CPC as live conductor now OK?

[doitall]

It's a jump to now claim this was advised by a senior IET engineer.
Just how are sparks ripping people off on a daily basis?

Also in that quote was -
"Twin and earth cables should equally never have the CPC sleeved with any colour other than green and yellow."

which, of course, why doitall is now limiting the argument to 3 core flex (which could easily be replaced with four core) unlike the original question which related to replacing thermostats at points wired with T+E. (if my memory serves me correctly, I can't be bothered to look for it).[/quote]

The original thread said senior engineer and it's always been existing work and never new work, it's also only been flex and never twin and earth with a bare wires. You can not over-sleeve bare wires or single wires in a conduit it for example.

All the bodies I asked were in agreement on that, you can over-sleeve the green and yellow where a cpc isn't required.

I think some of you need to go back and read the original thread again, nothing has changed, other than the NICIEC confirming my understanding in their mag.

 

[doitall]

... but doitall seems reluctant to ask them that question.

Kind Regards, John

Why would I want too.

My question was related to a specific post, where the OP had over-sleeved the green and yellow in a programmer etc ( still had an cpc pressent and connected by the way) the sparks started on about dangerous-rip it out etc and a Mod started waving a big stick.


As a result I asked whether it was acceptable or should it be re-wired.

The answer was it's not outside of the regs and acceptable.

If you don't like what I'm saying ask your own questions, you can word it how you like then, and check the spelling.

 

[JohnW2]

... but doitall seems reluctant to ask them that question.

Why would I want too. My question was related to a specific post, where the OP had over-sleeved the green and yellow in a programmer etc ( still had an cpc pressent and connected by the way) the sparks started on about dangerous-rip it out etc and a Mod started waving a big stick.

In terms of that specific question, I agree that (if the programmer is getting a CPC from somewhere else) you don't need to ask the second question. However, you've widened the discussion beyond that specific situation. Only yesterday, you repeated your question:

"Question, I'm wiring a room stat in a custards house, is it acceptable to over-sleeve the green and yellow as the switch wire"

On the assumption that no other cables go to that room stat, if you want to know the IET's expert answer to that (given that you are reluctant to believe anyone here), then you would have to ask them the second question [they have already answered the first (about oversleeving a G/Y core), as have many people here, so you wouldn't need to ask that again].

Kind REgards, John

 

[DaftPunk]

... but doitall seems reluctant to ask them that question.

Kind Regards, John

Why would I want too.

My question was related to a specific post, where the OP had over-sleeved the green and yellow in a programmer etc ( still had an cpc pressent and connected by the way) the sparks started on about dangerous-rip it out etc and a Mod started waving a big stick.


As a result I asked whether it was acceptable or should it be re-wired.

The answer was it's not outside of the regs and acceptable.

If you don't like what I'm saying ask your own questions, you can word it how you like then, and check the spelling.

That was never the question at all. Yet again you have twisted the truth to try and make it fit your point.

The original question was about a roomstat wired in 3 core flex using the earth as the switched live thus leaving the stat without a CPC.

When it was pointed out to you that this was not acceptable you began you campaign to try and save face distorting the truth as it suits you to try and prove your self right.

 

[DaftPunk]

Here's that original post in full just for reference in the unlikely event anyone is fooled by your lies.

New Thermostat Honeywell (Homeexpert) THR870C

Old thermostat Drayton RTS-1

I have three wires poking out out my wall, appears Honeywell is a two wire unit.

Wires are blue, brown and yellow+green.

http://www.homexpertbyhoneywell.com/Documents/EN Manuals/THR870CUK-EN-d05.pdf

I have the Brown going into A, the yellow+green into C and the blue taped off. The thermostat is calling for heat but the boiler is not responding.

Any helpers out there? Thanks.

 

[JohnW2]

... but doitall seems reluctant to ask them that question.

Why would I want too. My question was related to a specific post, where the OP had over-sleeved the green and yellow in a programmer etc ( still had an cpc pressent and connected by the way) ...

That was never the question at all. Yet again you have twisted the truth to try and make it fit your point.
The original question was about a roomstat wired in 3 core flex using the earth as the switched live thus leaving the stat without a CPC.
When it was pointed out to you that this was not acceptable you began you campaign to try and save face distorting the truth as it suits you to try and prove your self right.

Indeed, and to further confirm what it was (a room stat) that caused him to pose his question to the IET, and the fact that even back in early January he was evading asking them the whole question:

Ok I fired of an email to theiet.org technical dept. May take a week.
Johnw2. The question came about for an existing room stat that was being changed, .....

I sent the same letter to everyone, requesting information about over sleeving the insulated green and yellow when used for heating controls.

OK - but as EFLI and myself keep telling you, that's only half of the issue - the other thing about which you should be seeking opinions is having a cable without a CPC. If they do not regard that as acceptable (per 412.2.3.2 of regs), the the question about colours/sleeving of the insulation becomes irrelevant.

No John, it's the only issue. Can the green and yellow be over-sleeved or not ?

As you say, we appear to be dealing with an accomplished case of 'squirming'. Maybe one of us should ask the IET the question for him?

Kind Regards, John

 

[mfarrow]

As I've previously mentioned, the compliance of running a CPC to every accessory is IMHO a decision for the electrician to risk assess whether "replacement by the user" is likely to happen, and therefore whether he can depart, or decide he is within the spirit of, the regulation.

An example I have in my house is a Class II loft light run in 2-core 0.75mm² cable from a JB clipped to the joists, installed by the previous owner. That particular arrangement is appropriately sized for the load and uses Double or Reinforced Insulation as its protective measure, just like a dozen or so appliances I have around the home. So it's not something I'm going to lose sleep over.

Whether you can decide that a Class II appliance and lead is comparable to a fixed installation is up to you, however I suggest considering that there is always a risk that the lead to a Class I appliance or fixed equipment will be extended using 2c cable. Does this mean all appliances sold, and fixed installations, should be Class II? And is this risk any greater than that of someone replacing the appliance or equipment at the end of that cable with a Class I unit?

 

[doitall]

In terms of that specific question, I agree that (if the programmer is getting a CPC from somewhere else) you don't need to ask the second question. However, you've widened the discussion beyond that specific situation. Only yesterday, you repeated your question:

Why would that be ok then. According to the so called sparks on here it's still a cable and a sparky could still snip it and spur off for a kettle.

Either every cable has to have a cpc or not.

I think you lot are making it up as you go.

As for asking your own question, "When can you over-sleeve a green and yellow" for example. I suggested that about a 100 pages ago.

Good to see all the nuts crawling out the woodwork slowly. Can't answer the question, as they prefer to rip the custard off and make a £50 quid job £500.

Never mind boys I have better things to do so carry on generating work at the custards expense.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As you say, we appear to be dealing with an accomplished case of 'squirming'. Maybe one of us should ask the IET the question for him?

What would be the point?

He's already made up what passes for his mind.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The point I'm trying to make is what can you legally 'get away with'. In fact, if it's allowed, is it actually 'getting away with it'? If it's allowed, it's allowed, isn't it?

Yes, 'allowed is allowed', but we all know that 'acting under orders' is a very dicy way to try justify acts which are contrary to one's conscience (professional or otherwise). This is where professionalism comes (or should come) into the equation. A professional obviously cannot undertake work to a lower standard than the relevant regulations require, but if (s)he is not comfortable that something which just satifies the regulations is satisfactory, or adequately safe, then they should work to a (self-imposed) higher standard than that of the regulations. ... and that applies in almost any walk of life, not just to electricians. Professionals are responsible for their own actions and cannot (should not) try to hide behind regulations which allow things they are not happy to do.

Because there is always 134.1.1 lurking.

IMO it is not acceptable to oversleeve G/Y in a multicore cable to use it as a live conductor, even if it is supplying a Class II item, or another cable takes a cpc to a Class I item.

Were I being paid to do an EICR, that would become my professional opinion, and I would code it accordingly.

 

[JohnW2]

The point I'm trying to make is what can you legally 'get away with'. In fact, if it's allowed, is it actually 'getting away with it'? If it's allowed, it's allowed, isn't it?

Yes, 'allowed is allowed', but we all know that 'acting under orders' is a very dicy way to try justify acts which are contrary to one's conscience (professional or otherwise). This is where professionalism comes (or should come) into the equation. A professional obviously cannot undertake work to a lower standard than the relevant regulations require, but if (s)he is not comfortable that something which just satifies the regulations is satisfactory, or adequately safe, then they should work to a (self-imposed) higher standard than that of the regulations. ... and that applies in almost any walk of life, not just to electricians. Professionals are responsible for their own actions and cannot (should not) try to hide behind regulations which allow things they are not happy to do.

Because there is always 134.1.1 lurking.

Indeed - but all you're really doing is quoting a reg number to describe the 'professionalism' which I talked about in prose, 134.1.1 is so vague as to effectively reduce to 'professional judgement'. As I said, if an electrician is not happy with something which does technically comply with the various 'explicit' regulations in BS7671, then (s)he should work to his/her personal 'higher standard'. You are calling that 134.1.1

IMO it is not acceptable to oversleeve G/Y in a multicore cable to use it as a live conductor, even if it is supplying a Class II item, or another cable takes a cpc to a Class I item.

IMO, too - so if I were a professional electrician, I would work to that personal 'higher standard' and would not be prepared to work to anything below that standard, even if it did technically comply with the rest of the regs. Call that "complying with 134.1.1" if you wish.

Were I being paid to do an EICR, that would become my professional opinion, and I would code it accordingly.

As a matter of interest, what code would you give it? This is probably the most contentious part of the issue. Exercising one's professional opinion/judgement in relation to the (installation etc.) work one does is totally appropriate. However, it gets more difficult when one is judging other people's work - and some customers may be unhappy with the fact that different electricians will give different opinions (hence codings) of something which is technically compliant with all aspects of BS7671 other than the highly subjective 134.1.1.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

As you say, we appear to be dealing with an accomplished case of 'squirming'. Maybe one of us should ask the IET the question for him?

What would be the point? He's already made up what passes for his mind.

His argument seems to be based on the fact that e-mails from the IET represent the Word of God - so even he might have to change his position if such an e-mail said something he didn't want to hear. Either that, or yet another squirm.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Why would that be ok then. According to the so called sparks on here it's still a cable and a sparky could still snip it and spur off for a kettle. Either every cable has to have a cpc or not.

I think it's probably fair to say that many of us here believe that the regs should require every cable to have a CPC (not the least to reduce risks if a cable is penetrated by a nail, screw or whatever). However, they don't. Provided whatever is at the end of the cable receives a CPC from somewhere, there is no compulsion (in terms of explicit regulations) for every cable to have a CPC.

As BAS has poined out, whether the absence of a CPC is regarded as 'good workmanship' (hence compliant with 134.1.1 of BS7671) is a different matter. At least some people clearly feel that it's not compliant.

Whatever, this issue becomes moot if (as you were) one is talking about something like a room stat which is supplied with only one cable - in which case even the explicit requirements of the regs effectively require a CPC in that one cable.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

As I've previously mentioned, the compliance of running a CPC to every accessory is IMHO a decision for the electrician to risk assess whether "replacement by the user" is likely to happen, and therefore whether he can depart, or decide he is within the spirit of, the regulation.

I don't really understand that view. There is an explicit regulation which requires a CPC to be run to every accessory. There is even one explicit exception (insulated pendant lamholder) mentioned in the reg. What makes you feel that there is room for exercising any discretion in deciding whether or not to comply with this regulation for accessories other than insulated pendant lampholders?

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

I think it's probably fair to say that many of us here believe that the regs should require every cable to have a CPC (not the least to reduce risks if a cable is penetrated by a nail, screw or whatever). However, they don't. Provided whatever is at the end of the cable receives a CPC from somewhere, there is no compulsion (in terms of explicit regulations) for every cable to have a CPC.

Hence one ESC-recommended solution to remedy a lighting circuit sans cpc is to run a cpc to every point.