or 20 or 30 metres in length and/ or a large amount being hidden from view it does not imply they deem them dangerous to any extent it just means that they do not want to get involved with inspecting them.

So, they set a simple rule and keep to it. Simple

 

[JohnW2]

If the DNO makes a one size fits all rule for their installations (under their control by virtue of the fact they are agreeing to allow a continuing connection to them) and over that length that they can easily check if not hidden , then that is what they allow is the rule they have made and they will agree to, .... It keeps it simple for them. .... If they were to agree to another 10 or 20 or 30 metres in length and/ or a large amount being hidden from view it does not imply they deem them dangerous to any extent it just means that they do not want to get involved with inspecting them.

Who knows?

However, that doesn't explain why the authors of BS 7671 have effectively 'bought into' that view. If they really believed that a device which gave adequate protection to 3m of cable did not necessarily give adequate protection to cables of longer length, they would presumably require OPDs to be installed at least every 3m along the length of every circuit - and, if they really believed that the protection of a cable was not necessarily adequate if "a large amount of the cable was hidden from view", then the only way I can think that they could address that would be by 'banning' cables which had "a large amount of their length hidden from view" ...

.... all of which would obviously be ridiculous.

So, they set a simple rule and keep to it. Simple

It's a great pity that we'll probably never know how this 'rule' came about, since none of the explanations (like yours) that are offered seem to make much more sense than the 'rule' itself!

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

I think that the infamous OSG trumps Eric for 'interesting' made-up regulations. Can anyone see any sense in (let alone regulatory basis for) ....

I believe at least some of that was in the 14th, as was other stuff they put in the OSG (or used to, if it's been taken out since), like CCUs being within 6 ft/ 2m of the appliances they control.

 

[JohnW2]

I believe at least some of that was in the 14th, as was other stuff they put in the OSG (or used to, if it's been taken out since), like CCUs being within 6 ft/ 2m of the appliances they control.

I can believe that. I'm sure that some of the old stuff will have disappeared over the years, but there are still a good few things in the current OSG which are 'interesting', if not plain extraordinary