A-ha! The battle between the forces of good and evil has recommenced.
Electricians' tedious bickering
- Thread starter FingRinal
- Start date
- Status
Who cares what it's about to mean - it's far more important to argue the head of a nodding dog over the tenuously narrow definition given in the previous editions, even though most people use the term 'spur' in the spirit of common parlance, to mean "a thing that branches off from an existing circuit in a way that signals the need to recalculate the loading and add or change protective devices as needed in the circumstances".
Oh, I nearly forgot -
Softus, I urge you not to encourage this troll.
RF, no need for petty insults - something you seem to revert to a bit too often and a bit too quickly...your statement is actually a classic example of a common Trolling technique...(didn't you know?)
And after the Bandwagon everyone jumped over the explicit definition of a spur - imagine my surprise and how I chuckled when I finally received my copy of the 17th Edition and looked up the definition of Spur in Part 2
And after the Bandwagon everyone jumped over the explicit definition of a spur - imagine my surprise and how I chuckled when I finally received my copy of the 17th Edition and looked up the definition of Spur in Part 2
Yes.
I believe it isn't.
I find it hard to imagine, because that information had already been made known earlier in the thread.
To throw a spanner in the works - 17th definition, Spur - A branch from a ring or radial final circuit.........so to act as referee...BAS is right....but not for long
And imagine my total lack of surprise that you can't quite make the connection that before you finally received that document, you were arguing on the basis of what it says in the 16th, and therefore you were wrong.And after the Bandwagon everyone jumped over the explicit definition of a spur - imagine my surprise and how I chuckled when I finally received my copy of the 17th Edition and looked up the definition of Spur in Part 2
I would argue that he was never right as the argument took place when the 17th was current though he (and others) rather disingenuously decided to ignore it in order to 'prove' their point. But fair play to them. It's a pity they themselves can't extend the fair play... 
Suffice to say it's now best put to bed perhaps.
Suffice to say it's now best put to bed perhaps.
Again, rather disingenuous BAS. My understanding of the 16th seems to have been PROVED and made explicit in the 17th. So I guess I could say my understanding was correct (which it was) and that it took the 17th to bring all the Luddites and armchair sparkies into line.
Since you yourself have used the word disingenuous, how would you describe your use of the word "sorry" in that sentence?
As far as putting anything to bed is concerned, you believe that the 17th is current, and I believe it isn't. I haven't insulted you for your belief, but you imply that I'm not in line with everyone else's reality.
We're all hypocrites from time to time, but you seem to be managing about two occurrences per post at the moment.
You really don't think that your abject irrationality is going to go unremarked do you?I would argue that he was never right as the argument took place when the 17th was current though he (and others) rather disingenuously decided to ignore it in order to 'prove' their point. But fair play to them. It's a pity they themselves can't extend the fair play...
Suffice to say it's now best put to bed perhaps.
The 17th OSG is not out yet - and the first post here reads:
so there is no way that your question could not be about the 16th OSG, which you can only pair with the 16th Regs.
There is no way that any of your assertions about what the meaning of "spur" was could have been in any context other than the 16th editions of the regs and the OSG.
We've all known since 1/3rd of the way down p2, only a little more than 3 hours after this topic started, that the definition in the 17th had changed.
Not once did you ever use that known fact to justify your assertion that the 16th OSG was not using the definition in the 16th regs.
You were arguing that your definition of "spur" was the one that the 16th publications used, and you were, and still are, and always will be, wrong.
Err - no. I can't believe you are still so keen to add to your collection of self-delusions.
The 17th has changes from the 16th. The definition of "spur" is one of the things that has changed.
But it's a well known fact that the regulations are not retroactive, and so neither are the definitions.
No - your understanding was deeply flawed. Your assertions were not, and could not have been about anything other than what the 16th says.
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
