Minor Works Certificate Details
TheScullster
Looking at the Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate left by the
now infamous Building Control Inspector, there is a field labelled "Method
of protection against indirect contact".
My B-I-L thought that the letters ADS should be included here - automatic
disconnection of supply.
Now for the ring main I could see this being appropriate - having an RCD on
that would give protection against contacting something that had indirectly
become live - is this what is meant by protection against indirect contact?
For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the mcb. Is this device considered
to give protection against indirect contact?
In brief, what should I be writing in this field for ring main and lighting
circuits?
Thanks
Phil
ARWadsworth
Well the easy answer is EEBADS as the work is designed and installed to the
16th and there was no such thing as ADS in the 16th.
Are any of your circuits new installations or are they all modifications to
existing circuits?
And you need to fill in a minor works certificate for every circuit that you
have worked on.
--
Adam
jgharston
> For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the mcb. Is this device considered
> to give protection against indirect contact?
Isn't lighting protected by out-of-reach?
JGH
ARWadsworth
And your lightswitches?
--
Adam
jgharston
> > Isn't lighting protected by out-of-reach?
> And your lightswitches?
Yes, thought that just as I pressed 'Send' ;)
JGH
dennis@home
"ARWadsworth" <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ir1bef$kul$1...@dont-email.me...
The string breaks before you pull the switch down.
jgharston
> >> Isn't lighting protected by out-of-reach?
> > And your lightswitches?
> The string breaks before you pull the switch down.
Just had a quick look at my (20-year-old) lecture notes,
and protection by out-of-reach can only be applied to
outlets/appliances, not to circuits, such as a light fitting
on a high ceiling, protected by virtue of requiring a ladder
to reach and twenty-foot arms to be able to touch another
conducting part.
JGH
ARWadsworth
Have you got high ceilings or are you a short arse?
--
Adam
ARWadsworth
The main bit is that EEBADS was replaced by ADS as equipotential bonding is
no longer needed in a bathroom under some 17th edition rules (but
equipotential bonding is still is required in some cases).
--
Adam
ARWadsworth
Go on then. I'll make a confession.
The 3 phase compressor would not fire up at my brothers garage. I diagnosed
the problem as a failed DOL starter later that evening. It was an old MEM
metal clad DOL starter that had failed.
My brother needed the compressor for work the next day but I was working in
Kent for the next couple of days. I devised a plan that worked until I could
sort out a replacement. The solution was called a wooden stick. My brother
was able to hold the contacts of the "now open to stick your fingers in 3
phase DOL starter" with the wooden stick until his compressor was at 160PSI.
He lived to see a new DOL starter..
--
Adam
Owain
Out-of-reach not permitted in domestic situations IIRC
Owain
Andy Wade
> Just had a quick look at my (20-year-old) lecture notes,
Two changes of regs since then; time to ditch the old notes I reckon.
Obstacles and placing out of reach are shock protective measures against
direct contact (now known as basic protection) only. They're not
relevant to indirect contact (now called fault protection), so are
something of a red herring in this thread.
And yes, as Owain has said, they're now applicable only to supervised
installations (skilled or instructed persons), which rules them out for
normal domestic installations. [See section 417 in the 17th ed.]
To answer The Scullster's original question: shock by indirect contact
means contact with parts which are live as the result of a fault.
Automatic Disconnection of Supply was traditionally provided by the
blowing of a fuse (or fuses), later by MCBs or alternatively by ELCBs
and RCDs where Zs is too high to assure operation of an OPD.
--
Andy
TheScullster
"ARWadsworth" wrote
> TheScullster <ph...@dropthespam.com> wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> Looking at the Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate left
>> by the now infamous Building Control Inspector, there is a field
>> labelled "Method of protection against indirect contact".
>> My B-I-L thought that the letters ADS should be included here -
>> automatic disconnection of supply.
>>
>> Now for the ring main I could see this being appropriate - having an
>> RCD on that would give protection against contacting something that
>> had indirectly become live - is this what is meant by protection
>> against indirect contact? For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the
>> mcb. Is this device considered to give protection against indirect
>> contact?
>> In brief, what should I be writing in this field for ring main and
>> lighting circuits?
>
> Well the easy answer is EEBADS as the work is designed and installed to
> the 16th and there was no such thing as ADS in the 16th.
Thanks Adam
Can I still claim EEBADS, when Mr B has stated that no additional bonding is
required in the kitchen?
Was this a general term to cover all domestic work whether equipotential
bonding is provided in that particular area or not?
>
> Are any of your circuits new installations or are they all modifications
> to existing circuits?
Yes all circuits are modifications.
>
> And you need to fill in a minor works certificate for every circuit that
> you have worked on.
>
Ring main and lighting will have separate certs
> --
> Adam
>
cynic
Must be one of his own recipe my BS7671 17th edition sample says
method of FAULT protection. Is this the same guy who doesn't think
diversity applies in his universe - or was that another poster?
Im ny opinion ADS would be a perfectly acceptable entry for the IEE
form, regardless of whether this was achieved by an RCD or by the
operation of a circuit fuse or circuit breaker due to the fault
current flowing to earth (as long as your EFLI complies with the
requirements of BS7671).
TheScullster
"cynic" <icel...@talktalk.net> wrote in message
news:630d9edd-3a2f-4619...@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
Hi Cynic
Yes you are right, this is Mr "No Diversity"!
But, as the project was started (as far as the council are concerned) back
in 2005, he is happy for me to complete the wiring to the 16th Edition.
Presumably his Part P certificates are based on the 16th rather than 17th
edition regs/terminology.
From Adam's post it appears that EEBADS is the appropriate entry for 16th
edition compliance.
Yes EFLIs have been tested and are compliant.
Phil
ARWadsworth
> "ARWadsworth" wrote
>
>> TheScullster <ph...@dropthespam.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> Looking at the Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate left
>>> by the now infamous Building Control Inspector, there is a field
>>> labelled "Method of protection against indirect contact".
>>> My B-I-L thought that the letters ADS should be included here -
>>> automatic disconnection of supply.
>>>
>>> Now for the ring main I could see this being appropriate - having an
>>> RCD on that would give protection against contacting something that
>>> had indirectly become live - is this what is meant by protection
>>> against indirect contact? For the lighting, there is no RCD, just
>>> the mcb. Is this device considered to give protection against
>>> indirect contact?
>>> In brief, what should I be writing in this field for ring main and
>>> lighting circuits?
>>
>> Well the easy answer is EEBADS as the work is designed and installed
>> to the 16th and there was no such thing as ADS in the 16th.
>
>
> Thanks Adam
>
>
> Can I still claim EEBADS, when Mr B has stated that no additional
> bonding is required in the kitchen?
> Was this a general term to cover all domestic work whether
> equipotential bonding is provided in that particular area or not?
Yes, it was the 16th edition version of ADS. The fact that you have not
actually installed any equiptential bonding is irrelevant.
--
Adam