'Safe' zones

[flameport]

I was referring to a 90 degree change in the direction of a cable route - within an accessory at 'A', but not at 'B' ...

Theoretically non-compliant with BS7671 as 522.6.202 states
'the cable may be installed in a zone either horizontally or vertically, to the point, accessory or switchgear'

One direction or the other. Not both.

 

[morqthana]

How do you know that BS7671 522.6.202 means an exclusive or?

 

[JohnW2]

Theoretically non-compliant with BS7671 as 522.6.202 states
'the cable may be installed in a zone either horizontally or vertically, to the point, accessory or switchgear'

One direction or the other. Not both.

Hmmm. I'm far from convinced about that, since it would make no sense, given that an observer cannot know whether the 'safe' (aka 'dangerous') zone created by an accessory is vertical or horizontal (and therefore has to assume that both are potential 'danger zones')

Furthermore, if you were right (which I very much doubt that you are), then a vast number of installations would be non-compliant since, for example, when there is a string of accessories joined horizontally (e.g. kitchen sockets) it's almost inevitable that at least one of them will also have a vertical cable from it, as well as the horizontal one.

 

[SUNRAY]

Theoretically non-compliant with BS7671 as 522.6.202 states
'the cable may be installed in a zone either horizontally or vertically, to the point, accessory or switchgear'

One direction or the other. Not both.

No-one could begin to work with that system if 'both' was not permitted

 

[JohnW2]

No-one could begin to work with that system if 'both' was not permitted

Indeed, as I implied in what I wrote, and very unusually for him, I do think that, in this case, what flameport wrote was nonsense.

 

[flameport]

How do you know that BS7671 522.6.202 means an exclusive or?

The word 'and' is not included, and the word 'either' is.

'the cable may be installed in a zone either horizontally or vertically, to the point, accessory or switchgear'

Other options could be
'the cable may be installed in a zone horizontally or vertically, to the point, accessory or switchgear'
'the cable may be installed in a zone horizontally and/or vertically, to the point, accessory or switchgear'

In any case no one will ever know the true intent.

 

[JohnW2]

The word 'and' is not included, and the word 'either' is. ... 'the cable may be installed in a zone either horizontally or vertically, to the point, accessory or switchgear'

As I've said, what you are suggesting would be unhelpful and essentially 'meaningless'.

I think that what you may be overlooking is that if (as required) cable(s) which enjoy a 'zone' created by an accessory have to be 'connected' to that accessory, then if there are cables aligned both horizontally and vertically with the accessory then there are "two cables", and I see nothing in the reg which says that one cannot have two cables enjoying 'zones' created by an accessory - one cable in a horizontally-aligned zone and another in a vertically-aligned zone, is there?

Whatever, as I've said, it certainly would not be helpful, or make any sense, if your interpretation were what was intended, since an observer could not possibly know whether just one 'zone' was horizontal OR vertical.

 

[SUNRAY]

The word 'and' is not included, and the word 'either' is.

'the cable may be installed in a zone either horizontally or vertically, to the point, accessory or switchgear'

Other options could be
'the cable may be installed in a zone horizontally or vertically, to the point, accessory or switchgear'
'the cable may be installed in a zone horizontally and/or vertically, to the point, accessory or switchgear'

In any case no one will ever know the true intent.

Personally I feel that it would be silly to interpret it in a way that forbids using 50% of the available cable routes and neither can I comtemplate the thought process of writing such intent into a regulation.

 

[JohnW2]

Personally I feel that it would be silly to interpret it in a way that forbids using 50% of the available cable routes ...

As I've said, not just 'silly' but pointless, since no-one would know which of the 50%s had been 'used' in any particular case.

... and neither can I comtemplate the thought process of writing such intent into a regulation.

... and nor can I, but I suppose it would not be the first time that we were faced with a reg which really made no logical sense!

 

[EFLImpudence]

The word 'and' is not included, and the word 'either' is.

'the cable may be installed in a zone either horizontally or vertically, to the point, accessory or switchgear'

How would 'and' make any sense?

'the cable may be installed in a zone horizontally and vertically, to the point, accessory or switchgear'

 

[JohnW2]

How would 'and' make any sense? 'the cable may be installed in a zone horizontally and vertically, to the point, accessory or switchgear'

Indeed. If there are other people around who interpret the reg as flameport has done, then I suppose it ought to be ...

the cable(s) may be installed in a zones horizontally and/or vertically, to the point, accessory or switchgear'