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 32 subscribers
  • Views 2290 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.
  • 0
    My accountant is slightly obsessed by the EU and the regulations that are enforced on us due to the EU. He can cite many cases where the EU says do A and our legislation says do A + B + C. It is compounded by the EU making the rules even more complex than BS7671 by referencing lots of other documents in a piece of legislation so the number of words that need to be read and understood appear to increase exponentially. But the answer does appear that we gold plate everything.
  • 0

    Beard Weird:





    any others?


       

     




    Hi Andy I have just thought of an anommly, the 18th edition was the first DPC since the Internet started where the P did not stand for public, only those signed in members of the BSI website could view the draft. It made public comment very limited compared to previous publications.


     




    ALL British Standards use the same system, and this is run by BSI. - been working like that for a number of years now, well before 18th DPC.

  • 0
    For info, the IET still runs DPCs for its own standards and guidance in the way we got used to before the more modern BSI process.


    For example: https://www.theiet.org/publishing/iet-standards/built-environment/iet-code-of-practice-building-infrastructures-for-healthcare-ict/
  • 0
    Back to the regs and kfc's point about the surgeon ...


    If a customer wants to pay for unnecessary work, I don't really see a problem - everybody is free to spend his money as he chooses.


    However, what does one do if a customer insists on having work done which is non-compliant?
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    large lies


    Yeah, and my waist is 30" after that diet.......


    Regards


    BOD
  • 0

    Beard Weird:




    gkenyon:

    For info, the IET still runs DPCs for its own standards and guidance in the way we got used to before the more modern BSI process.


    For example: https://www.theiet.org/publishing/iet-standards/built-environment/iet-code-of-practice-building-infrastructures-for-healthcare-ict/




    Thanks again for the reply GK, but this does not address the fact that the DPCs related to BS7671 were previously publicly available, the latest DPC was NOT made publicly available, it was only available to signed up BSI members.


     




    Sorry, that's definitely not true.

    It was available to anyone that registered (as an individual, as I did ... and I have no special "login" to do this, I registered as an individual) to comment individually, as a member of the public, and comment on the DPC. I submitted by personal comments (not as a member of BSI).


    You (or anyone) can register and comment directly through the web-site here: https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/


     

  • 0

    kfh:

    My accountant is slightly obsessed by the EU and the regulations that are enforced on us due to the EU. He can cite many cases where the EU says do A and our legislation says do A + B + C. It is compounded by the EU making the rules even more complex than BS7671 by referencing lots of other documents in a piece of legislation so the number of words that need to be read and understood appear to increase exponentially. But the answer does appear that we gold plate everything. 




    My wife told me off on Friday evening for growling.


    I arrived home from work and opened the package containing the pads of NCR electrical certificates I had ordered a couple of days before hand.


    The Minor Works certificates are nothing like the model forms in BS7671 they have been tweaked and altered to “improve” them, however they are now barely fit for purpose and I was sat trying to decide whether to post them back asking for a refund.


    Why, oh why do people think they can improve and gold plate things, but actually end up making things virtually unusable?


    Andy 


     

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

    Chris Pearson:

    Back to the regs and kfc's point about the surgeon ...


    If a customer wants to pay for unnecessary work, I don't really see a problem - everybody is free to spend his money as he chooses.


    However, what does one do if a customer insists on having work done which is non-compliant?




    If someone wants work done that's non compliant, it would really be down to the situation - I.e. depending how non-compliant you want to go - using a 6 inch nail as a fuse instead of a main breaker? Probably not a good idea. Not putting in a SPD for their new install? Not much of a big deal imho, as long as they've been notified, they agree to sign something saying they've been notified, and it's recorded on the test certificate that it's a deviation or a non-compliance. And then you just charge them the extra for wanting to deviate from the regulations!


    I think if you explain to a customer and then ask them to sign and date pieces of paper which says they've been explained and still going against a professional recommendation which may even void their home insurance, they will either ask you to leave and get a cowboy in, or rethink their choices and go ahead with being compliant to BS7671.


    Just my thoughts. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

  • 0
    Do you think that getting a customer to sign anything would absolve you from any legal action?


    That is assuming that they agree to sign it in the first place.


    I think the answer might be the same whether for a health and safety issue or for a monetary consideration.
  • 0
    My comments while not directly related to BS7671 were my attempt to explain how I believe we have got from the 224 pages of A5 of the 14th edition to 560 pages of A4 of the 18th. Nearly 5 times the content. Are we 5 times as safe as a result or if the 14th were updated with RCDs, metal consumer units, AFDDs, changes to values and bonding etc would we be actually safer as more people would be able to understand and follow the standard? I make no claims that the 14th was an excellent example but to me it was reasonable understandable. One lesson I have learnt over many years is that it is very difficult to make things simple, perhaps we should all be trying harder?


    My example of the surgeon was an attempt to show how process and targets can override many years of experience, qualifications, CPD, annual assessments etc to put the patient/user at risk. Having a general anaesthetic alone carries a 1:100,000 risk of death irrespective of the risks associated with a particular operation.  


    How many of us curse while going through the tick box exercise of and EICR deciding for each box if it is a tick, C1, C2, C3, FI, N/V, Lim or N/A and how many of us have got one or more wrong and does it make any dfifference to our conclusion and recommendation. Does anyone ever look t the tick boxes? 


    Have a good week ?

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