Do i need earth?

Sponsored Links
That diagram takes the "transformer debate" to a whole new level, since we see the standard 'symbol' for a wire-wound transformer being used for something which is converting AC to DC (as well as changing voltage)!!
You may very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.
 
The jbs are messy the sheaths not in them, and theres no cable restraint to most of the cables.
I would have kept the mains seperate to the 12 volt rather than what looks like in the same j/b.
The earth tape could be misleading too.
 
Sponsored Links
BS7671 states that a CPC must be run to every point and connection in fixed wiring [regardless of whether it's actually used] so your electrician is quite correct.
 
BS7671 states that a CPC must be run to every point and connection in fixed wiring [regardless of whether it's actually used] so your electrician is quite correct.
Indeed - and (at risk of being criticised for saying so!), I think I made that point at the very start of the thread (and so, sort-of, did bernard, although he was talking more electricity than regs).

Kind Regards, John
 
Indeed - and (at risk of being criticised for saying so!), I think I made that point at the very start of the thread (and so, sort-of, did bernard, although he was talking more electricity than regs).

Kind Regards, John
Then stop. It's not a race, it's an agreement. Who cares who read the thread first and replied? If three, four, five people give the same answer, great. Your initial answer has been confirmed. You shouldn't feel the need to state to everyone "I said it first". Who cares? It just proves you're always here, first to reply, not that you're somehow superior to those that AGREE WITH YOU minutes, hours, weeks after your post.

FFS.
 
You shouldn't feel the need to state to everyone "I said it first". Who cares? It just proves you're always here, first to reply, not that you're somehow superior to those that AGREE WITH YOU minutes, hours, weeks after your post.
It's nothing to do with trying to assert any 'superiority', something I neither have nor would ever claim to have. I was really just trying to flag up to the OP that that you, an electrician, were agreeing with what I, a non-electrician, had written earlier - lest he thought that he was being told two slightly different things, by people of different 'status'.

More generally, I think it's probably of benefit to OPs if someone posting an agreement with something which has already been written should say so - otherwise, as above, unless they use identical wording as the original poster, an OP might think or fear that something different was being said.

Kind Regards, John
 
Thankyou all for your comments, i appreciate it's a bit of a mess, not my best efforts i have to admit. However ive taken your comments onboard and rewired correctly to ensure all earth connections are connected correctly.

Many thanks.
 
Thankyou all for your comments, i appreciate it's a bit of a mess, not my best efforts i have to admit. However ive taken your comments onboard and rewired correctly to ensure all earth connections are connected correctly.

Many thanks.

Good reply.
Its constructive critiscism that will help you improve your teqniques.
Please Dont take it personally:)
 
In that case there are presumably some 'security settings' I could change, to make my Chrome behave the same as yours.
I don't think there will be.
Google are "on a mission" to improve security on the internet - and are using Chrome to push it. They've been leading the way by dropping old (insecure) SSL protocols, and are now starting to attack non-SSL sites. They are starting to flag non-SSL sites as insecure, and at some point will upgrade that to actively flag non-SSl sites with a red flag in the title bar.
The slightly annoying thing is that may people, Google included, are suggesting that all sites can be SSL enabled - and now with free certificates like those available from Lets Encrypt, at zero cost. That's conveniently forgetting that may hosting providers simply don't support SSL for web sites :rolleyes:
 
I don't think there will be. Google are "on a mission" to improve security on the internet - and are using Chrome to push it. They've been leading the way by dropping old (insecure) SSL protocols, and are now starting to attack non-SSL sites. They are starting to flag non-SSL sites as insecure, and at some point will upgrade that to actively flag non-SSl sites with a red flag in the title bar.
Yes, but it's not changeable by my local settings, why is my Chrome behaving differently from, say, EFLI's?

Kind Regards, John
 
I don't think there will be.
Google are "on a mission" to improve security on the internet - and are using Chrome to push it. They've been leading the way by dropping old (insecure) SSL protocols, and are now starting to attack non-SSL sites. They are starting to flag non-SSL sites as insecure, and at some point will upgrade that to actively flag non-SSl sites with a red flag in the title bar.
The slightly annoying thing is that may people, Google included, are suggesting that all sites can be SSL enabled - and now with free certificates like those available from Lets Encrypt, at zero cost. That's conveniently forgetting that may hosting providers simply don't support SSL for web sites :rolleyes:
That's their way of gently encouraging housing providers to support it! Otherwise they won't have many customers.
SSL everywhere is a good thing when it works!
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top