Blanki g cooker isolation under sink to pass EICR

[ericmark]

I do see the Boo Kay spelt Bucket, but as to an EICR the code 4, does not comply with current edition, was removed, so if it passed when designed, it still should pass.

However, we years ago have knife switches with live parts you could touch, that is clearly not permitted any more even if designed that way, so much if left to the inspector to decide if safe or not, so no one can really say he is wrong, 230 volt is potential dangerous can't really say it's not.

I have seen nothing in your picture I would code and C1 or C2, but I have listened to arguments about items I would not have given a second thought to, like an outside socket without loss of PEN disconnection device, does not matter what that means, but it is something that until the EV charging came alone was not even considered.

To me to pay someone to inspect and test, and then ask others if he is correct, makes the whole process rather pointless.

 

[JohnW2]

I do see the Boo Kay spelt Bucket, but as to an EICR the code 4, does not comply with current edition, was removed, so if it passed when designed, it still should pass.

As you go on top describe, that is clearly not true - it has always been the case that something can result in a 'fail' EICR even if it were compliant when designed or installed, and the loss of the Code 4 does not alter that. As you go on to say ...

However, we years ago have knife switches with live parts you could touch, that is clearly not permitted any more even if designed that way, so much if left to the inspector to decide if safe or not ....

Not really in that case (or similar ones) - there are plenty of regs in BS7671 which outlaw touchable live parts, so no 'inspector judgement' is needed in such cases.

 

[ebee]

No Eric, if something passes when designed but not by today’s regs then it today’s regs it gets inspected and failed to.

 

[EFLImpudence]

...but things do not become "potentially dangerous" because a regulation changes when electricity is potentially dangerous.

 

[ericmark]

No Eric, if something passes when designed but not by today’s regs then it today’s regs it gets inspected and failed to.

That is clearly wrong, that's why we have an EICR rather than the old PIR, and it does not say anywhere does not comply, it says dangerous and potential dangerous.

Even the regulations say

The Regulations apply to the design, erection and verification of electrical installations, also additions and alterations to existing installations. 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.

the "not necessarily" can be read the other way, of course.

We have had some new regulations which clearly are retrospective, the one and two directions on RCD's for example. And the clarification like having two or more RCD/RCBO's etc.

The earth wire rules, pre-1966 "Lighting fittings using filament lamps" so even pre-1966 we needed an earth wire for fluorescent lamps. And the "suspended from such a point" so down lights have always needed an earth connection. So we look at G5.3 extra low voltage which have been converted to GU10 low voltage, using the existing two core cable, which we know have never complied as using LED chips not a filament, which we know golly well don't comply, but not really dangerous, so should we really give them a code C2? Or the lamps which is missing the earth terminal, as is class II, but hard-wired, so can't "be run to and terminated at each point in wiring" should we really fail them?

Come on, we need to use some common sense.

 

[morqthana]

This influence is thought to have even changed the common pronunciation of the word "data" in American English.

Can we now talk about the film "The Matrix"...?

 

[morqthana]

I don't think there is anything particularly 'intelligent' about things produced by Chat GBT (any more than there is with so many of the things now being called "AI") - since, on the whole, it is merely collecting and collating things from the internet that have been written by humans.

And increasingly other AI slop.

 

[ebee]

Eric, it is either satisfactory or unsatisfactory according to how it compares with the regs in force on the day it is tested. Whether or not it was considered compliant on the day it was designed and installed is not relevant.

 

[morqthana]

Thing is with any name it is up to the named person to decide how their own name be spelt and how it be pronounced too

e.g. Jeffrey Epstein and Colin Powell.

 

[JohnW2]

...but things do not become "potentially dangerous" because a regulation changes when electricity is potentially dangerous.

It's obviously the case that nothing, be it a change in regulations or anything else, can make something 'more dangerous' than it ever was.

However, 'our' attitude to risks/dangers has changed dramatically with time - and, in the context which eric raised, I doubt whether any of us would regard 'touchable live parts' as being acceptable today, even if there were a time when they were 'accepted'.

 

[ebee]

Think about bonding ( if any or what size ) for a start then RCDs and zones of protection and indeed the very first regs were perhaps written because it started to become apparent that electricity could be dangerous sometimes, working live was second nature not long ago etc etc.

Are somethings more dangerous now than they were previously? Probably not but we are more risk averse ? Probably we are

 

[JohnW2]

That is clearly wrong, that's why we have an EICR rather than the old PIR ...

In what way do you believe that the re-naming of these inspections/reports has materially changed things?

Even the regulations say the "not necessarily" can be read the other way, of course....

I would have thought that many/most people would read ".... does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use" to indicate a reasonable possibility/probability that it did mean that "they are unsafe for continued use", wouldn't they?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Are somethings more dangerous now than they were previously? Probably not but we are more risk averse ? Probably we are

...but the categories in the report do not mention averseness.

 

[JohnW2]

...but the categories in the report do not mention averseness.

They don't, but the concept is surely implicitly there, isn't it, given that, as often pointed out' anything to do with 230V electricity is 'potentially dangerous'?

... and, as I've said, there is no doubt that 'our' degree of risk-averseness has changed dramatically over the decades.