Temporary use of electric 'instant' water heater

[scousespark]

If you have a RFC or radial FC with nothing plugged in, it is still classed as a circuit. How is the above any different?

In BS7671 a final circuit is defined as - 'A circuit connected directly to current-using equipment, or to a socket-outlet r socket-outlets or other outlet points for the connection of such equipment.' Does this answer your question?

 

[davelx]

In BS7671 a final circuit is defined as - 'A circuit connected directly to current-using equipment, or to a socket-outlet r socket-outlets or other outlet points for the connection of such equipment.' Does this answer your question?

Yes, but imo, just semantics, it really is regulation for regulation's sake.

It means that you cannot test a cooker circuit until the cooker is connected as until then it is not a circuit.

 

[foxhole]

If it’s temporary then fit electric shower unit and accept that baths are out for a while , a kettle at the kitchen sink will cope with washing up . We managed like this ( with camping stoves) for over a year while doing renovations , ( and we had foster children ).

 

[scousespark]

Good to see you, and I hope that all is well with you and yours.

I have to say that your view doesn't really corresponds with what I would regard as common sense, even though I cannot deny that, if taken literally, the BS7671 definition implies that if there is wiring (originating at a CU/DB, and protected by an OPD) which had no connected 'electrical;' equipment,then it is not "a circuit".

Addressing first the details you mention, it was a "pro installation" and there is an EIC - and, in any event, there should be an EIC even if it had not been a 'pro install'. If you're suggesting that what they installed was not 'a circuit', what would you call it?

Would you have a different view if this <whatever you call it> (at the time connected to nothing) had been labelled "Water Heater" where it originates at the CU, rather than "Shower" (which it currently says)?

I meant installing the water heater, by a pro (and by implication a conscientious diyer) would result in an eic for a new circuit. For a shower, I would describe an OCPD plus cable (with no shower connected) as a partial circuit. This would apply for any other fixed wired item.

When the property was re-wired, about 20 years ago, it was totally empty, with no hard-wired electrical loads at all, other than lighting. As I've explained, they installed a shower circuit "in case an electric shower was installed in the future" (even though there was no shower at the time, and still isn't'. They similarly installed a cooker circuit, an immersion circuit and an 'outside lights' circuit "in case an electric cooker, immersion heater or outside lighting was installed in the future" (even though none of those things were installed at the time,and still aren't).

Are you really suggesting that (despite BS7671 definition) it is sensible or useful to say that none of those are 'circuits' - and therefore that, by implication, if anyone ever connects anything to <whatever you wish to call them>, they would thereby be 'installing a new circuit"??

The cooker and immersion heaters would be connected to flex outlet plates. The outside light would be connected to a JB. BS7671 includes those as Final Circuits.

I have to say that suggestions such as you have made (which some might call 'pedantic') are probably one of the things which "give a bad name" to rules, regs and laws and thereby very probably reduce the extent to which some people take them seriously.

Kind Regards, John

I don't see how my suggestion that this is not a full circuit is being pedantic. I have no influence over people taking rules, regs and laws seriously. That is down to any individual.

 

[JohnW2]

In BS7671 a final circuit is defined as - 'A circuit connected directly to current-using equipment, or to a socket-outlet r socket-outlets or other outlet points for the connection of such equipment.' Does this answer your question?

Whether it 'answers' the question in situations like mine depends upon one's interpretation of "other outlet points".

In the house in question, there are a number of 'circuits' (shower, cooker, immersion etc.) which are currently termination in junction boxes, having been installed in anticipation of probable subsequent installation and connection of the loads in question. If those JBs qualify as "other outlet points" then it would, indeed, be 'a final circuit' by that definition - but if it did not so qualify ....?? !

In any event, this tedious/silly distraction arose because someone suggested that by connecting one of my 'circuits' to a load, I would thereby be 'installing a new circuit', which would therefore be notifiable work. However, in that context the BS7671 definition is irrelevant, what would matter being a definition in the Building Regs - which doesn't exist. Furthermore, even if BS7671 definitions were relevant, what is notifiable is installation of 'a new circuit', not a 'new final circuit', and the BS7671 definition of a ';circuit' is different from the one you quote.

Whatever, as far as I am concerned, this discussion is moot. I don't really care a jot about what definitions (where they exist) say - since I would not even dream of thinking that I was 'installing a new circuit' if all I was doing were to connect a load to a 'circuit' that had been installed specifically to supply such (or similar) a load

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

Whether it 'answers' the question in situations like mine depends upon one's interpretation of "other outlet points".

In the house in question, there are a number of 'circuits' (shower, cooker, immersion etc.) which are currently termination in junction boxes, having been installed in anticipation of probable subsequent installation and connection of the loads in question. If those JBs qualify as "other outlet points" then it would, indeed, be 'a final circuit' by that definition - but if it did not so qualify ....?? !

In any event, this tedious/silly distraction arose because someone suggested that by connecting one of my 'circuits' to a load, I would thereby be 'installing a new circuit', which would therefore be notifiable work. However, in that context the BS7671 definition is irrelevant, what would matter being a definition in the Building Regs - which doesn't exist. Furthermore, even if BS7671 definitions were relevant, what is notifiable is installation of 'a new circuit', not a 'new final circuit', and the BS7671 definition of a ';circuit' is different from the one you quote.

Whatever, as far as I am concerned, this discussion is moot. I don't really care a jot about what definitions (where they exist) say - since I would not even dream of thinking that I was 'installing a new circuit' if all I was doing were to connect a load to a 'circuit' that had been installed specifically to supply such (or similar) a load

Kind Regards, John

Incredible. So you have no interest in any definitions, so a circuit is just an OCPD and a piece of cable.

 

[JohnW2]

I meant installing the water heater, by a pro (and by implication a conscientious diyer) would result in an eic for a new circuit.

OK, but I still don't think that it represents a 'new circuit' if the 'circuit' (in common sense terms) already exists.

You don't like the word 'pedantic', so perhaps I should just talk about 'splitting hairs'. If, when the wiring was installed, a water heater had been connected to it (but not necessarily 'plumbed in'), you presumably would not say that if I subsequently plumbed it in, or even changed it to a different water heater, I had 'created a new circuit', would you?

For a shower, I would describe an OCPD plus cable (with no shower connected) as a partial circuit.

I'm not clear as to what regulatory or legal status you think a 'partial circuit' has. Would you regard connecting a shower to such a 'partial circuit' as constituting creation of a 'new circuit'? [ I realise that connection of a shower would be notifiable, anyway, because it was a shower

Are you perhaps quibbling about the fact that I'm talking about using a 'circuit' labelled in the CU as a 'Shower' for a different type of water heating appliance (which I would again call 'splitting hairs')?? If so, if the circuit were labelled 'Water Heater' in the CU, would that perhaps change your view (again, 'splitting hairs' ? ).

This would apply for any other fixed wired item. .... The cooker and immersion heaters would be connected to flex outlet plates. The outside light would be connected to a JB. BS7671 includes those as Final Circuits.

As I've explained, these 'circuits' currently end as (coils of cable and) junction boxes, to be connected to appropriate 'outlet accessories' when location is decided. Does that still qualify them as 'final circuits'? If so, why is it different from my shower/water heater circuit (or, as above,is it perhaps just the labelling in CU which concerns you?).

I would add that, when the re-wire was done, all of the 'circuits' ('partial' or otherwise) I'm talking about were regarded as circuits,and were tested (at JBs) and document in the EIC.

I don't see how my suggestion that this is not a full circuit is being pedantic. I have no influence over people taking rules, regs and laws seriously. That is down to any individual.

It's not about "taking (or not taking) rules, regs and laws seriously" - it's about interpreting them sensibly. However, as I said, it's discussions such as this that I think can get those rules/regs/laws 'a bad name', and thereby probably make some people take them less seriously.

For example, if it were suggested that connecting a not-plumbed-in water heater and/or changing the label n a CU would make the difference between subsequent electrical work being notifiable or non-notifiable, then I would imagine that some people might conclude that the rules/laws were so silly as to not to deserve 'being taken seriously'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Incredible. So you have no interest in any definitions, so a circuit is just an OCPD and a piece of cable.

If the only reason why it is currently "just an OCPD and a piece of cable" is that the load has not yet been connected to the cable, then Yes.

You seem to be implying that if I installed an "OCPD (in the CU) and a piece of cable" that would, in itself, not be notifiable - is that your view?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I know you said you are not interested in definitions, but -

may I just point out that the notification regulation states "The installation of a new circuit"; not a new final circuit.

BS7671 defines a circuit as:

Circuit. An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected against overcurrent by the same protective device(s).
and electrical equipment as:

Electrical equipment (abbr: Equipment). Any item for such purposes as generation, conversion, transmission,
distribution or utilization of electrical energy, such as machines, transformers, apparatus, measuring instruments,
protective devices, wiring systems, accessories, appliances and luminaires.

So just cable and protective device would seem to be a circuit.

 

[JohnW2]

but - ... may I just point out that the notification regulation states "The installation of a new circuit"; not a new final circuit.

Yes, you may 'point it out', but you didn't really need to, since I already have ...

.... Furthermore, even if BS7671 definitions were relevant, what is notifiable is installation of 'a new circuit', not a 'new final circuit', and the BS7671 definition of a ';circuit' is different from the one you quote.

In any event, as I also wrote in that paragraph, BS7671 definitions (of 'circuit' or 'final circuit') are irrelevant to the question of notifiability, since that depends upon the law's (The Building Regs') meaning of 'a circuit' - which appears not to be defined.

So just cable and protective device would seem to be a circuit.

That, of course, is my view (based primarily on common sense), yet we have an electrician writing ...

Incredible. .... so a circuit is just an OCPD and a piece of cable.

... but who am I to argue with a qualified and experienced electrician?

Kind Regards, John

 

[robinbanks]

accept that baths are out for a while

Why can one not fill a bath using an electric shower? It's only money..

a kettle at the kitchen sink will cope with washing up

washing up bowl under the shower will also work to get a washing up bowl of hot water too

 

[foxhole]

Why can one not fill a bath using an electric shower? It's only money..

washing up bowl under the shower will also work to get a washing up bowl of hot water too

I didn’t say you can’t just , impracticable .

 

[JohnW2]

Why can one not fill a bath using an electric shower? It's only money..

'Money' issues would be the same with filling the bath with any electrically-heated water (unless heated with 'cheap' off-peak electricity or some 'home grown' {e.g. solar} electricity).

However,the main issue is that of time - and I'm not even sure how hot the water would still be after one had patiently waited for the bath to fill )

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

However,the main issue is that of time - and I'm not even sure how hot the water would still be after one had patiently waited for the bath to fill )

Exactly! The water temperature, provided by a shower, is carefully limited, to avoid scalding. Slowly fill a bath with water at say 40C, and by the time it has enough water in, it will have cooled down considerably.

 

[robinbanks]

If people of your intellectual prowess can't work out how to insulate a bath well enough to resist a short term heat loss like that, there ain't much hope for the regulars