Code 2 or 3

[ban-all-sheds]

Mmmm.

So - that which was 'safe' when installed (within reason) is 'potentially dangerous' now.

Are you talking about ancient things or one or two editions ago?

Things change.

That's the way it works.

Get over it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes, and we know that in the past you've indicated that your view is that that applies to pretty much every change, i.e. that as soon as a new version of B7671 appears anything to the previous version is now to be considered "not safe enough."

That

is

the

way

it

works.


That

is

what

it

means

when

safety

oriented

provisions

change.


GET OVER IT.

 

[PBC_1966]

If your belief were true, why would there be a C3 code, and why did there used to be a code 4?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Mmmm.
So - that which was 'safe' when installed (within reason) is 'potentially dangerous' now.
Are you talking about ancient things or one or two editions ago?

Things change.
That's the way it works.
Get over it.

I am not arguing that they should not change but was asking for examples (I've accepted bonding) of things where regulations have changed (relatively recently) and are indeed retrospective.

 

[EFLImpudence]

To bond every cross bar will be an absolute nightmare!!

Not bonding.

Risteard did correctly call it earthing.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If your belief were true,

The belief that things change?

It's hardly an act of pure faith with no evidence to support it, is it.

why would there be a C3 code, and why did there used to be a code 4?

These are the codes as are and as were:

Which ones can't you understand? Maybe I could try to explain them to you?

 

[PBC_1966]

If your belief were true,

The belief that things change?

No, your apparent belief that every time BS7671 changes any installation which no longer complies with the new version in every detail becomes unsafe (except for the one or two specific things for which you make an exception, for some reason).

These are the codes as are and as were:
Which ones can't you understand? Maybe I could try to explain them to you?

Perhaps you need them explaining to you in the context of your assertion that every time BS7671 changes a previous installation which doesn't comply becomes potentially dangerous.

In the new system there are two codes, C1 & C2 which indicate some sort of danger, and one, C3, which is just a recommendation of improvement for something which doesn't comply with the current regulations. If, as you claim, such non-compliance makes the installation unsafe, then how could use of C3 be justified? Any non-compliance would have to be C2 minimum in order to indicate potential danger. So if the writers of BS7671 really intended your view to be the one taken, why did they provide for a C3 code?

Under the old PIR scheme it's even more blatantly obvious that this is not what they intended, since code 4 was there to indicate some non-compliance, but "This does not imply that the electrical installation inspected is unsafe."

How much clearer could that be?

Besides, if you believe that every change to the Wiring Regs./BS7671 over the years has been because the committee felt that something in the current edition was not "safe enough" any more, how do you account for rules which have been relaxed over time? (Removal of the requirement for supplementary bonding if RCD present - but not a prohibition on providing it anyway, relaxation of requirements for voltage warning labels, relaxation of number of sockets/area served by radial circuits, increase in permitted current ratings of cables, etc.)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Perhaps you need them explaining to you in the context of your assertion that every time BS7671 changes a previous installation which doesn't comply becomes potentially dangerous.

Before I go any further with you on this, will you please show where I have made that assertion?

 

[Spark123]

To bond every cross bar will be an absolute nightmare!!

LOL. No just connected to the grid once in each room. You don't have to do each of them.

The suspended ceilings I have seen will not be effectively earthed with only 1 connection, that connection will only earth one lengthways run, the runs either side will be isolated owing to the plastic clips on the cross bars.

 

[Iggifer]

The suspended ceilings I have seen will not be effectively earthed with only 1 connection, that connection will only earth one lengthways run, the runs either side will be isolated owing to the plastic clips on the cross bars.

I haven't seen any suspended ceilings with plastic clips on them....All i've ever seen is this design, being all metal (bar the tiles of course - unless they're burgess and then the grid's different anyway)

 

[Spark123]

Watch out for these:

Image

• Spark123
• 15 May 2016

 

[ban-all-sheds]

How can I slice thee? Let me count the ways.