Are AFDD's worth it for domestic properties getting rewired?

[JohnW2]

You clearly have no idea of the minor changes they implement to justify the new editions

It obviously depends upon what one regards as a minor' change, but I think it unusual for a new edition to contain only 'very minor changes' - and if they are going to produce a new edition to carry what they regard as 'more important changes', they might as well include the minor changes (a good few of which are corrections or clarifications) they have been accumulating.

I am personally far more concerned about some of the 'major' changes (e.g. relating to things like SPDs, AFDDs 'non-combustible CUs - and goodness knows what new-fangled things next)

 

[ebee]

You clearly have no idea of the minor changes they implement to justify the new editions

What on Earth makes you think clearly that I have no idea?

I have quite a few regs books, on site guides etc etc etc and C & G 238x and 239X etc etc particularly as the 16th Edition came in but also from the 14th too and a wealth of experience and was registered on competent person schemes from Jan 1st 2005 to 2017 .

So I might have slightly more than "No Idea" ? I have read them, cover to cover too.

 

[Murdochcat]

If it was down to me it would be 5 years minimum between changes

AND i would get the plain English society to review the current version and advise on the best way to make it open to less interpretation

 

[ericmark]

AND i would get the plain English society to review the current version and advise on the best way to make it open to less interpretation

The Welsh government has to do dual language. And clearly can't refer to a publication only published in English, if they do the law is null and void, which is likely why Part P in Wales has not been up-graded as it would need to refer to a document which is available in Welsh.

The IET/BSi have enough problems ensuring no ambiguity in English, never mind also in Welsh.

But in the main it is the readers who what to try and twist what has been said.

"Every installation shall be divided into circuits, as necessary, to reduce the possibility of unwanted tripping of RCDs due to excessive protective conductor currents produced by equipment in normal operation." How can that be read as it is OK to have only two RCDs protecting the whole house, to have to change the regulations to let people know, an RCD forms a circuit, come on, it should not have been required.

Circuit. An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected against overcurrent by the same protective device(s). It should not need to say, overcurrent includes too much current leaking to earth.

The same goes for green/yellow cables, it should not be needed to tell people what a full spot means. People have tried their best to miss read the regulations, remember there was no BS 7671 before 1992, so anything only allowed before that date, does not count. "Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading." does not include anything before 1992.

The 1966 changes on lighting are often quoted, including by me, but the edition before also had strict rules to avoid not having an earth, and most installations pre-1966 don't comply with the 13th Edition. But most of us don't have copies of that, so we assume it was OK back then.

 

[ericmark]

I watched this video, and after watching, AFDD only where forced to use them.