lollypop circuit

[scousespark]

To my mind we have had three editions of BS7671, 1992, 2001 and 2008 and even to go back two editions is questionable with a PIR we looked at the previous edition so BS7671:2001 would still be considered as complying. It's stretching it to include BS7671:1992 but to include the 15th Edition and lighting without an earth to my mind is going too far. ... I read this and think it is saying that you would apply the regs at the time of installation. That's not correct, as you apply the regs in effect today. A non-RCD potected circuit will have been okay in 2003, but it's potentially a C3 today. if we started retrospectively applying regs, we'd have a nightmare of a job carrying out an inspection.

Good to see you. I think I agree with what you are saying, although I thought it was what people were doing, anyway. Does not something which is non-compliant with current regulations but which was compliant with the regs at the time of installation (no matter how recent/old those previous regs were) always deserve at least a C3?

Kind Regards, John

Hi John
I am just a bit confused by the reference to editions back to 92. If a socket is non-compliant today, I don't see why it's relevant that it complied with the regs when it was installed. If Eric, applies some kind of retrospective and ignores the socket because it was okay in 2003, the report is wrong. If he doesn't, why mention the previous editions.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I would say this is a ring, by virtue of the fact that the end-to-end test shows continuity, even if the run is so short the reading is very low.

For what purpose or to what end?

Conductors in parallel must run together so physically not a ring.

 

[JohnW2]

Hi John ... I am just a bit confused by the reference to editions back to 92. If a socket is non-compliant today, I don't see why it's relevant that it complied with the regs when it was installed. If Eric, applies some kind of retrospective and ignores the socket because it was okay in 2003, the report is wrong. If he doesn't, why mention the previous editions.

Maybe his view/point is that if it were once compliant (even if with the 1992 regs), then it may only warrant a C3, whereas if it is something which isn't complaint now, and wasn't even compliant when it was installed, it might deserve a C2. I don't pretend to be supporting/defending that viewpoint, but maybe it's eric's reasoning?

Maybe the underlying feeling of eric (and some others) might be that if it were compliant sometime in the past, then it "can't be too bad" - but, as you have said, if one goes back far enough in time (to pre-BS7671 days) that would lead to some quite ridiculous things (like knife switches) only getting a C3!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I would say this is a ring, by virtue of the fact that the end-to-end test shows continuity, even if the run is so short the reading is very low.

For what purpose or to what end? Conductors in parallel must run together so physically not a ring.

As I responded, it's strictly true that conductors run in parallel can always be regarded as a ring - but, like you I cannot think of any useful purpose of thinking of it as such!

In terms of terminology, I suppose it means that scousespark might regard a lollipop circuit as a 'figure-of-8' one if the initial run from CU consisted of two parallel cables, but not if it consisted of a single (larger CSA) one - but, again, I really can't see any useful purpose of such a terminological distinction!

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

I would say this is a ring, by virtue of the fact that the end-to-end test shows continuity, even if the run is so short the reading is very low.

For what purpose or to what end?

Conductors in parallel must run together so physically not a ring.

I am not stating a purpose, just saying that I belive that the described circuit, initially at least looks more like a standard ring than a radial. Normally, I would expect to se a 4mm single cable in this scenario.

 

[JohnW2]

I am not stating a purpose, just saying that I belive that the described circuit, initially at least looks more like a standard ring than a radial. Normally, I would expect to se a 4mm single cable in this scenario.

Indeed, as I said, so would I if it were a 'true lollipop', but I think it's probably quibbling two draw a distinction between a single 4mm² cable and two (presumably side-by-side) cables in parallel with a combined CSA of 5mm².

If one does have parallel cables, and if one does regard them as 'a ring', then that would probably stimulate discussions as to whether it is permissible to have a ring originating from a ring?

Kind Regards, John