Concealed cables

[JohnW2]

Mind you, it might create new questions - e.g. relating to the previously 'unused bit of buried cable' that subsequently becomes part of a circuit 'supplied with a voltage'!

Do you mean unintentionally?

No, intentionally.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I feel I must be missing a salient point but -

why would it not be treated the same as any other?

 

[JohnW2]

I feel I must be missing a salient point but - why would it not be treated the same as any other?

There wasn't really a 'salient point' - I just observed that the reg you quoted (which puts 'dead' bits of buried cable out side of the scope of BS761) 'might raise more questions - but I hadn't (and still haven't) really thought that through. Maybe it doesn't raise any questions!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

If it were thought that dead cables were covered by BS7671 and not exempted from 522.6.100 then the only logical but ridiculous conclusion would be that dead cables are not allowed and that they must be energised so that an RCD could operate or that protection by one of the other methods should be employed which would be even more ridiculous.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

110.1.2(i)

Is not mutually exclusive with anything.

 

[EFLImpudence]

But -

110.1.2 states "The Regulations include requirements for:" 110.1.2(i) et al.

Do they include requirements for circuits not supplied etc.?

 

[JohnW2]

But - 110.1.2 states "The Regulations include requirements for:" 110.1.2(i) et al. Do they include requirements for circuits not supplied etc.?

Quite, and that's why I asked you if you interpretative that as excluding dead cables from the scope of BS7671. You answered 'Yes', but now you're asking essentially the same question yourself

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

If it were thought that dead cables were covered by BS7671 and not exempted from 522.6.100 then the only logical but ridiculous conclusion would be that dead cables are not allowed and that they must be energised so that an RCD could operate or that protection by one of the other methods should be employed which would be even more ridiculous.

Yes, totally ridiculous - which presumably was what in BAS's mind when he started this thread.

[I'm not so sure about the RCD bit ... you're surely not suggesting that the regs forbid de-energisation of any circuit which involve buried cables, are you ? ... what about immersion and storage heater circuits which are time-switched, for example?!!]

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But -

110.1.2 states "The Regulations include requirements for:" 110.1.2(i) et al.

Do they include requirements for circuits not supplied etc.?

"XXXX includes YYYY" does not mean the same as "XXXX only includes YYYY".

 

[EFLImpudence]

But - 110.1.2 states "The Regulations include requirements for:" 110.1.2(i) et al. Do they include requirements for circuits not supplied etc.?

Quite, and that's why I asked you if you interpretative that as excluding dead cables from the scope of BS7671. You answered 'Yes', but now you're asking essentially the same question yourself

I am only asking that to elicit a 'no' from you.

 

[EFLImpudence]

"XXXX includes YYYY" does not mean the same as "XXXX only includes YYYY".

True but they do not include "ZZZZ".

"ZZZZ" being regulations covering dead cables.

 

[JohnW2]

But - 110.1.2 states "The Regulations include requirements for:" 110.1.2(i) et al. Do they include requirements for circuits not supplied etc.?

Quite, and that's why I asked you if you interpretative that as excluding dead cables from the scope of BS7671. You answered 'Yes', but now you're asking essentially the same question yourself

I am only asking that to elicit a 'no' from you.

I asked because I wasn't sure - and still am not (see the reply I'm about to write to BAS, along the lines of what you wrote to him).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

"XXXX includes YYYY" does not mean the same as "XXXX only includes YYYY".

That is true. The statement does not exclude the possibility that the book contains regulations about dead cables. However, given that there are not any regulations which explicitly relate to dead cables, I don't think the situation is as clear-cut as you are suggesting. I'm not sure that one can necessarily take the statement to imply that every reg about cables automatically applies to dead cables, just because it doesn't explicitly say that it doesn't.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Isn't the word 'include' slightly misleading in this instant when we are only referring to one of the list.

There are five more.
Are the six items the whole?

If my shopping list includes 'A','B','C','D','E' & 'F' then that is all there is.
It could not be said that because my list includes 'A' it may contain 'Z' when it does not especially if the shop does not sell 'Z'.

 

[JohnW2]

Isn't the word 'include' slightly misleading in this instant when we are only referring to one of the list.

It's certainly the word which is resulting in the uncertainties.

If my shopping list includes 'A','B','C','D','E' & 'F' then that is all there is.

I don't think so. If I told you that my shopping list for Tescos this morning 'includes' certain items, the list I gave you might just consist of the larger items, or those of specific interest to you, and not mention more minor items, or items that I knew would not interest you.

In one sense, this discussion is totally silly, since it is quite obvious that there is no intention that regulations about concealed cables should apply to, say, a bit of unused crumbling VIR which has been sitting, unused, in a wall for decades. In any event, as I said to BAS, the regs are not retrospective - so, even if it were a live, used, cable, current regs would not have to be complied with.

Where there might conceivably be something to discuss is in the (pretty unusual) situation in which one installs (today) a bit of concealed cable which is currently connected to nothing, with the thought that it might be used at some point in the future.

Kind Regards, John