As I said, I'll leave you to do the commenting on correctness, mistakes etc - but, as I've said several times, I have convinced myself (not that there ever was much doubt!) that it is a very unhelpful 'rule-of-thumb'!
I'm confused about junction box rules
- Thread starter PotatoSoup
- Start date
That is also something about the OSG that a lot of people probably don't realise, particularly here, since eric so often mentions the 106m "maximum length" of a standard ring final.
As per the quote above, that figure is based on the guidance figure for voltage drop, something which many people are not particularly concerned about. In terms of Zs (which seems much more 'important', even though RCDs are even changing that), with a (theoretically 'maximum') TN-C-S Ze of 0.35Ω, a 2.5mm² ring final protected by a B32 can have a total ring length iof about 172m. If, perhaps more common with TN-C-S, the Ze is, say, 0.25Ω, the the ring could (from the point-of-view of Zs) be about 190m long.
It occurs to me that there is one sense in which this generally useless and silly rule-of-thumb might be of some usefulness for some people...
... this rule-of-thumb tells/reminds people (those who do not already know) that, although one cannot extend a ring final circuit if its Zs (at midpoint) is already at the maximum permitted for the circuit ,in such a situation one can add spur(s) to the circuit, provided that it/they do not originate at the midpoint of the ring and provided they are not 'too long' (in relation to where they originate).
Would a JB under an access panel be reaonably considered to be accessible? Probably.
Does it require a welcome mat over it to achieve this status? Probably not.
Fair enough, but that is your personal opinion, and some other people's opinions will undoubtedly differ from yours (which, again, is fair enough) - BUT it's surprising that you are now offering your opinion, given that you are the one who wrote...
... and, as I said, we only have 'opinions' about this, since there are no 'facts' (i.e an explicit definition of 'accessible' in BS7671)
The difference is that I didn't present my view as anything other than my considered opinion. I avoided making blanket statements. In fact I even tempered my answers to the scenarios you posited in terms of "probably" and "probably not". So I believe you are being slightly disingenuous.
Nor did Pete,when he wrote ...
... which you criticised as 'opinion, not facts', adding "we should stick to the facts".
Your position makes no sense. In the absence of an explicit definition of "accessible" in BS 7671, there are no 'facts' - meaning that, whether you like it or not, all we can have are individual opinions, hopefully based on 'common sense'.
Actually he did before I challenged him. That was his response to my challenge. Once again you are being disingenuous. I also condemn those who have liked your post.
You're just being silly. "I'm out"
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2023
- Messages
- 9,345
- Reaction score
- 6,416
- Country
What have I done now
Why? The post was entirely accurate. It is left to the reader of the regulation, to interpret what the word 'accessible' means.
Oh Dear - rest lads, lets all be pals and start again please
I never claimed it wasn't open to interpretation. I merely challenged statements of fact that certain things didn't comply, when these were based in speculation rather than fact. I stand by my condemnation.
Well I think yes
How easy do things have to be accessible or how difficult do they have to be considered inaccessible.
50 shades of grey unless we have some definitions to work to.
I`d put it at what I think say 85% of most competent people would be able to do in about 5 mins. or 10 mins, or 20 mins depending but it still does not validate of what I actually think my own definition it is, never mind anyone else's.
Therein lies the problem
as far as it goes but I think that JohnW2 agreed with that a while back.
How easy do things have to be accessible or how difficult do they have to be considered inaccessible.
50 shades of grey unless we have some definitions to work to.
I`d put it at what I think say 85% of most competent people would be able to do in about 5 mins. or 10 mins, or 20 mins depending but it still does not validate of what I actually think my own definition it is, never mind anyone else's.
Therein lies the problem
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
