- 31 Mar 2006
- Reaction score
Would you give a wired fuse in the neutral conductor or a water pipe used as the main earth a code bearing in mind that it was satisfactorily installed at the time?
Exactly. Not a difficult concept to understand but it is inevitably an individual judgment as to whether something is sufficiently 'more dangerous' than something else to warrant a higher code..Oh ok because lack of RCDs presents a greater risk than lack of SPD so it gets a higher code.... More dangerous = higher code. I don’t see what’s difficult to understand about that.
Either would obviously deserve 'a code' (i.e. at least a C3), presumably in everyone's mind.Would you give a wired fuse in the neutral conductor or a water pipe used as the main earth a code bearing in mind that it was satisfactorily installed at the time?
It has occurred to me to wonder whether eric's argument could perhaps be turned on it's head ....However, his [eric's] argument then seems to be on the basis that "if it were not potentially dangerous in 1992, then it is not potentially dangerous today" ....
Indeed. However, as we always say (and most accept/acknowledge) some past (but no longer accepted) practices (particularly if one goes back far enough in time) have always been "dangerous" (and not necessarily only 'potentially' so - as we were recently reminded by a reference to 'knife switches'!) - but what was different in the past was EITHER that the danger was not recognised (seemingly unlikely in many cases) OR that the danger/risk was considered to be 'acceptable' back then (but not now).I was thinking similar - in that if people think the lack of RCDs (or anything else) today renders the installation "potentially dangerous", then before these new devices or rules the compliant installation must have always been "potentially dangerous".
BS7671 has never allowed that, before 1992 it was not BS7671.Would you give a wired fuse in the neutral conductor or a water pipe used as the main earth a code bearing in mind that it was satisfactorily installed at the time?
I've never understood why you think that the date when the Wiring Regulations also became BS7671 (it now bears both names) makes any difference to anything. Your '1992' threshold is essentially just an arbitrary date. ...BS7671 has never allowed that, before 1992 it was not BS7671.
the code C2 means potential dangerous and is not linked to BS7671.
An EICR is still "linked to BS7671", in the sense that EICR inspections are undertaken with reference to the current edition of BS7671 and I doubt that anyone would consdier giving any code (C1, C2 or C3) to something which was compliant/conformant with the requirements of the current edition of BS7671, would they?@scousespark... so code 4 was dropped, and we now have only 3 codes C1, C2, and C3, and although we are guided by BS 7671 it is no longer linked to BS 7671, that ended when code 4 was dropped.
That's where I think that you, in some cases, 'out on a limb'. For a start, as I have said, there's nothing magic about the date on which The IEE/IET Wiring Regulations came to be 'subtitled' BS7671, with BSI as co-authors - so I think your argument would logically apply to any edition of the Wiring Regs, even if many decades old - which would, in some cases, be pretty ridiculous.However other than the three exceptions, if the installation has not degraded, and it complied with BS7671 at the time of the design then it still does comply with BS7671, until the design is altered. So can issue Code C3 but not Code C2.
@scousespark there were 4 codes, not counting the LIM, FI, etc, and code 4 was does not comply with current edition of BS7671 for a new installation.
It was claimed this was confusing, as we were coding items which did not require upgrade, so code 4 was dropped, and we now have only 3 codes C1, C2, and C3, and although we are guided by BS 7671 it is no longer linked to BS 7671, that ended when code 4 was dropped.
Note "for a new installation" as every edition of BS 7671 gives the date when it comes into force for new designs, note not even the installation completion date, it is the design date, so if designed in 1992 then it follows BS7671:1992, simple.
To clarify, I was referring to 411.3.3 when I said I would code as C2.I do not see how the lack of what is classed additional protection renders something potentially dangerous, notwithstanding the fact that electricity itself is potentially dangerous.
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