Farewell, 16th Ed!

[RF Lighting]

Anyone who doesn't have a copy of the regs, grab your self a bargain here

 

[securespark]

OOI, d'ya reckon they've done a reprint of 2008 yet & got rid of those silly mistakes?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There's a downloadable set of corrections. Print it off and get busy with scissors and pritt-stick....

 

[Spark123]

I have put a word file in the wiki under 17th edition with the words in so you can cut and stick your regs book back together!

 

[securespark]

There's a downloadable set of corrections. Print it off and get busy with scissors and pritt-stick....

I am in possession of said corrigendum right now.

I wondered when the next reprint would be, that's all.

 

[skenk]

I wouldn't go burning the 16th just yet, it'll come in handy for checking if existing installations comply with an old set of regs . . . well actually it doesn't seem like there are too many changes ( . . . i don't actually have a copy of the 17th, mind) but, having only done the 16th, it would be good to have a copy of the 15th, maybe even 14th to be able to check if existing installations complied at one time. (was it ever acceptable not to sheath cpc's? for example)

 

[GaryMo]

I wouldn't go burning the 16th just yet, it'll come in handy for checking if existing installations comply with an old set of regs . . .

Why would you want to do that?
When carrying out a PIR you have to compare the installation to the current edition of regulations, not previous edition.

 

[pompeygit]

Yes a sad farewell to the 16th. I was beginning to think I was finding my way round the 16th in a sort of 'competent' way. I agree with extra safety measures introduced by the 17th as this will surely cut the accident rate. However was p***ed off with a number of things. The change to basic and fault protection superceding direct and indirect in the name of European Harmonisation. What tw*t can justify that statement. Surely the French and Germans have their own languages.

Didn't like the number changes to Tables in Section 41. You get used to Table designations

Didn't like the new way the Regs are numbered. Compare the numbering eg 413-02-02 to 411.3.1.2. Which looks the better and more professional

Referring to MEB as Main protective bonding conductors. MPBC is more of a mouthful (chapter54). Although P46 does mention the word equipotential. Can't understand need to change terminology just for the sake of change.

Were the changes to the tabulated values absolutely neccessary.....do they make adifference?

The whole book is based on Uo at 230V when we all know Uoc is 240 or thereabouts. We all know that the distributors are never gonna drop drop their voltages at the transformer. See P193 of the 16th.

Lots of new interesting stuff in 17th but don't like unnecessary changes....must just be getting old I guess

 

[pompeygit]

Incidentally passed my 17th upgrade this week (30Q's 1hour). Have had the new regs for only a fortnight. Now to spend the next couple of years trying to assimilate and understand it......Great bedtime reading NOT

 

[skenk]

Why would you want to do that?
When carrying out a PIR you have to compare the installation to the current edition of regulations, not previous edition.

but it doesn't fail if it complies with a previous edition, does it?

 

[GaryMo]

Why would you want to do that?
When carrying out a PIR you have to compare the installation to the current edition of regulations, not previous edition.

but it doesn't fail if it complies with a previous edition, does it?

The installation is tested and inspected against the current edition of BS7671, not a previous edition.
For example, what may have complied with the 13th edition may not comply with the 17th edition.
You may well come across a defect which doesn't comply with the current version of BS7671 but does not imply that the installation inspected is unsafe, for this you apply a code 4.

 

[securespark]

(was it ever acceptable not to sheath cpc's? for example)

Yes. Before the 14th Ed. in 1966.

At this time, sheathing cpc's was introduced, in solid green sleeving.

That was phased out, I believe, around 1977 in favour of green/yellow.

 

[securespark]

Referring to MEB as Main protective bonding conductors.

I have begun to refer to equipotential bonding as "P.E.B."

Protective-Equipotential-Bonding, which is equipotential bonding for the purposes of safety.

 

[333rocky333]

That was phased out, I believe, around 1977 in favour of green/yellow.

31st december 1977
After which green did not comply

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I have begun to refer to equipotential bonding as "P.E.B."

Protective-Equipotential-Bonding, which is equipotential bonding for the purposes of safety.

How about D.E.B?




































































































Decorative-Equipotential-Bonding, which is equipotential bonding applied to incoming plastic services where they change to non-extraneous metal.....