Hide Cables

[securespark]

Crazy or not, it happens all the time. I have come across it many times. That is my point. It has never stopped anyone doing what you describe, connection or no connection.

 

[JohnW2]

Crazy or not, it happens all the time. I have come across it many times. That is my point. It has never stopped anyone doing what you describe, connection or no connection.

I don't think that's true. The point of requiring an (electrical connection) is that simply plastering over it would entail plastering over live conductors - and, although there are undoubtedly some people crazy enough to do that (and we can do nothing about them!), most people are sufficiently non-crazy to realise that it would not be safe to do it.

On the other hand, if the cable were intact, with no (electrical) connection in the back box, then I think that far more people would probably feel that it was OK to plaster over it (which would be true, other than for destroying evidence of the presence of the cable) ... so, requiring an (electrical) connection does not help with the craziest of the crazy, but it will deter a good few (I would think most) people from destroying visible evidence of the presence of a cable.

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

All I can say is that, based on the number of times I have seen live cabling terminated in some form of connectors then buried in the wall, there are a heck of a lot of "the craziest of the crazy" around.

 

[JohnW2]

All I can say is that, based on the number of times I have seen live cabling terminated in some form of connectors then buried in the wall, there are a heck of a lot of "the craziest of the crazy" around.

Fair enough - but I still believe that that requiring a cable to be (electrically) 'connected' within a back box in order for it to create a safe zone will appreciably reduce the number of such incidents - since I really can't believe that the 'craziest of the crazy' represent the majority!

Whatever else, requiring that (electrical) connection (for the creation of a safe zone) cannot do any harm in that context, and will sometimes do good.

Kind Regards, John

 

[John D v2.0]

requiring that (electrical) connection (for the creation of a safe zone) cannot do any harm in that context, and will sometimes do good.

True but balance that small effect with the small effect in another context of unnecessary connections! Who knows which it should be

 

[JohnW2]

True but balance that small effect with the small effect in another context of unnecessary connections! Who knows which it should be

Yes, I was expecting that one, which is why I added the bit about context!

Speaking personally, if I had to choose between increasing the risk of future changes resulting in a buried cable no longer being in a 'safe zone', on the one hand, OR an 'unnecessary' (but 'accessible') joint, I would probably favour the latter.

It's also worth saying that, with some thought, it is should often be possible to avoid having buried cables which are not (electrically) connected to any visible accessories - and if that is unavoidable, I would at least try to put them in the 'safe zones' (no matter how silly they may be!) created by corners between walls.

Having said all that, as I've said before, if the choice is between having absolutely no indication of the presence of a buried cable and having it's presence 'identified' by, say, a back plate beneath which it is not (electrically) 'connected', then the latter is certainly better than nothing - not the least because in many/most cases, no-one will every remove/hide that blank plate. However, I remain of the same view as BAS - that such does not, per regs, create a 'safe zone' (since, in the context of cables and wiring, the word "connected" has a very specific meaning, whatever other meanings the word may have in other contexts).

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

If words used in the regulations have a specific meaning, then they should be defined in the regs.
I mean, the regs give a definition of houseboat, FFS! If they feel the need to define that word (which I feel does not need defining, as there can be no confusion), then there are other words (with more than one meaning) that ought to be defined too.

 

[JohnW2]

If words used in the regulations have a specific meaning, then they should be defined in the regs.

That's the ideal, but in the absence of an explicit definition, I think one has to consider context and apply common sense.

Whilst there are other dictionary definitions (and uses) of the word "connected", I have to wonder about anyone who thinks that, in the context of an electrical cable, the word means anything other than "electrically connected"!

For example, do you seriously believe that anyone who was told "that cable is connected to the FCU above the worktop" would take it to mean that the cable was in some way 'related to' the FCU, but not connected to it electrically?!

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

As I said, the IEE saw the need to explicitly describe a houseboat in the regulations, a word that does not leave much room for confusion, yet chooses to leave other words undefined. It could be said that if a word or group of words is not defined in the regs, then that must mean the dictionary definition can be used.
You and I both know that there is much interpretation done regarding the regs because the phrasing is not crystal clear. If the regs were worded better with words defined if need be, there would be no need for interpretation and no excuse for misunderstanding. C'mon, if a guy working for the IEE can interpret the regs in more than one way, what chance have us electricians?

I'm not just talking about this particular reg here, but all those that are ill-written or vague. They've had a good few years experience of writing them, you think they could have sussed out plain english by now!

 

[JohnW2]

As I said, the IEE saw the need to explicitly describe a houseboat in the regulations, a word that does not leave much room for confusion, yet chooses to leave other words undefined.

Indeed - as I and others here so often say, there are countless examples in BS7671 of things that are less clear than they should be as a result of the absence of an explicit definition within the Standard. If they wanted to address that, they could do worse than starting with a definition of "non-combustible"!

I'm not just talking about this particular reg here, but all those that are ill-written or vague.

You may now be talking more generally, but I have been commenting on the particularly reg under discussion and, in that context (and in the absence of a specific definition), I still really don't think that anyone with any sense (and, particularly, anyone contemplating doing work on electrical cables) would even dream that, in relation to an electrical cable', "connected" meant anything other than 'electrically connected'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

All I can say is that, based on the number of times I have seen live cabling terminated in some form of connectors then buried in the wall, there are a heck of a lot of "the craziest of the crazy" around.

How does that number compare to the number of times you have seen cables terminated in some form of connectors and not buried in the wall?

 

[securespark]

Actually, you'd be surprised. Since my first jobs as a school-leaver in 1983, I have to say I must have seen thousands of installations in that time.
I cannot obviously remember, but I would say I have been to more bad installations than good, as you would expect being an installation and maintenance spark.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I have been to more bad installations than good

Do you think that means that there are more bad installations than good?

 

[securespark]

In domestic premises, that's my experience.

Not sure what point you're desperately trying to prove, but I don't want to play your game any more.

if you want to consider that you have won, you have my congratulations.

 

[JohnW2]

In domestic premises, that's my experience.

Have I got this right - that you really believe that there are more 'bad' domestic electrical installations than 'good' ones? If so, I wonder what other electricians here feel about that?

Kind Regards, John