I'm becoming increasing frustrated by the amount of guesswork in this discussion. If anyone believes that BS7671 does not permit the use of 'insulating tape' which conforms with BS EN 60454-2:2007 for at least some purposes (within the scope of BS7671), then I think it is incumbent upon them to provide the supporting 'evidence and proof'.
Electrical Insulating tape
- Thread starter Licklieder
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
If you think that then you should realise that what I wrote actually highlights the silliness of what you wrote.
To counter the point that a regulation does not suggest that a particular material used in a particular way is an insulator by saying it doesn't say it's not is silly. As you know full well regulations don't work on the basis of listing everything something is not as a way to define by elimination what it is.
I think that basing anything on 416.1 could be difficult.
Is it not another example of a regulation that is simply not relevant?
Its instruction is clear enough but it is obvious that it is not met in many things.
Is it not another example of a regulation that is simply not relevant?
Its instruction is clear enough but it is obvious that it is not met in many things.
And it seems you are in a minority in suggesting that it can't be used within the scope of BS7671. So far you've provided no evidence at all, other than referring to a section that I suspect very few actually use. So, you claimed it, you back it up - that's what you normally demand of others.
As he has been asked to do several times. I think, if he remains true to form, we can expect some attempts to change the subject or scope now.
Sponsored Links
That's the heart of the matter, isn't it. What general case(s) is/are there where it would be appropriate?
BS 7671 has a number of regulations which impose requirements for insulation. In how many of those does pressure-sensitive tape meet those requirements?
I'm not sure what you mean by "rely on", but when a regulation says "shall be" or "shall have" then there's no element of choice - if it applies then it must be complied with.
417.3.1 says thatIt's as relevant to arguing that insulating tape cannot be used as insulation as quoting 417.3.1 in isolation and arguing that separate items of equipment cannot be within arms length of each other
Simultaneously accessible parts at different potentials shall not be within arm’s reach.
A bare live part other than an overhead line shall not be within arm’s reach or within 2.5 m of the following:
A bare live part other than an overhead line shall not be within arm’s reach or within 2.5 m of the following:
(i) An exposed-conductive-part
(ii) An extraneous-conductive-part
(iii) A bare live part of any other circuit.
NOTE: Two parts are deemed to be simultaneously accessible if they are not more than 2.50 m apart (see Figure 417).(ii) An extraneous-conductive-part
(iii) A bare live part of any other circuit.
Seems pretty clear to me, and I'm not sure what difference being not in "isolation" would make, or how if it did apply to separate items of equipment (i.e. ones with bare live parts) then there wouldn't be a requirement to have them not within arm's reach.
What also seems pretty clear to me is that this discussion is becoming another one characterised by people not wanting the regulations to prohibit something which they have always done, and therefore refusing to accept what they say.
Indeed.
However, it's worth mentioning that the "Note" to 416.1 says that "paint varnish lacquer or similar products are generally not considered to provide adequate insulation...". Had it been their view that 'insulating tape' also was "generally not considered to provide adequate insulation", then they could easily have included in that list, but (although I accept that this does not prove anything) they didn't. Before anyone suggests it, I don't think that 'insulating tape' can reasonably be thought of as being "similar to" paint, varnish or lacquer!
Kind Regards, John
I tell you what - I'll show that changing the subject or scope is absolutely not what I am doing by repeating the question which I have already asked more than once.
To all those advocating the use of "insulating tape", to what are you applying it, and why?
(Matty gave an example, and in that one it's clear that sticky tape does not comply.)
And then I'll point out that it is in fact you who is engaged in an exercise of trying to diffuse and shift the subject by introducing placing out of reach.
A few have been suggested.
Quite a few I would expect. Note that "insulating tape" would meet the definition in section 2 for "insulation" or "basic insulation" - so it's really down to things like not being removable without a tool if it is NOT enclosed in an enclosure which requires a tool to open it.
Easy, you quoted 412.something and said (paraphrasing) "see, that reg prohibits using tape" (by virtue of the tape not meeting a requirement in that reg) and extended that to "BS7671 prohibits using tape".
So you relied on quoting that reg for your argument.
The other way, is when it comes to section 4, how many rely on double or reinforced insulation for protection ? Very few I suspect, most using 411 "automatic disconnection of supply" as a means of protection. Hence few "rely on" the use of 412 for compliance with BS7671, using 411 for compliance. 412 is only applicable where double or reinforced insulation is used for protection.
That "wooshing' sound was the point going right over your head. Someone could look in the book, read 417 and say, "look, this reg requires bits of equipment to be spaced apart. See, all those things you've put close together don't comply with BS7671. They'd be wrong, just as wrong as you were in quoting 412.whatever in isolation (ie out of context, and without referring to the complete section) and claiming that it means the whole of BS7671 prohibits the use of tape.
No, it's characterised by someone making a claim that so far they have failed to substantiate, and the rest of us being satisfied that the rags do in fact say what they say and we're happy with that.
Ah - I see you've joined the Matty camp, by expecting regulations to work on the basis of identifying what is compliant by listing every thing known to man which is not, thus leaving only that which is.
No, we are happy that "insulating tape" does meet the definition in Section 2 for insulation. We know that it has insulating properties. BS7671 has requirements in several places for insulation without specifying how that is achieved - which makes sense. There is one place where it has highlighted some examples of insulation (eg paint/varnish) which aren't appropriate IN THAT SITUATION, and others where it specifies further requirements (eg not removable without use of a tool) IN THOSE SITUATIONS.
So, we have <something> which meets the definition in Section 2. We know that used correctly it is in fact an insulator. Yet YOU persist in arguing that it is prohibited.
So, yet again, give any reference in BS7671 that generally prohibits it - other than (eg the use of a tool requirement) already mentioned for specific subsets of installations. Note that BS7671 also doesn't say you can use sleeving as insulation, or heat-shrink sleeving, or paper, or Nylon. or PTFE, or XLPE, or ... - it just gives a general definition of insulator that all of those meet in the right circumstances.
So, we have <something> which meets the definition in Section 2. We know that used correctly it is in fact an insulator. Yet YOU persist in arguing that it is prohibited.
So, yet again, give any reference in BS7671 that generally prohibits it - other than (eg the use of a tool requirement) already mentioned for specific subsets of installations. Note that BS7671 also doesn't say you can use sleeving as insulation, or heat-shrink sleeving, or paper, or Nylon. or PTFE, or XLPE, or ... - it just gives a general definition of insulator that all of those meet in the right circumstances.
I see.
If someone is not "relying on" 412 then they are not "relying" on tape to be insulation, therefore it is not being used as insulation.
Would they?
Would they really be wrong if those "bits of equipment" had accessible parts at different potentials?
You're still trying the old "double negative" fallacy.
It is not a case that the regulations explicitly prohibit the use of tape - the situation is that they impose requirements for insulation which tape does not meet. There's a practically infinite list of things which also don't meet the requirements, and as I keep pointing out, regulations do not work on the basis of listing everything which does not comply with something as a way of identifying what does.
The problem is not that the regulations don't explicitly prohibit tape, it's that when you look at what they require of insulation, tape comes up lacking.
This wriggling is getting silly. Few, if any, of us are "expecting regulations to work on the basis of identifying what is compliant by listing every thing known to man which is not, thus leaving only that which is.", but what we are expecting is something to support the assertion that 'insulating tape' is never compliant.
And what are the right circumstances for the use of tape?
What is the use where you believe it is compliant?
To what are you applying it, and why?
i have used it as well and its what you would call a real tape sticks well to itself
it can fix broom handles as well..
the insulating tape i have in my diy toolkit i dont use anymore on electrically sensitive uses...
MOD I see this forum is reverted back to it's nonsense. Thread locked due to petty bickering.
Last edited by a moderator:
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
- Status
Sponsored Links
