Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 25 replies
  • Subscribers 31 subscribers
  • Views 2444 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Outstandng 18th Oddities

AJJewsbury
As far as I recall, we still have some unanswered questions about some of the changes in the 18th. Does anyone have any further information about these? (If not at least this post should ensure the issues aren't forgotten with the demise of the old Forum.)


From memory there was at least:


461.2
  1. The intended meaning of the phrase "neutral conductor is reliably connected to Earth by a low resistance to meet the disconnection times of the protective devices" (given that the Part 2 definition of "Earth" is conductive mass of the Earth rather than any protective conductor or MET; and which protective devices are we talking about anyway?)

  • Also "protective equipotential bonding is installed" - is this intended to mean it actually is installed, or is installed where it is required? (Otherwise new installations with plastic pipes would need N isolation everywhere)


531.3.6 - if it the intention to prohibit the use of Socket RCDs and similar (e.g. FCU RCDs) for additional protection? (being that the generally comply with BS 7288 etc which appears to have a slightly different set of technical requirements to the standards listed)


537.3.2 - Switching off for mechanical maintenance. Although the definition of mechanical maintenance remains unchanged - so continues to include simple relamping - the requirements have changed considerably to the point they just about require complete electrical isolation. Thus a common lightswitch is no longer suitable for switching off for replacing a domestic lamp. Was this really the intention? Or are the changes aimed more at rotating machinery? Given that most householders would prefer not to plunge and entire floor let alone the complete installation into darkness to replace a simple lamp, should we be installing switches rated for isolation in every room?


any others?


   - Andy.
Parents
  • 0

    kfh:

    Finally for me this was brought home when a surgeon I know told me he had physically assaulted a patient. He had been forced by the process, waiting time limits and an obnoxious patient who was going to complain to eveyone, to perform an operation that he believed was unnecessary. Fortunately the outcome was good but this was a major consideration in him taking early retirement from the NHS.




    This is a bit off topic, but kfh speaks wisely. "Assault" is a bit strong because the patient would have consented to the op, if not demanded it.


    It is axiomatic that a surgeon and patient should not meet on the morning of surgery (save in an emergency) so that the risks and benefits have been discussed properly, but it happens all the time.


    So a senior surgeon reviews a case and finds that the proposed surgery is inappropriate - usually because the diagnosis is wrong - fault-finding is always the difficult bit. The patient has been told by her GP, the house officer, the staff grade, the nurse, etc. that surgery is necessary. So what does the surgeon do? If he operates and no harm is done, everybody is happy (except the surgeon); but if he quite properly refuses, the brown stuff hits the fan. The patient complains, so that's a big black mark for the surgeon, whether it is justified or not; the waiting list times are screwed up, so the hospital may be sanctioned; etc, etc.


    Moral of the story - don't work in the public sector.

Reply
  • 0

    kfh:

    Finally for me this was brought home when a surgeon I know told me he had physically assaulted a patient. He had been forced by the process, waiting time limits and an obnoxious patient who was going to complain to eveyone, to perform an operation that he believed was unnecessary. Fortunately the outcome was good but this was a major consideration in him taking early retirement from the NHS.




    This is a bit off topic, but kfh speaks wisely. "Assault" is a bit strong because the patient would have consented to the op, if not demanded it.


    It is axiomatic that a surgeon and patient should not meet on the morning of surgery (save in an emergency) so that the risks and benefits have been discussed properly, but it happens all the time.


    So a senior surgeon reviews a case and finds that the proposed surgery is inappropriate - usually because the diagnosis is wrong - fault-finding is always the difficult bit. The patient has been told by her GP, the house officer, the staff grade, the nurse, etc. that surgery is necessary. So what does the surgeon do? If he operates and no harm is done, everybody is happy (except the surgeon); but if he quite properly refuses, the brown stuff hits the fan. The patient complains, so that's a big black mark for the surgeon, whether it is justified or not; the waiting list times are screwed up, so the hospital may be sanctioned; etc, etc.


    Moral of the story - don't work in the public sector.

Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines