People using the Yellow/Green core in flex as a live conducter!

[JohnW2]

Well that would indeed be non compliant unless you had an earth at the thermostat by some other route. You still need an earth even if it's not supplied by that flex. Unless it's a thermostat that's not part of the fixed wiring, but then changing the wire probably wouldn't be an issue.

It's also quite likely that if it were fixed wiring connected to a wall stat that it would be T/E (rather than flex), in which case it would definitely be non-compliant to use its bare CPC as a 'live' conductor, even if 'only' a neutral - and that regardless of whether there were some other CPC getting to the stat.

Kind Regards, John

 

[John D v2.0]

It's also quite likely that if it were fixed wiring connected to a wall stat that it would be T/E (rather than flex), in which case it would definitely be non-compliant to use its bare CPC as a 'live' conductor, even if 'only' a neutral - and that regardless of whether there were some other CPC getting to the stat.

Kind Regards, John

Am I missing a definition of fixed wiring? I assumed it was simply that it was connecting fixed appliances and accessories in a hard wired fashion. That does leave a lot open to interpretation, and a washing machine is portable whereas a wall thermostat is fixed!

 

[JohnW2]

Am I missing a definition of fixed wiring? I assumed it was simply that it was connecting fixed appliances and accessories in a hard wired fashion. That does leave a lot open to interpretation, and a washing machine is portable whereas a wall thermostat is fixed!

BS7671 has no definition.

I have always taken 'fixed wiring' to essentially go as far as accessories or hard-wired 'fixed equipment' (which IS defined in BS7671, in more-or-less common sense way), but with much more uncertainty as to whether it includes the cables (usually flex) of hard-wired appliances.

Wall thermostats are very much 'fixed' and usually wired from within a wall (for aesthetic reasons), and not many people (other than, perhaps, plumbers etc.) normally use flex inside walls - so imagine that the majority of wall stats are probably wired in T+E. All those in my house certainly are, as, I think, have all those I've come across (in my limited experience).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

... duplicate deleted

 

[John D v2.0]

so imagine that the majority of wall stats are probably wired in T+E.

Well,t&e is cheaper after all, however the original point i was replying to from Eric seemed to be regarding flex, but I agree this is all very small applicability

 

[plugwash]

We may 'consider' it to be 'live', but my point was that one will get as big (if not bigger) a bang by connecting neutral to line (i.e. 'connecting two lives' if you wish) as one will by connecting earth to line.

Inadvertantly connecting live to neutral may cause tripped breakers and/or destroyed control devices but it shouldn't pose a shock risk to the user.

Connecting a live wire to exposed metalwork on the other hand can pose a serious risk of electric shock.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Having recently written ...
... I will leave it to others, as well as myself, to draw their conclusions.

Draw away, old boy.

If you have any interest in whether you draw correct ones, you should consider my track record of making excuses to disguise an unwillingness to answer awkward questions.

 

[JohnW2]

Inadvertantly connecting live to neutral may cause tripped breakers and/or destroyed control devices but it shouldn't pose a shock risk to the user. Connecting a live wire to exposed metalwork on the other hand can pose a serious risk of electric shock.

That is true, and is why I wouldn't normally do it (albeit I admit that I have done so in the distant past) and why I certainly wouldn't advise anyone else to do it.

However, I suppose my point was that (even if the consequences will often be less potentially dangerous), we seem to think that no-one would be idiotic enough to think that a blue over-sleeved with brown was a neutral (and without doing any testing) and I would have thought they would have to be even more idiotic than that to think that a G/Y over-sleeved with brown was a CPC.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Draw away, old boy. If you have any interest in whether you draw correct ones, you should consider my track record of making excuses to disguise an unwillingness to answer awkward questions.

It's a pity....

.... I am genuinely interested to know whether you feel that you can declare the practice as 'poor workmanship' only because the regulation does not explicitly state that one can over-sleeve a G/Y and use it as a live conductor, or whether you would still feel it reasonable/appropriate to describe it as 'poor workmanship' (hence non-compliant with regs) even if the regulation explicitly stated that one can do it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It asked for who designed, who installed and who inspected and tested, and clearly if you need to use the earth wire there is something wrong with the design.

Do you think a design can be wrong when it is fully compliant?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I am genuinely interested to know whether you feel that you can declare the practice as 'poor workmanship' only because the regulation does not explicitly state that one can over-sleeve a G/Y and use it as a live conductor, or whether you would still feel it reasonable/appropriate to describe it as 'poor workmanship' (hence non-compliant with regs) even if the regulation explicitly stated that one can do it.

Are you?

Or is this, as I'm beginning to wonder, another facet of your trolling?

The practice is already allowed, it is already fully compliant, so changing the wording would not change that. You already think that for it to be allowed is wrong, that it allows bad practice. You already think that doing it is highly undesirable and inadvisable.

So you already think that the regulation is wrong, you already think that the regulation allows bad practice, you already think that despite it being compliant it is a highly undesirable thing to do and you already think that you would never advise that it should be done.

And you expect me to believe that, were the wording changed, you would suddenly think the regulation was right, you would suddenly think that it promoted good practice, you would suddenly think that it was perfectly OK to do, and you would suddenly be happy to advise people to do it?

 

[JohnW2]

Are you?

Yes, I really am (interested in knowing your answer to my question)

The practice is already allowed, it is already fully compliant, so changing the wording would not change that.

Thank you. That answers my question.

In that case, I think we are just going to have to 'agree to disagree'. I had wondered if you were basing your position on the fact that the regulation was not totally explicit in 'allowing' the practice. However, it is clear from your reply that, like me, you believe that the regulation does allow the practice.

As already stated, my view is that if the use of a particular conductor (with particular 'identification') for a particular purpose is definitely 'allowed' by the regs, then if someone does that (with 'good workmanship' in the normal sense of the word), then one cannot say that the work exhibited 'poor workmanship' (to the extent of being non-compliant with BS7671) simply because of what conductor was (compliantly) used, even if one thinks that the regulation is 'wrong' (or ill-advised) to allow it. That's really the totality of my position - so, as above, I think we just have to agree to disagree.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I had wondered if you were basing your position on the fact that the regulation was not totally explicit in 'allowing' the practice.

Had you?

Have you been looking at what I have been writing, and deciding to ignore the words and invent some other meaning again?

Please show where I (or indeed anybody else) has claimed that it is not allowed.

oversleeving is perfectly compliant

it is fully compliant

However, it is clear from your reply that, like me, you believe that the regulation does allow the practice.

That's been clear for some time.

Perhaps you should try reading what I write rather than pretending there is something else on the page.

I think we just have to agree to disagree.

We will.

You think it is the mark of a good workman that he deliberately chooses to do something which is bad practice, highly undesirable and inadvisable when he could just as well have not.

 

[JohnW2]

You think it is the mark of a good workman that he deliberately chooses to do something which is bad practice, highly undesirable and inadvisable when he could just as well have not.

No, but nor do I think it reasonable to expect a workman to regard something he has done as "bad practice, highly undesirable and inadvisable" when what he has done is something which the regulations to which he has to work says that it can be done.

The fault, as I think we all know, is with the regulations, not with the "workmanship" of someone who follows those regulations.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You think it is the mark of a good workman that he deliberately chooses to do something which is bad practice, highly undesirable and inadvisable when he could just as well have not.

No

Yes.

If you did not think that it was the mark of a good workman then ipso facto you would not think it good workmanship.

nor do I think it reasonable to expect a workman to regard something he has done as "bad practice, highly undesirable and inadvisable" when what he has done is something which the regulations to which he has to work says that it can be done.

So why do you regard it as bad practice, highly undesirable and inadvisable?

Why won't you do it, or advise that it be done, if it is compliant and you consider it good workmanship?

The fault, as I think we all know, is with the regulations, not with the "workmanship" of someone who follows those regulations.

The regulations say it may be done. They don't say it must be.