Hob isolator switch

[Jurassicspark]

There isn't.

For the one(s) mentioned by securespark, do you not think it’s justifiable to have an isolator, therof?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Please actually read what I actually write.

If you want different answers then you will have to wait until someone lies to you.

 

[Jurassicspark]

Please actually read what I actually write.

I did read what you wrote so yes, the regs don’t require a local isolator for a cooker/hob circuit.

But setting the regs aside for a minute, what you haven’t addressed is why older editions did mandate a nearby switch. If the purpose of having it was:

to provide true double-pole isolation at the appliance,
to avoid relying on the consumer unit (which may be tucked away, locked, or shared between multiple circuits, and especially under emergency circumstances.
to give someone working on the appliance a visible & dedicated means of isolation.

Then have those reasons vanished? Or is it simply that we're now accepting a lesser standard because the regs allow it?

Because if the only justification left is "the MCB will handle it", I’m not convinced that equals safer in the real world.

If you were installing a new cooker/hob circuit today, would you not specify a local isolator not because the regs don;t say so, but because you believe it’s not the best solution for accessibility, and safe isolation in use & service? And why?

Please actually read what I actually write.

If you want different answers then you will have to wait until someone lies to you.

I fail to see how waiting for someone to lie addresses the question I asked the the inquiry stands independently of any falsehoods, and remains perfectly valid whether or not any deception occurs.

Please actually read what I actually write.

do you not think it’s justifiable to have an isolator, therof?

Is it just because I asked "do you not think it’s…" doesn’t mean I didn’t read what you wrote; I’m merely asking a question, not disagreeing or ignoring your posts.

 

[Murdochcat]

At the end of the day I always included an isolator and proper outlet plate for hobs AND ovens.

Nobody ever commented or complained

To me it’s belt and braces

 

[Taylortwocities]

But setting the regs aside for a minute, what you haven’t addressed is why older editions did mandate a nearby switch

Earlier editions of the regs required any metal item (eg metal window frames, bannister rails, etc) to be earthed.
I guess you aren’t doing that any more?

 

[Jurassicspark]

Earlier editions of the regs required any metal item (eg metal window frames, bannister rails, etc) to be earthed.

Are/was there any reasonable grounds for that, and is it not better compared to the isolators?

But was there actually a clear unequivocal regulation which required bonding of metal window frames, banister rails, etc to be earthed?

What about a trapped lawn mower flex coming in contact with the metal window frame, as they are usually in close proximity?

The regulations concerning isolators were clear, but were they clear for the one that you've mentioned?

I guess you aren’t doing that any more?

Certainly haven't and certain won't.

As you have mentioned this now, why would there be a valid reason to?

Pre RCD requirement days and post RCD requirements days?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Are/was there any reasonable grounds for that, and is it not better compared to the isolators?

No.
It made things more hazardous.

But was there actually a clear unequivocal regulation which required bonding of metal window frames, banister rails, etc to be earthed?

No.
It was because people misread the regulations which were the same as they are today.

What about a trapped lawn mower flex coming in contact with the metal window frame, as they are usually in close proximity?

What about the rest of the time when metal parts are earthed unnecessarily introducing hazards.

The regulations concerning isolators were clear, but were they clear for the one that you've mentioned?

Were they?
If they were, then why were cookers the only appliances which required isolators?

Certainly haven't and certain won't.
As you have mentioned this now, why would there be a valid reason to?
Pre RCD requirement days and post RCD requirements days?

Never was a valid reason. It is a myth that the regulations required it.

 

[Jurassicspark]

No.
It made things more hazardous.

Taylortwocities’ reply was clearly attempting to show a contrast between having regulations regarding isolators, for whatever device that may supply, with having regulations concerning with earthing window sills, barrister rails, etc.

No.
It was because people misread the regulations which were the same as they are today.

Yes, and it was never mentioned explicitly either, so I really don’t know why Taylortwocities bothered coming up with that statement, or even worser, analogy.

What about the rest of the time when metal parts are earthed unnecessarily introducing hazards.

But, the one’s which are guided by the regulations ensuring an earth conductor is run to whatever thing it is, are they really earthed unnecessarily?

The isolators we were talking about were, at least, mandatory before, but what Taylortwocities mentioned were not mandatory.

So, again, I really don’t know why he tried comparing it to having a justification behind not including regulations stating isolators should be mandatory.

Were they?
If they were, then why were cookers the only appliances which required isolators?

Why wouldn’t they require isolators, and why wouldn’t you think anything written by securespark concerning the regulations about isolators begs the question, “were they”?

Never was a valid reason. It is a myth that the regulations required it.

And again, why did Taylortwocities bring this up when it had no correlation to isolators whatsoever?

 

[Jurassicspark]

Never was a valid reason. It is a myth that the regulations required it.

Earlier editions of the regs required any metal item (eg metal window frames, bannister rails, etc) to be earthed.

 

[Taylortwocities]

And again, why did Taylortwocities bring this up when it had no correlation to isolators whatsoever?

To simply illustrate that there is no point arguing that what was considered "best practice" 50 years ago may not have relevance today.

 

[EFLImpudence]

But, the one’s which are guided by the regulations ensuring an earth conductor is run to whatever thing it is, are they really earthed unnecessarily?

Please pay attention.

Parts which are earthed but do not require earthing nor bonding are earthed unnecessarily and introduce a hazard.



Window frames etc. never require earthing.

Only parts which are already earthed might require bonding.

 

[Jurassicspark]

Parts which are earthed but do not require earthing nor bonding are earthed unnecessarily and introduce a hazard.

Right.

Window frames etc. never require earthing.

Right.

But, the one’s which are guided by the regulations ensuring an earth conductor is run to whatever thing it is, are they really earthed unnecessarily?

Which is what I was talking about.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Right.

Right.

Good.

But, the one’s which are guided by the regulations ensuring an earth conductor is run to whatever thing it is, are they really earthed unnecessarily?

You are not understanding what is written.

Parts which are earthed but do not require earthing nor bonding are earthed unnecessarily and introduce a hazard.

There are no regulations that require an earth conductor is run to whatever thing it is that does not require earthing.

 

[Jurassicspark]

To simply illustrate that there is no point arguing that what was considered "best practice" 50 years ago may not have relevance today.

Why wouldn't it have relevance today?

But setting the regs aside for a minute, what you haven’t addressed is why older editions did mandate a nearby switch. If the purpose of having it was:

to provide true double-pole isolation at the appliance,
to avoid relying on the consumer unit (which may be tucked away, locked, or shared between multiple circuits, and especially under emergency circumstances.
to give someone working on the appliance a visible & dedicated means of isolation.

Then have those reasons vanished? Or is it simply that we're now accepting a lesser standard because the regs allow it?

To simply illustrate that there is no point arguing that what was considered "best practice" 50 years ago may not have relevance today.

So it’s not really about what’s relevant today, or, you know, what might not make sense now, are we talking about isolators, or the whole thing of earthing anything metal in sight? The latter or the former, there’s really no point arguing about that exclusively, not when the whole thrust of earthing everything metal isn’t even in the regs anymore (but you said it was, anyway). It wasn’t even a regulation back then, but having isolators for ovens, hobs, cookers that was.

So best practices in earthing anything metal, serving best practices 50 years ago, but not having relevance today - which didn't serve as best practices before, and still has no relevance today.

Or best practices of the inclusion from before regarding isolators for a hob/oven/cooker, but now it's not in the regulations - why?

may not have relevance today.

How and why?

 

[Jurassicspark]

There are no regulations that require an earth conductor is run to whatever thing it is that does not require earthing.

But no one mentioned connecting an earth wire to somewhere that doesn't require earthing.

But, the one’s which are guided by the regulations ensuring an earth conductor is run to whatever thing it is, are they really earthed unnecessarily?

I was curious about what you would have said about this.