Designing with Ease-of-Maintenance in mind?

[JohnW2]

I merely asked why it was that everyone seems to regard bridges as 'a problem'

I would say because it makes testing difficult.

The 'everyone' I was talking about wasn't primarily those who do the work, for whom it obvioulsy is 'a problem' (well, inconvenience, provided they are competent). I was thinking more about the 'books' - many of which say or imply that a bridge is a 'serious problem', some of them citing the 'broken ring' scenario as being the reason a bridge is dangerous (even though you and I agree that it is no more dangerous than a break in a ring which doesn't have bridges). I strongly suspect that a substantial proportion of electricians believe that there is some significant, perhaps major, engineering problem with the presence of a bridge.

... and no-one has yet answered my question as to how (if at all) electricians would 'code' a bridge which they detected, and what parts of BS7671 they would cite in support of that coding.

There is a reason for that, as you well know. Obviously, if coded at all, it would have to be the new C3.
However, if after asking on here for the appropriate regulation and ten pages later no regulation has been found then we would deduce that it did not need coding (or was not able to be coded).

Quite - and I really don't think anyone should code it unless, if challenged, they could cite a regulation to support the coding.

[Or, if after such a problematic test procedure, would the electrician not just remove the bridge?

That's an interesting one. I think you and I are agreed that differences between ring finals with and without bridges are in the direction of the ones with bridges being marginally 'safer'. Could an electrician justify making the installation arguably a little bit less safe in order to make life for the next electrician a little easier? As I said above, convenience should not really take priority over safety.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Paul_C]

Quite - and I really don't think anyone should code it unless, if challenged, they could cite a regulation to support the coding.

I agree entirely. Unfortunately, one does not have to search for too long just within this forum to find plenty of examples of things which have been coded as non-compliant with BS7671 when in fact they are. The PIR is pretty much worthless to the average person, because there is almost no consistency between reports from two different "qualified electricians." (And despite all the self-congratulatory fanfare in the latest IET Wiring Matters about how the new EICR is going to change that, I don't believe it will.)

 

[EFLImpudence]

Athough this should really be in the original thread ....

Yes, sorry - getting the threads muddled up.

 

[JohnW2]

Athough this should really be in the original thread ....

Yes, sorry - getting the threads muddled up.

Me, too! ... but we know who we have to blame for there being two threads

Kind Regards, John.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I shall reply in the correct thread.