Electrics to Shed - dodgy advice?

[securespark]

If you mean by "cocky" as being a free thinking individual capable of logical debate and countering your unfounded statements, then Yes, I will continue to be "cocky"

No, I mean this:

So dont waste your time trying to prove otherwise.

So, you know the opinions of everyone here?

it makes you look immature:

How so?

Like that above.

(c) pre-fabricated equipment sets and associated flexible leads with integral plug and socket connections."

Is what you are suggesting pre-fabricated with an integral plug and socket?

BTW, 7671's definition of "flexible cable" is "A cable whose structure and materials make it suitable to be flexed while in service."

My dictionary definition of flexible is: "able to be bent easily without breaking"

Now there's no getting away from a dictionary definition is there?

SWA cannot be guaranteed to do either. It has a construction that does not allow a great deal of flexing at all. You've obviously never kinked SWA. Not something that is easy to do with flex.

Here's one for you:

I suppose the ultimate decision as to whether SWA is "flexible" rests with the manufacturers. Shall we ask them whether it is or not?

 

[RF Lighting]

If you have installed suitable cable (BASEC Approved), suitable accesories (British standard approved) etc to a reasonable standard and earthing arangments that provide a low earth fault loop etc, no exposed live conductors, then how could they say you had not complied with P1? [/b]

But you are harping on about SWA with a plugtop on the end

(i) This is not a suitable cable
(ii) A plugtop is not a sutiable accesory

Have you ever acually fitted a SWA cable or just looked at them on screwfix?

The EAW Regulations will apply to electrical work in domestic premises. Such work will fall to HSE to enforce.


Please provide a link to this information.

All quotes taken from HSE website.

Do you not read posts? here you are anyway:http://www.hse.gov.uk/LAU/lacs/19-3.htm
See enforcement 6(5)

 

[totallyspies]

Is what you are suggesting pre-fabricated

Yes look here

http://www.greenbrook.co.uk/



BTW, 7671's definition of "flexible cable" is "A cable whose structure and materials make it suitable to be flexed while in service."

But BS7671 isnt law.
The point under discussion is that law says you can work on such without notification. Not the IEE's definition of flexible.



Well if the service required flexibility, yes. But cable laying on the floor wouldnt necesarilly be flexed to the point of breaking.



My dictionary definition of flexible is: "able to be bent easily without breaking"

So your dictionary has a definition of the word flexible. The point under discussion is not the degree of flexibilty, but the fact the law says you can work on (c) pre-fabricated equipment sets and associated flexible leads with integral plug and socket connections



Now there's no getting away from a dictionary definition is there?

I dont know, what do you mean by "getting away"?

SWA cannot be guaranteed to do either.

Thats fine, this particular law doesn't ask for one.


It has a construction that does not allow a great deal of flexing at all.
You've obviously never kinked SWA.

Cant say i've deliberately set out to kink some, no.


I suppose the ultimate decision as to whether SWA is "flexible" rests with the manufacturers. Shall we ask them whether it is or not?


Their opinion has no bearing on the law under discussion.

 

[totallyspies]

But you are harping on about SWA with a plugtop on the end


No im not. Please show me where I said the SWA will be connected directly into a plug top. You are assuming it would.

(i) This is not a suitable cable

SWA isnt a suitable cable to supply power to a shed? or to make an extension lead? Really,why not?

(ii) A plugtop is not a sutiable accesory

Why not?

Have you ever acually fitted a SWA cable or just looked at them on screwfix?

Yup, fitted loads of it and potted pyro and 3 phase supplies and 25KV overhead cable, and UTP, etc etc etc And looked at them on screwfix and TLC etc . Why do you ask?

The EAW Regulations will apply to electrical work in domestic premises. Such work will fall to HSE to enforce.


Please provide a link to this information.

All quotes taken from HSE website.

Do you not read posts?

Clearly I do, otherwise I wouldnt be able to respond to your comments would I. ??? Strange question that one.

here you are anyway


Thanks, I didnt know that was the case.

However, that still doesnt alter the fact that the law says you can work on prefabricated equipment sets.

 

[RF Lighting]

Please show me where I said the SWA will be connected directly into a plug top.

an extension lead, which happens to be made with SWA.
You could of course use this special extension lead via a hard wired plug in RCD (which you buy as an addition to the kit) and plug that into ANY exsisting socket reguardless of its location, provided that the load isnt to high say under 1500-2000w.

SWA isnt a suitable cable to supply power to a shed? or to make an extension lead? Really,why not?

SWA is not suitable cable to make an extention lead. Why? Try re-reading this thread. Lots of people have told you why it is not suitable.

A plugtop is not a sutiable accesory

Why not?

Becuase you cannot terminate a SWA into a plugtop.

Do you not read posts?

Clearly I do, otherwise I wouldnt be able to respond to your comments would I. ??? Strange question that one.

I credited my quotes in the post if you had bothered to look.

 

[securespark]

You spent some time here arguing the flexibility of SWA. You said it flexes, maybe not as much as flexible cables, but it does nonetheless.

The point I am making, that which you choose to ignore, is that (leaving 7671 out of it as you do not recognise it as a valid document) the dictionary definition of flexible is not what SWA is, but the most important point, again which you choose to ignore, is that the manufacturers would disagree wholeheartedly that your choice of SWA in your given scenario is the correct one.

 

[Steve]

I think someone needs to tell totallyspies that loitering is an offence. Even if it isn't. He has made 38 posts, all of them contesting that his (and other's) work is notifiable, which it is anyway, regardless of how he dresses it up and how good the armadillo sets are.

 

[totallyspies]

Please show me where I said the SWA will be connected directly into a plug top.

an extension lead, which happens to be made with SWA.

Yes, but it makes no mention of a plug top being the SWA termination method.

You could of course use this special extension lead via a hard wired plug in RCD

As I stated "via a hard wired RCD which itself plugs in. Do you know what hard wired means?


(which you buy as an addition to the kit) and plug that into ANY exsisting socket reguardless of its location, provided that the load isnt to high say under 1500-2000w.

SWA isnt a suitable cable to supply power to a shed? or to make an extension lead? Really,why not?

SWA is not suitable cable to make an extention lead. Why? Try re-reading this thread. Lots of people have told you why it is not suitable.

No, some people have said they didnt think it was not suitable. Thats their opinion, not fact.

A plugtop is not a sutiable accesory

Why not?

Becuase you cannot terminate a SWA into a plugtop.

I know, I never said it could be. It was not mentioned what the plugtop would not be suitable for.

Do you not read posts?

Clearly I do, otherwise I wouldnt be able to respond to your comments would I. ??? Strange question that one.

I credited my quotes in the post if you had bothered to look.

Im not arguing that you credited your posts. You said "Do you not read posts?"

I said clearly I do.

 

[Spark123]

What is a reasonable standard?

Well exactly, P1 says reasonable standards, yet gives no guidlines as to what is reasonable.



Can you prove your installation is to a reasonable standard?

It would be up to the prosecution to provide evidence. The onus would be on them proving it wasnt, not me proving it was.

They could get expert opinion etc etc etc, wouldn't you prefer to be able to use BS7671 in your defence instead of the prosecution using it?

Although BS7671 is non-statutory, it is imo a good idea to follow it and therefore can be used to prove that the work I have done is, in the eyes of the law (P1) is to a reasonable standard.

But where does it say that BS7671 is the definition of reasonable? And that not following them is unreasonable?

Guidance to approved document P page 7, 0.1 "In the secretary of states view, the requirements will be met by adherance to the Fundamental Principals for achieving safety given in BS7671:2001 Chapter 13...." which imo would be considered reasonable, although I am not ruling out using another permitted standard as in 0.2a.

Depends on who's standards you have adhered to and in the eyes of the law wether or not they are adequate.

So the argument in court may actually about adequacy of your adopted standard rather than BS7671 itself.

Yes, as long as you are working to one of the other approved standards as in 0.2a you should be ok.

I think that if you did not work to BS7671 or another appropriate laid down standard you may find it is difficult to prove compliance with P1.

I wouldnt have to prove compliance. Again , that would be the prosecutions task of proving otherwise as the onus would lie with them. Innocent until proven guilty.

Yes, you may be but please feel free to explain this to Mr Drinkwater: http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/BathNES/media/press+releases/2006/Council/Building+control+prosecution.htm

 

[totallyspies]

You spent some time here arguing the flexibility of SWA. You said it flexes, maybe not as much as flexible cables, but it does nonetheless.

Correct.

The point I am making, that which you choose to ignore, is that (leaving 7671 out of it as you do not recognise it as a valid document) the dictionary definition of flexible is not what SWA is.

Yes I agree, your dictionarys definition of the word "flexible" is not what SWA is.

but the most important point,
is that the manufacturers would disagree wholeheartedly


OK, then that would be their opinion.


So lets get your point clearly defined. You are saying, as far as you are concenered, the most important point of this whole discussion, is the fact that you think the manufacturers would disagree.

Heres your post...

but the most important point, is that the manufacturers would disagree wholeheartedly



The main point is actually the fact that, the law says you can work on this type of equipment sets, WITHOUT BC notification. And thats it, thats my point, which you have chosen to ignore.

 

[totallyspies]

It would be up to the prosecution to provide evidence. The onus would be on them proving it wasnt, not me proving it was.

They could get expert opinion etc etc etc, wouldn't you prefer to be able to use BS7671 in your defence instead of the prosecution using it?

If it helped my defence , then sure I would use it.



Although BS7671 is non-statutory, it is imo a good idea to follow it and therefore can be used to prove that the work I have done is, in the eyes of the law (P1) is to a reasonable standard.

But where does it say that BS7671 is the definition of reasonable? And that not following them is unreasonable?



So the argument in court may actually about adequacy of your adopted standard rather than BS7671 itself.

Yes, as long as you are working to one of the other approved standards as it says in the said guidance on p7 0.2a you should be ok.


I think that if you did not work to BS7671 or another appropriate laid down standard you may find it is difficult to prove compliance with P1.

I wouldnt have to prove compliance. Again , that would be the prosecutions task of proving otherwise as the onus would lie with them. Innocent until proven guilty.


Yes, you may be but please feel free to explain this to Mr Drinkwater.

Thanks.

In the secretary of states view

Again an opinion, not law.

 

[totallyspies]

I think someone needs to tell totallyspies that loitering is an offence.


Even if it isn't. ???????????? What!!! LMAO

He has made 38 posts, all of them contesting that his (and other's) work is notifiable, which it is anyway,

Which law says it is? Please back up your statement with a law, otherwise its only your opinion.

Here is a law which clearly says you can work on such equipment

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20060652.htm

Please show me the law that counters this one.


regardless of how he dresses it up

Quoting a law which allows work on such is hardly dressing it up.

and how good the armadillo sets are.


How good they are has no bearing on the fact that you can work on them..

 

[ConduitKen]

Totallyspies.

You are tedious, repetitive and totally without support. Nobody really cares what you think. Largely because you are wrong on so many levels.

Your point is irrelevant. You are a cnt.

 

[totallyspies]

Totallyspies.

You are tedious, repetitive and totally without support.

You are entitled to your opinion.



Nobody really cares what you think.

Clearly you do, as you have bothered to post a response to "what I think"


How can nobody really care?



Largely because you are wrong on so many levels.


Please back up your statement with evidence that I am wrong.

Your point is irrelevant.

My point is about the law Si2006/652. Thats hardly irrelevant.

You are a cnt.


Whats a cnt?


I guess its a slang term for part of a female reproductive organ?

Thanks for your constructive input!

 

[totallyspies]

Hmmm.... I think Conduit Ken (with his 1 post) is in fact somone who has posted during this dicussion and is clearly upset and angry with themselves for their lack of reasoned logical comment and decided to sign up again under another name to disguise their identity LMAO