NIC EIC needed to work in the kitchen?
GB
week ago, and so far he has only done preparation work - the kitchen has
been completely gutted. He describes himself on his quote as "Electrical
Contractor NIC EIC". The only problem is that, ahem, he isn't on the NIC EIC
register. He apparently was until a year ago, but they cannot tell me why he
is not registered any longer.
I feel that I am stuck with him to get the kitchen reinstated, as I am
working full-time at the moment. Any suggestions? Obviously, the deceit is
quite worrying.
There is nothing particularly difficult about the kitchen wiring, but do I
need to get someone else in to deal with that?
--
Take it easy on the kid, SilverFox316; everybody kills Hitler on their first
trip.
Owain
> I have hired someone to completely redo the kitchen in my flat. He started a
> week ago, and so far he has only done preparation work - the kitchen has
> been completely gutted. He describes himself on his quote as "Electrical
> Contractor NIC EIC". The only problem is that, ahem, he isn't on the NIC EIC
> register. He apparently was until a year ago, but they cannot tell me why he
> is not registered any longer.
Ask him why he's not on the register
> I feel that I am stuck with him to get the kitchen reinstated, as I am
> working full-time at the moment. Any suggestions? Obviously, the deceit is
> quite worrying.
> There is nothing particularly difficult about the kitchen wiring, but do I
> need to get someone else in to deal with that?
No, *he* needs to get someone else in to deal with that, at no extra
cost to you. Make it clear that you expect the work to be carried out
and a Minor Works Certificate to be issued by someone registered with
one of the Part Pee self-certification bodies.
Note that it's not possible for a registered person to certify work
carried out by someone else (and not supervised by them, eg mate/
labourer/prentice)
Owain
Tim W
wibbled on Monday 23 November 2009 17:29
> I have hired someone to completely redo the kitchen in my flat. He started
> a week ago, and so far he has only done preparation work - the kitchen has
> been completely gutted. He describes himself on his quote as "Electrical
> Contractor NIC EIC". The only problem is that, ahem, he isn't on the NIC
> EIC register. He apparently was until a year ago, but they cannot tell me
> why he is not registered any longer.
If he has claimed to be a NICEIC approved person (there are several levels
of approvedness like AC and QS, but the minimum level is sufficient for
signing off domestic work as I understand it), then he has made a
fraudulent claim up which you are presumably depending.
Personally I'd fire him with no pay immediately - no decent sparks (even a
kitchen fitter doing sparking as a component of their work) doing domestic
work is going to lapse their NICEIC membership if they still intend to do
electrics. Either he's failed his periodic visit by their inspector or he's
trying to be cheap. In either case he can no longer sign off the work re
Part P and technically no one else can either, unless he goes the Building
Control route or he's in a big firm who has blanket coverage whereby his
work is supposedly monitored by the incumbent NICEIC member (is he?).
> I feel that I am stuck with him to get the kitchen reinstated, as I am
> working full-time at the moment. Any suggestions? Obviously, the deceit
> is quite worrying.
As I say, I'd boot him and get someone else. He's pretty much broken the
implied contract that you have hired a registered person, so without being
a lawyer, I can't see he's have a leg to stand on. It is inconvenient, but
can you trust the work of someone who *may* have failed their last
inspection?
> There is nothing particularly difficult about the kitchen wiring, but do I
> need to get someone else in to deal with that?
The only other option that would be satisfactory, would be to tell him, if
he cannot sign off the work legally, then it will become a Building Notice
job and he is to absorb the costs, which will be around 100-something quid
for the BNA and probably a couple of hundred for the PIR done by someone
else, who will have to be a Part P scheme member if my council is anything
to go by.
Or
Tell him the electrical work will have to be subcontracted to a registered
sparks at no extra cost.
A call to trading standards might be in order too.
--
Tim Watts
This space intentionally left blank...
js.b1
quite limited.
You can not...
- Add a new final circuit
- Add a new wiring accessory (eg, socket)
- Install a new CU with all new circuit breakers (see note below re
enclosure)
You can...
- Perform maintenance (this one is very grey, if it is to correct non-
BS7671 there is little problem)
- Replace wiring accessories
- Replace cabling for a single "circuit" (note BS7671 definition of a
"circuit" is defined as protected by a CPD, so not just a single
cable; CPD being circuit protective device such as MCB or CPD)
- Replace any damaged enclosure (including CU)
- Replace any protective device (such as RCD, altho an issue is
testing the new one properly re 1/2x 1x 5x trip times etc)
The reason for "can not" is as much a DIYer would not have the
required test equipment with calibration certificate, some do but not
all. The most critical of these is actually an RCD tester - that the
protective devices DO in fact work re electrocution in a "special
location" re water and electricity. It would have saved many lives
over the years and many many sparks until Part P never had the kit
(they actually shared it between mates, seriously and not illogical
really).
Go to ODPM website and download SI2006.
Skim read it, then read it again carefully.
The person may well be qualified (C&G 2382 & 2392 which you can
check).
However he is not registered with an appropriate scheme (which may be
down to cost or failed an assessment).
He may may not have test equipment in calibration.
He may have gone industrial based on his C&G, JIB card etc and not
bothered with domestic anymore, who knows.
The problem is:
1 - If he can't notify the job, you/he will AND have BC come and
inspect AT YOUR COST
2 - He may walk off without any notification, you need to then PAY to
Regularise it
Regularisation can be easy or DIFFICULT depending on the LABC. They
may accept a PIR, or cable tracing, or require cables exposed and so
on. The DSA publish guidelines, but some have a bee in their bonnet
about stripping everything out. Others are more practical - it can
depend on what they find (if workmanship has faults they will soon
suspect cable routes, sizing, grouping factors and so on).
Frankly I am with industry - if the guy has sufficient C&G and 1yr
experience then nothing else should be required. The problem is
domestic is with Part P - SI2006, which leaves the OP with a problem -
the guy has plain deceived you.
Fredxx
So what's to stop a registered person to "instruct" a DIYer to put in place
the required circuits, check and certify?
Owain
> > Note that it's not possible for a registered person to certify work
> > carried out by someone else (and not supervised by them, eg mate/
> > labourer/prentice)
> So what's to stop a registered person to "instruct" a DIYer to put in place
> the required circuits, check and certify?
Part Pee requires the work to be done by a registered person, not just
signed off by them. Obviously the approach of having just one
qualified person within a NICEIC registered firm is a complete failure
of enforcement, but in that case it's the firm (legal person) that is
registered.
Owain
js.b1
> Part Pee requires the work to be done by a registered person
Part P Notifable Works requires work to be done by a registered
entity.
- Individual who is registered
- Company who is registered with QA spark supervising anyone
Why will a spark not want to QA someone else's work?
- Ignoring liability issues, it comes down to Work Breakdown
Structure.
- Domestic Electrician work is 5% design & inspect, 5% sitting in
queue to wholesaler, 90% labouring.
DIY job.
An electrician would like you to pay the labouring hours at
electrician rates, rather than at labourer or DIYer rates. That is to
say a DIY job would mean 3x £80/hr acting as QA spark whereas an
Electrician job means 100x £40/hr acting as a labouring-
electrician :-) There are many electricians and a finite number of
jobs per year.
Business job.
Business prefers to pay many labourers at labourer rates, but just one
electrician at electrician rate amortised over several jobs :-)
Business hides unemployment and particularly hides self-employed with
IR & Gordon Brown despise (plus Part P is IR35 for electricians).
NICEIC pander to both camps, and electricians want individuals to
ignore the Work Breakdown Structure :-)
... now why is my doorknob at 415VAC...
Fredxx
"Owain" <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote in message
news:1ba29a38-2415-47ef...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
You contradict yourself, must work be done by a registered person, or merely
supervised by him. In which case a DIYer can do the work under supervision,
in the same way as a labourer.
As you say, if the law says work is to be done by a registered person, then
the law is openly flouted, but I don't think that is the case.
Owain
> > Part Pee requires the work to be done by a registered person, not just
> > signed off by them. Obviously the approach of having just one
> > qualified person within a NICEIC registered firm is a complete failure
> > of enforcement, but in that case it's the firm (legal person) that is
> > registered.
> You contradict yourself, must work be done by a registered person, or merely
> supervised by him. In which case a DIYer can do the work under supervision,
> in the same way as a labourer.
There is a distinction between a legal person and a natural person.
The work must be done by a registered legal person. The work can be
done by an unqualified operative covered by his employer's
registration (as in the case of NICEIC) provided the operative is
working on his employer's time.
If it's the natural person who's the registered person ie an
individual electrician, then he has to do all the "work" and is
personally responsible for its compliance, obviously he could be
'helped' by someone.
Did I mention the scheme's a complete farce?
Owain
js.b1
> js.b1 <js...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >The most critical of these is actually an RCD tester - that the
> >protective devices DO in fact work re electrocution in a "special
> >location" re water and electricity. It would have saved many lives
> >over the years
>
> prevented by a check that the protective device does actually work?
Oops, not what I meant, correction...
The most critical of these is actually an RCD tester - that the
protective devices ARE present and DO in fact work re electrocution in
a "special location" re water and electricity. The presence of RCD
would have saved many lives over the years.
I actually agree with 17th "RCD everything".
- MEB cut death - Plumber cuts MEB to CW pipe without shunting it.
Precious few plumbers seem to understand the critical need to shunt
the thing properly, or even know that many millions of houses are
still loop-in supply.
- NICEIC installer death - Cable abraded thro hole in metal studding
- MP daughter's death - Nail thro spice rack, foot against class-1
(earthed) cooker
- Stripping wire with teeth death - Rather sad case
- Occupier death after decorator visit - Decorator left wiring
accessories unsafe
What I disagree with is competent DIYers not being able to add RCD
(eg, change split-load unit into all-RCBO unit following the drop from
£45-50 to £25 for RCBOs). The obvious counter from the bodies is "you
mean competent DIYer with calibrated RCD tester and C&G to understand
the results", unless you are asking RoSPA of course who are away with
the fairy and wearing a wetsuit just in case.
Faulty plug-in RCD have led to deaths re lawnmower and hedge trimmer
recently, and one of those still tripped with the button. They do not
like being basked around, they are electromechanical devices. Better
to pick up an RCBO for the final circuit, or an RCD spur, or a "RCD
outside socket from B&Q/Wickes/Etc", or one of the Legrand 10mA
metalclad sockets on Ebay for about a tenner at the moment (I'm not
the seller, just noticed them in passing and I know many people here
do benchwork where 10mA is preferable to 30mA :-)
Fredxx
I did hear you make such a mention!
What does the act say, or is it the NICEIC scheme who allows an "employee"
to do the labouring work? Do they have to be an employee? What about a
"subciontractor"? After all there are a number of IR35 friendly contracts.
Are there any other schemes? I thought at one point there was going to be a
scheme to allow some more DIY work but it seems to have gone very quiet.
Owain
> The presence of RCD
> would have saved many lives over the years.
But not as many as increased competence and common sense.
> I actually agree with 17th "RCD everything".
> - MEB cut death - Plumber cuts MEB to CW pipe without shunting it.
> Precious few plumbers seem to understand the critical need to shunt
> the thing properly, or even know that many millions of houses are
> still loop-in supply.
More fool him.
> - NICEIC installer death - Cable abraded thro hole in metal studding
Bad practice.
> - MP daughter's death - Nail thro spice rack, foot against class-1
> (earthed) cooker
Bad practice, lack of common sense.
> - Stripping wire with teeth death - Rather sad case
Lack of common sense.
> - Occupier death after decorator visit - Decorator left wiring
> accessories unsafe
Bad practice on part of decorator, owner did not recognise danger.
> What I disagree with is competent DIYers not being able to add RCD
> (eg, change split-load unit into all-RCBO unit following the drop from
> £45-50 to £25 for RCBOs). The obvious counter from the bodies is "you
> mean competent DIYer with calibrated RCD tester and C&G to understand
> the results",
which would be far ahead of a lot of "sparkies", a pair of whom I
found didn't know how to wire 2 doorbells off the same push. I offered
to draw them a diagram but they refused to believe that I could have
any clue about such matters.
> ... or one of the Legrand 10mA
> metalclad sockets on Ebay for about a tenner at the moment (I'm not
> the seller, just noticed them in passing and I know many people here
> do benchwork where 10mA is preferable to 30mA :-)
I think reaction time is just as important as mA, not sure how the
curves compare for the different ratings.
Owain
Tim W
wibbled on Tuesday 24 November 2009 16:12
> I think reaction time is just as important as mA, not sure how the
> curves compare for the different ratings.
>
> Owain
<=40mS for personal protection IIRC[1] - which is different to a Type S
100mA on a TT supply, whose main purpose is to meet ADS (automatic
disconnection) requirements as the earth impedance is (usually) so high it
will never trip any overcurrent protective device on a L-E short.
[1] Which isn't an arbitary number. According to our course instructor, that
data along with 30mA was concluded from various "research" data Hitler's
goons had been collecting by way of electrocuting jews et al.
I wonder what numbers they would have come up with without that evilly
acquired knowledge...
ARWadsworth
"Tim W" <t...@dionic.net> wrote in message
news:heh142$mnr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
They would have just waited for Saddams resarch results.
Adam
js.b1
> Type S 100mA on a TT supply, whose main purpose
> is to meet ADS (automatic disconnection) requirements
Reminds me that "30mA RCD everything" may have had grid people
supporting it to re long term cost-reduction.
1 - Grid already letting Ze slip - hence norm of 80A v 100A BS1361
fuse
2 - Requirement to maintain Ze can slip further - if you switch people
to TT
3 - Moving people to TT removes quite onerous ESQW costs
> 30mA was concluded from various "research" data Hitler's goons
Dr Waldenburg springs to mind.
30mA was the lowest we could go with off the shelf mass production,
only Japan could go lower at an inappropriate cost and basic medical
research indicated 30mA was a reasonable limit re respiratory risk.
> I wonder what numbers they would have come up
> with without that evilly acquired knowledge...
RCD introduction might have been delayed re technological limitations.
Typical research cited figures (women-men)
- Perception for Touch - 0.24-0.36mA
- Perception for Grip - 0.73-1.10mA
- Startle - 3.2mA
- Let-Go current - 10.5-10mA
- Respiratory Tetanus - 15-23mA
- Respiratory Paralysis - 30mA
- Fibrilation - 250mA
al
> What anyone can do in a kitchen under SI2006 Non-Notifiable Works is
> quite limited.
>
> You can not...
> - Add a new final circuit
> - Add a new wiring accessory (eg, socket)
> - Install a new CU with all new circuit breakers (see note below re
> enclosure)
>
> You can...
> - Perform maintenance (this one is very grey, if it is to correct non-
> BS7671 there is little problem)
> - Replace wiring accessories
> - Replace cabling for a single "circuit" (note BS7671 definition of a
> "circuit" is defined as protected by a CPD, so not just a single
> cable; CPD being circuit protective device such as MCB or CPD)
> - Replace any damaged enclosure (including CU)
> - Replace any protective device (such as RCD, altho an issue is
> testing the new one properly re 1/2x 1x 5x trip times etc)
>
>
the cover is damaged?
(small hammer required to get around part P ;-)
Regards
Al
js.b1
> Does the above mean anyone can go ahead and
> replace their CU because the cover is damaged?
BR AD P...
"p8 Table 1 Work that need not be notified to BC"
"Work consisting of"
"Re-fixing or replacing the enclosures of existing installation
components (note b)"
"Notes: b) If the circuit protective measures are unaffected"
Enclosure - but NOT circuit protective measures may be changed :-)
BR AD P...
"p8 Additional Notes..."
"c. Consumer unit replacements are, however, notifiable"
Replacement of a CU re enclosure and circuit protective devices is
notifiable.
You can re-fix or replace the enclosure if circuit protective measures
are unaffected.
BR AD P...
"p8 Additional Notes..."
"a) Notifiable jobs include new circuits back to the CU"
Nothing to stop you fitting a larger enclosure with more ways if only
that enclosure size were available. However you can not add new
circuits.
BR AD P...
"p8 Additional Notes..."
"b) Replacement, repair and maintenance jobs are generally not
notifiable, even if carried out in a kitchen or special location, or
associated with a special installation"
You can change a Fuse, RCD, MCB, RCBO should the need arise (ie, if
the terminal screw is stripped, or the RCD/RCBO test button no longer
trips the device).
BS7671 gives definitions, useful to read in conjunction with SI2006.
For example SI2006 does not say "cable" it says "circuit" which BS7671
definitions section at the front defines as anything beyond the CPD.
So "enclosure" does not mean "enclosure with circuit protective
devices" - hence the footnote "b)" :-)
Peter Parry
wrote:
>I actually agree with 17th "RCD everything".
That foolishness has killed quite a few people already, why do they
want to add to the numbers? "Whole house" RCD's often leave people in
burning houses with no lights to aid escape, a very silly idea as
fires and falls kill vastly more than the trivial number of
electrocution cases.
NT
> I have hired someone to completely redo the kitchen in my flat. He started a
> week ago, and so far he has only done preparation work - the kitchen has
> been completely gutted. He describes himself on his quote as "Electrical
> Contractor NIC EIC". The only problem is that, ahem, he isn't on the NIC EIC
> register. He apparently was until a year ago, but they cannot tell me why he
> is not registered any longer.
>
> I feel that I am stuck with him to get the kitchen reinstated, as I am
> working full-time at the moment. Any suggestions? Obviously, the deceit is
> quite worrying.
>
> There is nothing particularly difficult about the kitchen wiring, but do I
> need to get someone else in to deal with that?
All depends whether you need the part p paperwork. The thread seems to
have so far assumed you do.
NT
js.b1
> "Whole house" RCD's often leave people in
> burning houses with no lights to aid escape
Which are not compliant with the 17th :-)
By 17th "RCD everything" I mean compliant with 314.1.
- That means at least 2, preferably 3 RCD (lights split across)
- More preferable is RCBO for each final circuit
Full electrocution protection need not increase falls & fires.
1 - mains interlinked smoke/heat alarms with battery backup
2 - non-maintained emergency light on the stairs
3 - hall light on own circuit, then up, then down
That need not mean an extra light circuit.
Put the hall light, smoke & non-maintained hall light on the same
circuit.
The hall is least likely to have a fire vs garage, utility, kitchen,
living & bedroom areas. Thus the hall light is most likely to stay on
when up/down go off, directly reducing falls 1) on stairs 2) by
casting light into upstairs rooms 3) by casting light into downstairs
rooms 4) providing light via non-maintained light if necessary during
fire. Indeed since smoke alarms are mains powered, they could
integrate a light (although of minimal value re smoke I admit, but in
the critical 2-3 minutes after a smoke alarm probably useful).
In the next 2yrs I will move my mother's hall lighting from Upstairs
f.c. to the smoke circuit f.c. with three low level LED non-maintained
lights also on it. The hall light is most likely to have incandescent
bulbs re fast-on particularly in cold winter, which are most likely to
blow compared to CFL taking out the faster-tripping Type-B MCB/RCBO
plunging the stairs into darkness. I've always hated "hall light takes
out bedroom lights re same circuit", seems freakin nuts when you are
Upstairs and require the stairs to get Downstairs :-)
Owain
> All depends whether you need the part p paperwork. The thread seems to
> have so far assumed you do.
Well, the OP is paying a professional, so having the Part Pee
paperwork is not only his entitlement, but something of a reassurance
against being fobbed off with the legendary electrical incompetence of
kitchen fitters in matters electrical.
Of course, if one is DIYing it then it all comes under like-for-like
replacement doesn't it :-)
Owain
John Rumm
> Are there any other schemes? I thought at one point there was going to be a
NICEIC is not the only game in town, even CORGI^h^h^h^h^hGasSafe get in
on the deal.
> scheme to allow some more DIY work but it seems to have gone very quiet.
Via building notice and LABC inspection is the only "approved" route
that I am aware of, and ignoring it completely is the route taken by
99.9% it would seem.
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
NT
entitlement yes, but if its not required then its negotiable, and he
has a good lever with which to negotiate the price.
NT
Peter Parry
wrote:
>Full electrocution protection need not increase falls & fires.
Do you have any idea how many people died from electrocution in the UK
every year?
For a new house or a full rewire the extravagant system you describe
is adequate although why you would want to put any lighting circuit on
an RCD is puzzling. For existing wiring there are still far to many
"qualified" electricians conning people into having consumer units
alone replaced (Much professional trained sucking of teeth and
muttering "Can't pass that mate - not compliant are you?"). When the
do the lucrative and simple CU replacement they often leave lights on
RCD's and tell the hapless owner they are now "safer".
Tim W
wibbled on Wednesday 25 November 2009 09:07
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:09:32 -0800 (PST), "js.b1" <js...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Full electrocution protection need not increase falls & fires.
>
> Do you have any idea how many people died from electrocution in the UK
> every year?
>
> For a new house or a full rewire the extravagant system you describe
> is adequate although why you would want to put any lighting circuit on
> an RCD is puzzling.
You *have to* if working to the 17th, unless you like doing SWA, MICC or
screwed steel conduit for all your switch drops ;->
Or your walls are thick and you like chasing cables >2" deep...
Dave Plowman (News)
Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> When the
> do the lucrative and simple CU replacement they often leave lights on
> RCD's and tell the hapless owner they are now "safer".
Ignoring the tripping of an RCD in a fire etc, my feeling is you're more
likely to 'get a shock' when changing a bulb than any other similar task
around the house. Of course 'more likely' is still a tiny amount.
--
*Some days we are the flies; some days we are the windscreen.*
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Andy Dingley
> You *have to* if working to the 17th, unless you like doing SWA, MICC or
> screwed steel conduit for all your switch drops ;->
Unburied plastic conduit on the surface?
Fredxx
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:50bfb05...@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <7ispg5tom4rno6su7...@4ax.com>,
> Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>> When the
>> do the lucrative and simple CU replacement they often leave lights on
>> RCD's and tell the hapless owner they are now "safer".
>
> Ignoring the tripping of an RCD in a fire etc, my feeling is you're more
> likely to 'get a shock' when changing a bulb than any other similar task
> around the house. Of course 'more likely' is still a tiny amount.
>
It's still the only outlet which has unshrouded live terminals.
It's a shame every DIYer didn't write to the IEE at the time of all this.
The majority of it's members opposed the support given to legislation and
the institution has since renamed itself in shame.
Owain
> > ... although why you would want to put any lighting circuit on
> > an RCD is puzzling.
> You *have to* if working to the 17th, unless you like doing SWA, MICC or
> screwed steel conduit for all your switch drops ;->
:-)
Owain
John Rumm
The 17th edition does not support "whole house" RCDs. Were talking
multiple independent RCDs here.
Fredxx
> screwed steel conduit for all your switch drops ;->
>
> Or your walls are thick and you like chasing cables >2" deep...
>
Why protection does MICC afford to drill bits, screws and nails?
Tim W
wibbled on Wednesday 25 November 2009 10:31
> In article <7ispg5tom4rno6su7...@4ax.com>,
> Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>> When the
>> do the lucrative and simple CU replacement they often leave lights on
>> RCD's and tell the hapless owner they are now "safer".
>
> Ignoring the tripping of an RCD in a fire etc, my feeling is you're more
> likely to 'get a shock' when changing a bulb than any other similar task
> around the house. Of course 'more likely' is still a tiny amount.
>
Hager/Ashley make a nice BC fitting that isolates on the turn so the pins
are dead by the time the bulb comes out.
If the meddling government wanted to do something useful, they could mandate
all fittings did that.
Not that (m)any people die from such accidents - but is is an obvious
improvement with no disadvantages for the user, like shielded 13A plug pins
and shuttered sockets.
dennis@home
"Fredxx" <fre...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:hej5m7$ipu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Why protection does MICC afford to drill bits, screws and nails?
>
About the same as conduit.. none.
However it does earth the drill bit/screw/nail and stop you getting a
serious shock (in most cases).
You can pass the protection requirements with some earthed foil around the
cable.
Tim W
wibbled on Wednesday 25 November 2009 11:44
Mechanically - about as much as SWA. Screwed conduit is tough but an SDS
will probably go through it.
The point which is often missed with MICC and SWA, is the primary purpose of
the earth shield (armour or copper jacket) is to ensure that any metal
implement going through is earthed before it hits a live conductore, thus
protecting the person. Secondly, hitting the live conductor will trip teh
circuit protection.
The secondary benefit is the toughness of the armour or copper sheath - but
it is not presumed that these are indestructible.
Tim W
wibbled on Wednesday 25 November 2009 10:42
Well, there is that option too. Clipped cable too if you like :)
John Rumm
Mechanically, little. However it ensure you get an earth fault when you
do nail through it, and that cuts the power off.
John Rumm
Part of the argument with BC holders is that it is very difficult to get
enough contact area on the terminals, and also difficult to get a
particularly unfavourable conduction path across the chest to actually
be that much of a risk.
Andy Dingley
> > Unburied plastic conduit on the surface?
>
> Well, there is that option too.
It's what I'm installing in the workshop. Steel conduit's a pain and I
don't want anything buried, because of future access. A workshop I
used a while back was built from hollow cement blocks and had cable
inside the block voids. Now _that_ was a pain to work with.
Surface plastic is also a reasonable approach for some kitchen work,
as you can hide it behind fitted units. It gives easy flexibility for
appliance placement.
Tim W
wibbled on Wednesday 25 November 2009 14:06
Indeed.
Due to location of isolator switches above the worktop and sockets below,
plus random holes for plumbing, it was a pain to try to conceal the final
cables to the appliance sockets in an IEE approved zone. And teh socket
poisitions weren't obvious without the plumbing being in place.
So I brought 20mm round out to the surface from the flush isolator boxes
(offset bend in conduit) and left them at tails.
Now that the plumbing's in, it has become clearer where the sockets can go,
so I'll continue in surface round tube (where I can route it anyway I like)
and finish in metal clad sockets. Given the number of pipes knocking around
down there, 3 more won't make any difference :)
I have a similar problem round the back in the utility area due to flat
roofs and lumps of timber - nearly impossible to find a buried zone that
works, other than long horizontals within 150mm of the ceiling, so the
boiler and washing machine will probably get surface cable, but probably in
mini trunking rather than conduit.
GB
> Do you have any idea how many people died from electrocution in the UK
> every year?
27 deaths in 2002, of which around 18 were workplace incidents. Presumably a
couple were individuals removing themselves from the gene pool by climbing
onto railway overhead supplies and that leaves a handful due to accidents in
the home.
That is around 1 in 100,000 deaths a year being caused by electrical
accidents at home. It does seem that an awful lot of effort seems to be
going into trying to reduce that very small proportion still further. Is
that actually cost-effective, compared to say spending a similar amount of
money on improving road safety (3000 fatalities a year)?
Mike Clarke
> That is around 1 in 100,000 deaths a year being caused by electrical
> accidents at home. It does seem that an awful lot of effort seems to be
> going into trying to reduce that very small proportion still further. Is
> that actually cost-effective, compared to say spending a similar amount of
> money on improving road safety (3000 fatalities a year)?
Well to get brownie points for improving road safety the Government will
need to spend lots of money but to improve the electrical safety of our
homes the government just tells us we have to spend money to comply with
Part P.
--
Mike Clarke
js.b1
> new house or a full rewire the extravagant
> system you describe is adequate
extravagant and adequate in that sentence are non sequitor :-)
BS7671-2008 requires...
#1 - ALL cables RCD protected unless
- a) surface run over entire run (no chance due to aesthetic
devaluation)
- b) buried >50mm from finished surface (no chance due to BR "A"
limits on wall chase depth)
- c) comply with 526-06-06 (no chance unless BS8436 which is 7x the
price of twin-&-earth)
Thus in effect all circuits must be RCD protected.
#2 - A fault on one circuit should not cause unnecessary disconnect of
others (314.1)
- Whole House RCD is not permitted
- Lights all on the same RCD is not permitted
- Lights must be distributed so Up on RCD#1 and Down on RCD#2
The key problem of RCD (apart from cost) is eliminated.
BS7671 17th practical compliance:
- Distribute circuits over 2 RCD (£40 extra)
- Put Lights Up & Down on their own RCBO (£25+25 extra)
I myself would break away Hall and put it on Smoke (£25).
Why have lights on RCD?
#1 - Outside lights wired off interior, fittings leak, metal
stepladders
#2 - Many houses have light circuits without CPC, but technically
Class-1 fittings
RCD will not generally help with ES or BC light fittings because LN
across the fingers will throw someone off a stepladder or downstairs,
but will not trip the RCD unless sufficient current flows to earth.
Incidentally 13th regs did state you can only fit class-1 lights to a
light circuit without CPC *if* the floor was not concrete
(conductive).
Nuisance tripping of lights came about due to Type-B trip
characteristic compared to slower cartridge fuses & fuse wire.
Putting lights on RCBO avoids other circuits taking out lights (hence
some believe 314.1 actually requires lights on dedicated RCBO).
I still suspect the Distribution Network want all RCD.
#1 - Removes the cost of maintaining low Ze
#2 - Removes the cost of providing/maintaining any Earth Terminal
The reality is that FEW lives are lost due to FIXED wiring.
The future reality will be when RCD begin to fail - 7% failure rate is
due to dust, humidity & lack of regular testing (ok that covers
domestic quite well!). Now consider 3x RCD or 12-16x RCBO, the
increase in RCD just created complacency which since most accidents
are due to human error just invites more accidents downstream. Part P
blocking people fixing damaged wiring hasn't helped safety statistics,
like Part M idiot 45cm socket height hasn't helped trip statistics.
Just be glad RoSPA didn't write regulations...
... the problem with contractors milking is however serious - however
nice paper trail & indirect taxation for Gordon, together with fees
for glass house certifying bodies populated by corrupt statisticians &
marketeers
js.b1
> 27 deaths in 2002, of which around 18 were workplace incidents.
So 9 for domestic.
How many of those were from portable appliances v fixed wiring? :-)
Peter Parry
wrote:
>So 9 for domestic.
>
>How many of those were from portable appliances v fixed wiring? :-)
The answer was given in reply to a Parliamentary question about a year
ago and as I recall is about 2 to fixed wiring and the rest to
something plugged in. At the moment I can't find the Hansard link to
it but I'll post it when I have time to look.
As was widely predicted at the time the number has of course increased
since Part P came into being.
js.b1
> The answer was given in reply to a Parliamentary question about a year
> ago and as I recall is about 2 to fixed wiring and the rest to
> something plugged in. At the moment I can't find the Hansard link to
> it but I'll post it when I have time to look.
Thanks.
> As was widely predicted at the time the number has of course increased
> since Part P came into being.
Indeed.
GB
>> As was widely predicted at the time the number has of course
>> increased since Part P came into being.
>
> Indeed.
What, the number of deaths from fixed wiring has increased!? How was that
predictable, particularly as I assume that well over 90% of homes have had
no changes made since the new regs came in.
--
Take it easy on the kid, SilverFox316; everybody kills Hitler on their
first trip.
js.b1
> What, the number of deaths from fixed wiring has increased!?
Very probably.
> How was that predictable, particularly as I assume that well over
> 90% of homes have had no changes made since the new regs came in.
Yes they have, it is called Time deteriorating old installations.
People are no longer fixing problems.
- Lead sheathed TRS cable still exists (sheath can become live)
- TRS cable is still very common (rots)
- PVC sheath with polyethylene insulation is still in use (goes
brittle)
- FTE-thro-hosepipe or direct in ground to sheds still in use
Cowboys are still making problems.
- Kitchen fitters in particular still "play with cables"
- True even when an electrician was there first re cabinets second
Whilst deaths may not show much change, I suspect fires will increase.
Likewise I expect installations to become less reliable - particularly
those belonging to elderly who have aged installations (typically
35yrs) which in the past were maintained by relatives. I know of 2
installations with lead sheathed TRS near me and that whole run of
very aged houses have never been rewired since pre WW-II.
Walking yesterday I watched someone using a massive Karcher on a fully
coiled extension lead, probably not enough to melt the cable over
20mins, but not exactly "over 720W must be fully unwound". That's
because Part P stops them fitting a socket outside - the DIY outside
socket kits "by the letter of the law" are not legal because it is a
fixed installation even if connected by a plug, the docs even cite
this workaround. Indeed if they didn't you could just fit a BS4343
Interlocked Switch 125A socket & plug to connect an entire house to
the grid (until you see the size of them, quite funny... Wow! Tonka
Made *Plugs* Too!).
Ironically in the LONG term they will create statistics indicating
that fixed wiring IS a problem by the legislation preventing people
maintaining (upgrading) it! For example not fitting RCD protection
where it might be of use to elderly, for example old electric
blankets, toasters, kettles, cookers etc.
ARWadsworth
"js.b1" <js...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:e550335b-d662-4d62...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 25, 9:07 am, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> new house or a full rewire the extravagant
> system you describe is adequate
I myself would break away Hall and put it on Smoke (�25).
<snip> almost everything.
But that is so simple and such a good idea.
All that is needed is a dual RCD CU (not the minimum standard 17th edition
CU) that has at least one space that is non RCD protected to allow an RCBO
to feeds the hallway light and the smoke and any interlinked smokes.
The beauty is that the smoke detector is usually in the hallway.
http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/WYNHRS10SSLHI.html
is the sort of CU that would work.
Adam
John Rumm
> Whilst deaths may not show much change, I suspect fires will increase.
> Likewise I expect installations to become less reliable - particularly
> those belonging to elderly who have aged installations (typically
> 35yrs) which in the past were maintained by relatives. I know of 2
> installations with lead sheathed TRS near me and that whole run of
> very aged houses have never been rewired since pre WW-II.
A less visible knock on will also be increased deaths from trips, falls,
scaldings etc. as people are put off from doing necessary work and use
extension leads near stairs, in kitchens etc. These of course won't
register as electrical deaths.
> Walking yesterday I watched someone using a massive Karcher on a fully
> coiled extension lead, probably not enough to melt the cable over
> 20mins, but not exactly "over 720W must be fully unwound". That's
> because Part P stops them fitting a socket outside - the DIY outside
> socket kits "by the letter of the law" are not legal because it is a
> fixed installation even if connected by a plug, the docs even cite
> this workaround. Indeed if they didn't you could just fit a BS4343
> Interlocked Switch 125A socket & plug to connect an entire house to
> the grid (until you see the size of them, quite funny... Wow! Tonka
> Made *Plugs* Too!).
Fortunately I get the impression that the general populous is not that
aware of part P anyway - but it will obviously have some effect.
> Ironically in the LONG term they will create statistics indicating
> that fixed wiring IS a problem by the legislation preventing people
> maintaining (upgrading) it! For example not fitting RCD protection
> where it might be of use to elderly, for example old electric
> blankets, toasters, kettles, cookers etc.
Pete Verdon
> On Nov 25, 12:31 am, Owain <spuorgelg...@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>> Well, the OP is paying a professional, so having the Part Pee
>> paperwork is not only his entitlement, but something of a reassurance
>> against being fobbed off with the legendary electrical incompetence of
>> kitchen fitters in matters electrical.
>>
>> Of course, if one is DIYing it then it all comes under like-for-like
>> replacement doesn't it :-)
> entitlement yes, but if its not required then its negotiable, and he
> has a good lever with which to negotiate the price.
I'm with Owain on the DIY front, but if I've decided to fork out and get
someone else to do something, I damn well want a proper job out of it.
Pete
Tony Bryer
> Walking yesterday I watched someone using a massive Karcher on a fully
> coiled extension lead, probably not enough to melt the cable over
> 20mins, but not exactly "over 720W must be fully unwound". That's
> because Part P stops them fitting a socket outside
So if wasn't for Part P he'd be fitting an outdoor socket? Given that he
obviously has a limited understanding of things electrical by not
uncoiling the lead, perhaps Part P is saving him from himself.
Actually I suspect that the number of people who haven't done something
that they could have done in a competent manner because of Part P is
tiny.
--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.superbeam.com www.greentram.com
Fredxx
"Tony Bryer" <to...@delme.sda.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VA.0000486...@delme.sda.co.uk...
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:41:05 -0800 (PST) Js.b1 wrote :
>> Walking yesterday I watched someone using a massive Karcher on a fully
>> coiled extension lead, probably not enough to melt the cable over
>> 20mins, but not exactly "over 720W must be fully unwound". That's
>> because Part P stops them fitting a socket outside
>
> So if wasn't for Part P he'd be fitting an outdoor socket? Given that he
> obviously has a limited understanding of things electrical by not
> uncoiling the lead, perhaps Part P is saving him from himself.
>
> Actually I suspect that the number of people who haven't done something
> that they could have done in a competent manner because of Part P is
> tiny.
>
Crap. There are things I would do now such as fitting a safer CU with twin
RCDs and possibly RCBOs, but I'm holding it off for the moment.
Have you never forgotten to fully unwind an extension lead? I have, yet I
admit I should have known better at the time. I've also known my partner to
do the same, and on this point I would agree with you, she would not
understand its significance, yet I can assure you, she wouldn't attempt to
fit in an external socket!
Dave Plowman (News)
Tony Bryer <to...@delme.sda.co.uk> wrote:
> Actually I suspect that the number of people who haven't done something
> that they could have done in a competent manner because of Part P is
> tiny.
Tend to agree. When 'they' bring in legislation as stupid as this I just
ignore it. And I'd guess I'm not alone.
--
*I'm not your type. I'm not inflatable.
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
js.b1
> So if wasn't for Part P he'd be fitting an outdoor socket? Given that he
> obviously has a limited understanding of things electrical by not
> uncoiling the lead, perhaps Part P is saving him from himself.
Not necessarily.
There seem to be 3 camps re extension leads
1 - Believe instructions are junk mail
2 - Believe you can not use extension leads for high current
3 - Believe you must unwind if high current
Of those #2 seems the most common, perhaps because some MIGHT have
read the destructions for washing machine or microwave or fridge which
says "do not use on an extension lead".
> Actually I suspect that the number of people who haven't done
> something that they could have done in a competent manner
> because of Part P is tiny.
I disagree.
- UK historically has an active DIY electrical market
- UK historically has a significant non-spark market
- UK limit for DIY is typically major kitchen/bathroom work
Re Part P there seem to be 3 clear camps:
#1 - People incorrectly heard of Part P (many)
- Via neighbour, kitchen fitter, handyman, painter, decorator, carpet
fitter, electrical store, DIY store, electrician friend, estate agent,
letting agent, gas fitter, plumber, electrician, friends at work, any
time they are seen carrying anything of fixing wiring accessory near a
DIY store with hoody sparks about :-) Even at wholesalers and places
like screwfix who don't want to upset the teeth-sucking sparks kicked
out of industrial because they pissed off the CoW too many times.
- Without exception they all hilariously believe SI2004 is the law.
Ironically the only place which gets SI2006 correct appears to be
anyone at B&Q.
#2 - Many who have never heard of Part P, SI2004 or SI2006
- Might know they should use an RCD for lawn mower etc
- Might check with an electrician who will immediately cite SI2004
even carrying a copy of the relevant literature of that time
#3 - Those via profession/interest bothered to find out
- Competent to not only DIY but also know about SI2006
So you think it might discourage the idiots?
Unfortunately not because they a) don't know b) don't care. All it
does is provide a means to catch the crooks.
Personally I think as #1 shows the gold-plated-profit opportunity of
SI2004 seems to have created a NEW type of semi-professional or
professional cowboys who can now obtain contract & money they
previously could not.
#1 is also fuelled by an element of grievance where someone has "had
to pay" someone re "SI2004 is the law" when another person is seen
doing it themselves and thus a) denying them the job or b) bypassing
what they had to pay. That can create quite a nasty environment until
someone eventually corrects them.
js.b1
wrote:
> The beauty is that the smoke detector is usually in the hallway.
Indeed.
Since smoke has to be on RCD/RCBO to comply with 17th (unless wired in
£128/100m BS8436!) it can be argued that combining "regularly used"
lights such as Hall-Only makes an ideal combination - particularly if
combined with an EmLight.
Many say smoke should not be on RCD/RCBO.
- I would counter by saying that quite a few smoke alarms are
difficult to dismount from their fittings - such that damage and
exposure of live terminals is not impossible (and whilst up a metal
stepladder). I had forgotten how to get the AICO units off, idiot
embossed white text rather than a simply "push here" or "slide out
tray for 9V battery", sufficient to have mangled the side pattern due
to an oversize screwdriver rather than super slim type.
- Even more stupid is the "hush" button which is unmarked & difficult
to press. Too much vested commercial interest in "create lots of
installed base iterations before we release one which has a remote
STFU for 10min hush button". Replacing 5 Aico 141etc with 164RC & Hush
switch is around £225.
Owain
> Ironically the only place which gets SI2006 correct appears to be
> anyone at B&Q.
Except in Scotland, where they have (had) the same shelf-edge decals
about Part Pee as used in England.
Owain
Tony Bryer
> Crap. There are things I would do now such as fitting a safer CU with
> twin RCDs and possibly RCBOs, but I'm holding it off for the moment.
Because of Part P? If you're competent, have got the time and money,
then not to do it and improve you/your family's safety makes no sense.
In my old home in the UK I replaced the CU, installed/moved numerous
sockets and light fittings, put in an outside socket etc ... and got a
Periodic Inspection Report before I sold up for my own peace of mind.
Not a query from the buyer.
No DIY electrics here though - all fixed installation work has to be
done by a card-carrying pro.
Peter Parry
wrote:
>What, the number of deaths from fixed wiring has increased!?
No, the number being electrocuted.
>How was that predictable,
Because it was predicted (and it appears to be the case) that people
are putting off things like adding more fixed sockets as many
electricians increased their prices for such work when P was
introduced and now regularly try to gold plate simple jobs by trying
to do extra unnecessary work such replacing consumer units making
quite false "new regulations make your house illegal" claims.
>particularly as I assume that well over 90% of homes have had
>no changes made since the new regs came in.
That's the problem, the increase in electrical devices has led to
greatly increased use of extension leads and suchlike which are
nowhere near as safe as fixed wiring. Far from reducing risk Part P
increased it.
Stuart Noble
Nice to have that confirmed by someone who knows their stuff.
There will always be a conflict of interests when the enforcer of the
regulations is the one who profits from the compliance. If the govt
regulates, it has to be more involved in the whole process, as it is
with MOT certificates.
Appin
from Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> contains these words:
> That's the problem, the increase in electrical devices has led to
> greatly increased use of extension leads and suchlike which are
> nowhere near as safe as fixed wiring. Far from reducing risk Part P
> increased it.
Have you ever seen the typical installation in houses/shacks in African
townships? CU with a couple of BS546 15amp sockets (or as they would
have it SABS 164 16amp sockets) built in, high up near the ceiling in
the main room and extension leads with powerstrips trailing through the
shack from there, one piggy-backed on to another. It may comply with
the law -- but is it safe and is it wise?
Appin
from Tony Bryer <to...@delme.sda.co.uk> contains these words:
> I replaced the CU, installed/moved numerous
> sockets and light fittings, put in an outside socket etc ... and got a
> Periodic Inspection Report before I sold up for my own peace of mind.
> Not a query from the buyer.
> No DIY electrics here though - all fixed installation work has to be
> done by a card-carrying pro.
So if you've changed the CU, installed numerous sockets and light
fittings in your previoius home, was that pre-Part P -- or if not, what
do you refer to as "all fixed installation work?"
js.b1
> No DIY electrics here though - all fixed installation work has to be
> done by a card-carrying pro.
With the result that deaths increased and the Australian Gov't refuses
to reveal the truth without application under the Freedom Of
Information Act (dead baby being the most famous, but there are
others).
There was a UK plan to significantly reduce the fees.
Even so that still leaves some bizarre situations -- 1) "warranty is
an option from our members" -- 2) registered entities need not comply
with BS7671 or a named standard, it need merely be safe in the eyes of
a court (might as well scrap BS7671 and make it up as they go along)
-- 3) loading of standards both innocently & dishonestly for
enhancement remuneration as Peter Parry notes.
I recall 2008 winter saw 35,000 extra deaths from the cold? Exactly
how many domestic fixed wiring deaths were there? I guess if we burn
all the bureacracy we would reduce the death toll.
js.b1
> It may comply with the law -- but is it safe and is it wise?
It may not comply with the law re piggy-backed...
- Is there RCD protection - may not be required legally
- Is the cable sufficiently sized - re CCC
- Is the EFLI within limits re length - may be negated if RCD
Then it comes down to trip hazard and fire hazard.
- Fire is mainly re risk of plugs being damaged or partly engaged
- Secondary risk is flood on ground connectors
I'd be happy with it if some conditions met...
- Electrical - RCD protected, 1.5mm cable, screw-in plugs & sockets
(Clipsal series 56), daisychain via screw-in plugs
- Trip hazard - cable clipped over hooks
For what I mean re Clipsal series 56, type "IP66" into screwfix's dumb
website. The sockets take 13A screw-in plugs and when no plug is
present the lid provides splashproof (not pushed home) or IP66 (good
as practical). Then look at the price and realise that isn't going to
happen in Africa (or most other places!).
You could make an argument for 110V (55V-0-55V), but that limits total
current draw and requires GFCI etc.
Extension leads are fine in MK Duraplug & 1.5mm H07RNF, ideally with
RCD (1.5mm for a bit of safety re any cushions or furnishings over the
cable re thermal derating compared to 1.25mm only being required for
13A unless the cable is very long).
Owain
> Have you ever seen the typical installation in houses/shacks in African
> townships? CU with a couple of BS546 15amp sockets (or as they would
> have it SABS 164 16amp sockets) built in, high up near the ceiling in
> the main room and extension leads with powerstrips trailing through the
> shack from there, one piggy-backed on to another. It may comply with
> the law -- but is it safe and is it wise?
Probably not, but given the overall mortality rates in Africa they
probably aren't too worried about the occasional electrocution either.
Owain
Appin
<e2bc353f-dee1-4024...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
from Owain <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> contains these words:
Quite. AIDS is the major (indirect) cause of death and a very large
proprotion of the populaton is HIV positive.
Appin
<75e9b0b2-7ccb-4f36...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
from "js.b1" <js...@ntlworld.com> contains these words:
> Appin wrote...
> > It may comply with the law -- but is it safe and is it wise?
> It may not comply with the law re piggy-backed...
We're talking about the notorious South African townships where whites
don't generally go. Police presence, where it exists, is in a secure
compound with a masive flagpole. I can hardly see some official
inspecting whether there's some daisychain of powerstrips! These huts
frequently have second hand corrugated iron on the roof with the old
holes still open to the elements!
> - Is there RCD protection - may not be required legally
Generally there is. The CUs are generally good quality.
> - Is the cable sufficiently sized - re CCC
> - Is the EFLI within limits re length - may be negated if RCD
The electrical deficiencies are the least of the problems in these places!
> Then it comes down to trip hazard and fire hazard.
> - Fire is mainly re risk of plugs being damaged or partly engaged
There's little to burn
> - Secondary risk is flood on ground connectors
> I'd be happy with it if some conditions met...
> - Electrical - RCD protected, 1.5mm cable, screw-in plugs & sockets
> (Clipsal series 56), daisychain via screw-in plugs
> - Trip hazard - cable clipped over hooks
> For what I mean re Clipsal series 56, type "IP66" into screwfix's dumb
> website. The sockets take 13A screw-in plugs and when no plug is
> present the lid provides splashproof (not pushed home) or IP66 (good
> as practical). Then look at the price and realise that isn't going to
> happen in Africa (or most other places!).
> You could make an argument for 110V (55V-0-55V), but that limits total
> current draw and requires GFCI etc.
> Extension leads are fine in MK Duraplug & 1.5mm H07RNF, ideally with
> RCD (1.5mm for a bit of safety re any cushions or furnishings over the
> cable re thermal derating compared to 1.25mm only being required for
> 13A unless the cable is very long).
I really don't fancy my whole house "wired" in loose extension cables
plugged into the Consumer Unit.
Tim W
wibbled on Friday 27 November 2009 19:49
>
> I really don't fancy my whole house "wired" in loose extension cables
> plugged into the Consumer Unit.
I'm living like that right now - it's a PITA. Can't imagine doing it as a
way of life.
--
Tim Watts
This space intentionally left blank...
js.b1
> Generally there is. The CUs are generally good quality.
That is good news, really is :-)
Pity it does not solve water, sanitation and AIDS.
Any highly virulent flu virus will take Africa apart re combination of
Genetics, AIDS & essentially no healthcare. It may not be H1N1, nor
H5N1-HP since H1N1 first has been shown to give "survival" in pigs &
monkeys - but it will happen.
> I really don't fancy my whole house "wired" in loose extension cables
> plugged into the Consumer Unit.- Hide quoted text -
Loose extension cables only work on a per-room basis - on diagonally-
opposed sockets, makes central turn-off easy.
Owain
> > > Have you ever seen the typical installation in houses/shacks in African
> > > townships?
> > probably aren't too worried about the occasional electrocution either.
> Quite. AIDS is the major (indirect) cause of death and a very large
> proprotion of the populaton is HIV positive.
Worldwide, life expectancy ranges from 84.36 years in Macau to 31.99
years in Swaziland which has the highest HIV infection rate in the
world (26% of all adults; more in other reports). 61% of all deaths in
the country were caused by HIV/AIDS
Owain
Andrew Gabriel
John Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> writes:
> Tim W wrote:
>> Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk>
>> wibbled on Wednesday 25 November 2009 10:31
>>
>>> In article <7ispg5tom4rno6su7...@4ax.com>,
>>> Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>>>> When the
>>>> do the lucrative and simple CU replacement they often leave lights on
>>>> RCD's and tell the hapless owner they are now "safer".
>>> Ignoring the tripping of an RCD in a fire etc, my feeling is you're more
>>> likely to 'get a shock' when changing a bulb than any other similar task
>>> around the house. Of course 'more likely' is still a tiny amount.
>>>
>>
>> Hager/Ashley make a nice BC fitting that isolates on the turn so the pins
>> are dead by the time the bulb comes out.
>>
>> If the meddling government wanted to do something useful, they could mandate
>> all fittings did that.
>>
>> Not that (m)any people die from such accidents - but is is an obvious
>> improvement with no disadvantages for the user, like shielded 13A plug pins
>> and shuttered sockets.
>
> Part of the argument with BC holders is that it is very difficult to get
> enough contact area on the terminals, and also difficult to get a
> particularly unfavourable conduction path across the chest to actually
> be that much of a risk.
AFAICT, there have been no electrocutions from BC pins.
Couldn't even find any records of injuries.
That makes it (rightly) hard to justify the expense of any change.
That's more than can be said for ES lampholders, where in most
countries, the screw terminal can be live, and there are recorded
electrocutions as a result of coming into contact with the metal
cap on the bulb whilst still in contact with the fitting (probably
one hand on the live bulb cap and the other on earthed lampholder).
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
Andrew Gabriel
My response to the government consultation is still online at
http://www.cucumber.demon.co.uk/buildregs.pdf
(I doubt the Government's original consultation paper still
exists online though.)
In Section 2.2, I predicted an increase in injuries/fatalities
resulting from Part P. I must admit, I didn't imagine it would
be as big as it was.
However, Part P was never about safety in the first place.
That was just a smoke screen. The ODPM admitted later that they
used the wrong figures and over-estimated fatalities.
Dave Liquorice
> AFAICT, there have been no electrocutions from BC pins.
Please Sir, Sir!
My first belt from the mains was from a BC light fitting that I was
"exploring" at about age 7. I guess by "electrocution" you mean death
rather than just a belt though.
> Couldn't even find any records of injuries.
Didn't tell any one at the time, no need I'd learnt my lesson and I
didn't want a telling off as well. B-)
--
Cheers
Dave.
Andrew Gabriel
"js.b1" <js...@ntlworld.com> writes:
> On Nov 27, 2:18�am, Tony Bryer <to...@delme.sda.co.uk> wrote:
>> No DIY electrics here though - all fixed installation work has to be
>> done by a card-carrying pro.
> With the result that deaths increased and the Australian Gov't refuses
> to reveal the truth without application under the Freedom Of
> Information Act (dead baby being the most famous, but there are
> others).
Somewhere else (New Zealand? I can't recall) had similar rules
and got rid of them just after we did Part P, and saw their
death rate from electrical installations plummet as people
then started fixing old/broken installations.
It emphasised the point that people die from _not_ doing
electrical work that should be done, and not from actually
doing it.
> There was a UK plan to significantly reduce the fees.
ODPM wrote to all councils telling them they aren't allowed to
charge extra for electrical building notices as they started to
do. Some have ignored that instruction. Some unofficially tell
people not to make an application to avoid the situation.
John Rumm
I think Tony is referring to Australia where he is now...
Out of curiosity, how do they prevent DIY electrics in Aus?
Frank Erskine
<allsortsn...@howhill.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:25:09 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gabriel wrote:
>
>> AFAICT, there have been no electrocutions from BC pins.
>
>Please Sir, Sir!
>
>My first belt from the mains was from a BC light fitting that I was
>"exploring" at about age 7.
<AOL>
Me too.
</AOL>
Actually it was an angle batten lampholder on the wall of a sort of
lean-to greenhouse at the back of the Edwardian terraced town-house.
It wasn't really that it was a BC lampholder; it was attached to a
damp wall and the belt was from the wall rather than the lampholder.
>I guess by "electrocution" you mean death
>rather than just a belt though.
Electrocution _was_ always death, but modern parlance seems to dictate
otherwise.
>Didn't tell any one at the time, no need I'd learnt my lesson and I
>didn't want a telling off as well. B-)
Likewise - however I did voluntarily rewire the circuit. A couple of
years later my bricklayer uncle (Bob!) completely rebuilt the place as
an extension ("annexe") and I helped him wire it, extending the
lighting circuit from a looped-in circuit in the kitchen, and a
'power' circuit for a "Harrison" fridge - at around 10 years old.
AFAIK the house never blew up.
And I'm still here (just). After an early youth-hood of wiring a
string of MES batten lampholders (Woolworths, 4d a go) in series with
bare wire, the ends poked into a 5A socket,
--
Frank Erskine
Tony Bryer
> Somewhere else (New Zealand? I can't recall) had similar rules
> and got rid of them just after we did Part P, and saw their
> death rate from electrical installations plummet as people
> then started fixing old/broken installations.
>
> It emphasised the point that people die from _not_ doing
> electrical work that should be done, and not from actually
> doing it.
http://www.siliconchip.com.au/cms/A_110635/article.html
"... But [in Australia] even the very best quality unlicenced work
can never be "legal".
Now, if you were across the pond in New Zealand, such actions
are quite legal. In fact, in New Zealand you can not only change
a power outlet or light fitting, you can add additional power
outlets, even rewire your entire home if you want to right back
to (but not including) the switchboard. The NZ power authorities
actually publish information to help the do-it-yourselfer do it
him (or her) self.
If you don�t believe us, have a look at
www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/mediacentre/wordofadvice/2004/ECP5051.html
or www.energysafety.govt.nz/templates/Page____17682.aspx ."
Tony Bryer
> I think Tony is referring to Australia where he is now...
Yes
> Out of curiosity, how do they prevent DIY electrics in Aus?
No doubt it happens, and Bunnings - our local equivalent of B&Q -
sells electrical stuff. Haven't heard these myself but "In fact,
in NSW (and probably other states), at the very moment there are
radio commercials saying how dangerous it is to attempt your own
electrical repairs. It was these commercials which in part
prompted this feature. The same commercials, incidentally, state
that one in five "handymen" do exactly that. Naughty, naughty."
http://www.siliconchip.com.au/cms/A_110635/article.html
Tim W
wibbled on Saturday 28 November 2009 02:41
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:59:00 +0000 John Rumm wrote :
>> I think Tony is referring to Australia where he is now...
>
> Yes
>
>> Out of curiosity, how do they prevent DIY electrics in Aus?
>
> No doubt it happens, and Bunnings - our local equivalent of B&Q -
> sells electrical stuff. Haven't heard these myself but "In fact,
> in NSW (and probably other states), at the very moment there are
> radio commercials saying how dangerous it is to attempt your own
> electrical repairs. It was these commercials which in part
> prompted this feature. The same commercials, incidentally, state
> that one in five "handymen" do exactly that. Naughty, naughty."
>
> http://www.siliconchip.com.au/cms/A_110635/article.html
>
What I can never understand is why politicians' form a long queue to roll in
the same turd even though they can see the ones at the front saying "ow,
smelly".
If NZ really has got the data showing their approach works better, the rest
of us should just say - well, we were wrong...
Oz, Blighty and the Kiwis are culturally similar enough to make this a
reasonable assumption.
Stuart Noble
How surprising is that. Why does the govt interfere with things it knows
nothing about? Lord Mandy's file sharing "crackdown" will be the next
comedy show
js.b1
> How surprising is that. Why does the govt interfere with things it knows
> nothing about? Lord Mandy's file sharing "crackdown" will be the next
I think the best demonstration of gov't is 2 acts...
1 - Ex SAS officer releases actual MP Expense data
2 - Official later release of MP Expense data has everything
incriminating blacked out
It is the latter which is much more devastating than the former. It
shows institutionalised corruption - indeed I believe Paxman on one
Newsnight long ago said the legacy (of new labour) appears to be the
institutionalising of corruption.
Electrical wholesalers in Aus will not sell parts to non-card-carrying
people, however amusingly I believe they will now sell plugs and will
tell you how to fit them correctly. The "Dead Baby" incident may not
be on a corrupt lobbyist industry's conscience, but it is on quite a
few sparks & wholesalers from importing oddball clipsal stuff (20A
plug n socket are quite handy off 20A radials to multiple BS1363/A
sockets).
dennis@home
"Stuart Noble" <stuart...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:XT8Qm.9581$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> How surprising is that. Why does the govt interfere with things it knows
> nothing about? Lord Mandy's file sharing "crackdown" will be the next
> comedy show
That will just result in less money being spent on music.
The figures show that people who fileshare spend about �70 on music while
those that don't fileshare spend less than �50 on average.
Dave Plowman (News)
<66db5a66-a2e4-45f0...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
> 1 - Ex SAS officer releases actual MP Expense data
> 2 - Official later release of MP Expense data has everything
> incriminating blacked out
> It is the latter which is much more devastating than the former. It
> shows institutionalised corruption - indeed I believe Paxman on one
> Newsnight long ago said the legacy (of new labour) appears to be the
> institutionalising of corruption.
Don't remember too many from other parties objecting?
You can blame Labour for many things. The scandal of MPs' expenses - not.
As I've said before, MPs shouldn't be entitled to better treatment in
*any* way than the rest of the country. The IR would simply not have
allowed many of their expenses to anyone else.
I'll give one clear example. If you work so late that public transport is
no longer available and your employer supplies transport to your home,
that is a taxable benefit. Not so for MPs.
--
*On the seventh day He brewed beer *
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Fredxx
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:50c1513...@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article
> <66db5a66-a2e4-45f0...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
> js.b1 <js...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> I think the best demonstration of gov't is 2 acts...
>
>> 1 - Ex SAS officer releases actual MP Expense data
>
>> 2 - Official later release of MP Expense data has everything
>> incriminating blacked out
>
>> It is the latter which is much more devastating than the former. It
>> shows institutionalised corruption - indeed I believe Paxman on one
>> Newsnight long ago said the legacy (of new labour) appears to be the
>> institutionalising of corruption.
>
> Don't remember too many from other parties objecting?
> You can blame Labour for many things. The scandal of MPs' expenses - not.
> As I've said before, MPs shouldn't be entitled to better treatment in
> *any* way than the rest of the country. The IR would simply not have
> allowed many of their expenses to anyone else.
>
> I'll give one clear example. If you work so late that public transport is
> no longer available and your employer supplies transport to your home,
> that is a taxable benefit. Not so for MPs.
>
I'm surprised you say that, I thought transport to and from work when
working unsociable hours and there is no public transport running was the
one thing that employers were allowed to pay for. When did that change?
Dave Plowman (News)
Fredxx <fre...@spam.com> wrote:
> I'm surprised you say that, I thought transport to and from work when
> working unsociable hours and there is no public transport running was
> the one thing that employers were allowed to pay for. When did that
> change?
It applied over 15 years ago and to the best of my knowledge hasn't
changed. Although some firms might absorb the cost to the employee.
You don't pay the full cost of the 'benefit'. The actual cost is added to
your salary and that is taxed in the normal way.
--
*Isn't it a bit unnerving that doctors call what they do "practice?"
Appin
from and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) contains these words:
> AFAICT, there have been no electrocutions from BC pins.
> Couldn't even find any records of injuries.
> That makes it (rightly) hard to justify the expense of any change.
> That's more than can be said for ES lampholders, where in most
> countries, the screw terminal can be live, and there are recorded
> electrocutions as a result of coming into contact with the metal
> cap on the bulb whilst still in contact with the fitting (probably
> one hand on the live bulb cap and the other on earthed lampholder).
You may have a couple of points there, however, give me an ES lampholder
any day. Even the relatively poor ones are better than the average BC
lampholder, the life of which is deplorably short and troublesome.
Most electrical fittings commonly used in the UK are of remarkably good
fundamental design and good construction compared to those I've come
across in the many other countries I've lived in and visited. The vast
majority of BC lampholders, however, are a disaster area. BS1363
sockets generally have a long life. Ditto most other domestic fittings.
Plastic BC lampholders, however, are clearly not up to scratch, even
the allegedly heat-resistant ones. I have long ago reached the
conclusion that the best answer to the problem is, when they go
troublesome /break /whatever to replace them with brass/porcelain BC
lampholders. No further problems. The ones I use even have WOODEN
strain releif sleeves. Never had to replace one of these yet. Or even
had trouble with one. Quite frankly, there's something wrong with the
BS to which these plastic BC lampholders are made. It's not that it's
impossible to make a good BC lampholder -- it's rather that 99% of those
on the market are junk.
Incidentally I have a MK version of the shielded-pin BC battenholder on
my desk at the moment. I don't know whether to blame the poor
manufacturing quality or the poor packing, but it arrived with the rose
shround broken :-(. I'll stick with my brass and porcelain,
thank-you.
Appin
<948b0efe-34fa-44f3...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
from "js.b1" <js...@ntlworld.com> contains these words:
> On Nov 27, 7:49�pm, Appin <ap...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > Generally there is. �The CUs are generally good quality.
> That is good news, really is :-)
> Pity it does not solve water, sanitation and AIDS.
> Any highly virulent flu virus will take Africa apart re combination of
> Genetics, AIDS & essentially no healthcare. It may not be H1N1, nor
> H5N1-HP since H1N1 first has been shown to give "survival" in pigs &
> monkeys - but it will happen
Quite probably so.
Not politically-correct to mention genetics, but it's actually a real
issue with regard to AIDS susceptibility
Not politically-correct to mention poor healthcare -- standards of
teaching and practice are vastly different (it's politically-correct to
pass everyone in the medical education centres for the "majority", no
matter how poor the standard they attain)
AIDS kills no-one but destroys the immune system which is why TB and so
on are the usual killers and are rife in the townships.
In other words, I agree with you on these points.
> > I really don't fancy my whole house "wired" in loose extension cables
> > plugged into the Consumer Unit.- Hide quoted text -
> Loose extension cables only work on a per-room basis - on diagonally-
> opposed sockets, makes central turn-off easy.
But out in these shacks it's only two sockets in the HOUSE, mounted in
the CU, high on a wall.
Appin
<f9852186-7db5-4063...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
from Owain <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> contains these words:
> On 27 Nov, 19:51, Appin wrote:
The accuracy of reported rates is VERY suspect. Many estimates in S.
Africa run over 40% HIV +
> 61% of all deaths in
> the country were caused by HIV/AIDS
Although the actual cause of death would be something like TB against
which the HIV/AIDS would have lowered their resistance.
Interestingly, there's never, AFAIK, been a full-scale medical trial of
the current anti-retroviral drug treatment for HIV COMBINED WITH a
full-scale comprehensive nutritional programme. There's considerable
empirical evidence from doctors in the field that it's possible to
reduce the antibody count to such a level that it's undetectable. These
are not doctors on the loony fringe. However, that's wandering well OT.
Andy Burns
> Now, if you were across the pond in New Zealand, such actions
> are quite legal. In fact, in New Zealand you can not only change
> a power outlet or light fitting, you can add additional power
> outlets, even rewire your entire home if you want to right back
> to (but not including) the switchboard.
Seems quite similar to the like for like replacement under Part P, apart
from our no kitchens or bathrooms exception.
Seems the .nz authorities don't let you alter/replace your wiring
without it being inspected, here you could replace it it it was damaged.
js.b1
> On 28/11/09 02:41, Tony Bryer wrote:
>
> > Now, if you were across the pond in New Zealand, such actions
> > are quite legal. In fact, in New Zealand you can not only change
> > a power outlet or light fitting, you can add additional power
> > outlets, even rewire your entire home if you want to right back
> > to (but not including) the switchboard.
>
> Seems quite similar to the like for like replacement under Part P, apart
> from our no kitchens or bathrooms exception.
You can do maintenance even in special locations, just can't extend or
add new sockets.
The more you read it, the more it is aimed at stopping "cowboy comes
in, jn-box in wall, plasters & tiles over". It will not stop them of
course, but it DOES give better means for redress.
> Seems the .nz authorities don't let you alter/replace your wiring
> without it being inspected, here you could replace it it it was damaged.
NZ let you rewire the house - but not a CU change.
There is a logic to just controlling CU change...
- That RCD are present and working correctly
- That MEB etc is present and correctly sized
- That Earthing is correct re remote shed/garage CU
- That the CU is safely wired rather than sphagetti mess
Realise Part P does nothing to address extension leads and portable
appliances - the real killers.
That said I think 35,000 extra people died last winter due to the
exceptionally cold UK temperatures (winter began 27-Oct and ran almost
without interruption thro to Feb, some -10oC nights where the cold is
deceptive, dry air due to all condensation having been wrung out of it
by the temperatures).
Owain
> That said I think 35,000 extra people died last winter due to the
> exceptionally cold UK temperatures (winter began 27-Oct and ran almost
> without interruption thro to Feb, some -10oC nights where the cold is
> deceptive, dry air due to all condensation having been wrung out of it
> by the temperatures).
Maybe some of them would have survived if they'd been able to plug in
an electric heater to an additional socket
Owain
js.b1
> Maybe some of them would have survived if they'd been able to plug in
> an electric heater to an additional socket
If someone else were paying for it :-)
A better systems than Staywarm needs sorting out, where the occupier
can choose who does the work but it gets inspected so as to ensure a
minimum standard. Instead we have insane "£575 to fit a towel rail"
and no I am not joking.
Frank Erskine
wrote:
I've just paid almost �750 to have a (S/S) towel rail fitted in my
bathroom (on a combi system), replacing a slightly rusty radiator.
Hopefully it'll see me out...
I might have been ripped off - a chrome plated equivalent would have
cost less than half that.
--
Frank Erskine
Andrew Gabriel
"js.b1" <js...@ntlworld.com> writes:
> That said I think 35,000 extra people died last winter due to the
> exceptionally cold UK temperatures (winter began 27-Oct and ran almost
> without interruption thro to Feb, some -10oC nights where the cold is
> deceptive, dry air due to all condensation having been wrung out of it
> by the temperatures).
You've gotta love those emotive stats. Another one was the 4000
people who died in the heat wave in France a few years back.
Well, yes in one week there were an extra 4000 deaths, and in
the following few weeks there were 4000 fewer deaths. So 4000
people on their death beds died 2 weeks early - which is not
quite the same thing at all, and taken over a month, the death
rate was completely normal.
Tends to be exactly the same with winter deaths, but if they'd
been in that state of health in the summer, they would have
lasted a few extra weeks, so you get perfectly normal deaths
bunching around the less favourable times - that's life.
Dave Plowman (News)
Frank Erskine <frank....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> I've just paid almost �750 to have a (S/S) towel rail fitted in my
> bathroom (on a combi system), replacing a slightly rusty radiator.
> Hopefully it'll see me out...
But does it heat the room as well as the rad?
> I might have been ripped off - a chrome plated equivalent would have
> cost less than half that.
Depending on design you can get SS towel rails for much less than you paid.
<http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Heating_Index/Towel_Rail_Index/Towel_Plumbed/index.html>
Have you checked to see how much yours actually cost?
--
*When the going gets tough, the tough take a coffee break *
Frank Erskine
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <p0h3h5lcn5sdphr8n...@4ax.com>,
> Frank Erskine <frank....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> I've just paid almost �750 to have a (S/S) towel rail fitted in my
>> bathroom (on a combi system), replacing a slightly rusty radiator.
>> Hopefully it'll see me out...
>
>But does it heat the room as well as the rad?
Probably - but it's a lot bigger than the old radiator.
--
Frank Erskine
Fredxx
> In article <herdpo$vpm$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Fredxx <fre...@spam.com> wrote:
>> I'm surprised you say that, I thought transport to and from work when
>> working unsociable hours and there is no public transport running was
>> the one thing that employers were allowed to pay for. When did that
>> change?
>
> It applied over 15 years ago and to the best of my knowledge hasn't
> changed. Although some firms might absorb the cost to the employee.
>
> You don't pay the full cost of the 'benefit'. The actual cost is added to
> your salary and that is taxed in the normal way.
>
There is limited exenmption, which is probably what i was thinking of:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/eim21831.htm
Dave Plowman (News)
Fredxx <fre...@spam.com> wrote:
> > It applied over 15 years ago and to the best of my knowledge hasn't
> > changed. Although some firms might absorb the cost to the employee.
> >
> > You don't pay the full cost of the 'benefit'. The actual cost is added
> > to your salary and that is taxed in the normal way.
> >
> There is limited exenmption, which is probably what i was thinking of:
> http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/eim21831.htm
It does appear to have been amended. I never needed a taxi home from my
regular place of work because I drove there. But on occasions was required
to work at one of my employer's other premises where public transport was
more convenient. And got taxed on this 'benefit' several times. Despite
having paid for the return fare by PT. But it didn't apply to MPs visiting
the same premises.
--
*If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? *