Eicr

[Bobster]

C2......

 

[Guest77]

So what would you code no earth?

Point is why is a smaller earth than what is regs a C2? there are thousands of houses up and down the length of the country with smaller earths than what is the requirement with today's regulations, the installations are working fine and the earth is more than likely capable of dealing with a load under fault conditions, so why a C2? I can see your point of course, I am not attempting to start a heated discussion, lets see what the others think here.

 

[Bobster]

Do you mean a smaller earth as in not meeting the adiabatic equation? Or smaller than recommended?

No earth is certainly not a C1, it's only potentially dangerous thus a C2

 

[Guest125]

Do you mean a smaller earth as in not meeting the adiabatic equation? Or smaller than recommended?

No earth is certainly not a C1, it's only potentially dangerous thus a C2

You are correct. Sorry. Undersized would just be a C3.

 

[andyb]

Do you mean a smaller earth as in not meeting the adiabatic equation? Or smaller than recommended?

No earth is certainly not a C1, it's only potentially dangerous thus a C2

I agree with that but I also think that main earth not meeting the adiabatic equation is also C2.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

BS7671 requires us to comment and apply codes for instances which are dangerous, or potentially dangerous.
There is no requirement to comment or apply a code for instances which are neither dangerous or potentially dangerous.
Code C3 should be used for instances which are neither dangerous or potentially dangerous, but where improvement would enhance safety.
I and many others, use code C3 for instances which would have complied with the then current Regulations at the time of design/construction, but do not comply now. Not strictly in keeping with the requirements, but then the same could be said in respect of the reasons given in BS7671 for apply the code C3.
As for commenting and applying a code for a wooden backed CU.
This is something that the NICEIC have been advocating for many years. There is nothing in BS7671 which suggests that such CUs should be condemmed.
Ironic that the plastic CUs that the NICEIC have opted to use to replace the wooden backed boards are now to be banned in domestic installations.
Then of course there's the fact that fire doors are made from wood.

With regards to the cooker control switch, I would apply a code C2, as it is possible that the switch could be damaged by heat.
Someone mentioned that in the event of a chip pan fire, it would not be possible to reach the switch because of the flames.
Normal cooker control switches do not comply with the requirements for emergency switching.
As such there is no requirement to take into consideration the fact that flames from a chip pan fire would prevent the switch from being used for emergency switching.

I think the definition of a circuit has been more than adequately covered.
It may be that haveing what would normally be considered as 2 or 3 circuits connected to a single OCPD, would not be good workmanship, or minimising inconvenience in the event of a fault.

Undersized main earth would be a C2, if the CSA does not satisfy the adiabatic equation, C3, if PME conditions apply and there are no signes of damage due to overheating.

 

[Guest125]

BS7671 requires us to comment and apply codes for instances which are dangerous, or potentially dangerous.
There is no requirement to comment or apply a code for instances which are neither dangerous or potentially dangerous.
Code C3 should be used for instances which are neither dangerous or potentially dangerous, but where improvement would enhance safety.
I and many others, use code C3 for instances which would have complied with the then current Regulations at the time of design/construction, but do not comply now. Not strictly in keeping with the requirements, but then the same could be said in respect of the reasons given in BS7671 for apply the code C3.
As for commenting and applying a code for a wooden backed CU.
This is something that the NICEIC have been advocating for many years. There is nothing in BS7671 which suggests that such CUs should be condemmed.
Ironic that the plastic CUs that the NICEIC have opted to use to replace the wooden backed boards are now to be banned in domestic installations.
Then of course there's the fact that fire doors are made from wood.

With regards to the cooker control switch, I would apply a code C2, as it is possible that the switch could be damaged by heat.
Someone mentioned that in the event of a chip pan fire, it would not be possible to reach the switch because of the flames.
Normal cooker control switches do not comply with the requirements for emergency switching.
As such there is no requirement to take into consideration the fact that flames from a chip pan fire would prevent the switch from being used for emergency switching.

I think the definition of a circuit has been more than adequately covered.
It may be that haveing what would normally be considered as 2 or 3 circuits connected to a single OCPD, would not be good workmanship, or minimising inconvenience in the event of a fault.

Undersized main earth would be a C2, if the CSA does not satisfy the adiabatic equation, C3, if PME conditions apply and there are no signes of damage due to overheating.

Spin - you have this ability to put things across much better than me. I agree with everything you said. I do use C3 in the way you stated.

The cooker switch thing is a building reg but I agree with your point about emergency switching.

 

[CockneyReject]

My regs don't fit in my back pocket, sorry.

I said 'off the bat' for a reason.

Can you back your opinion up with regs? I will try tomorrow.

No we do not put reg numbers in.

Just an opinion mate. No need to go all bonkers over it.

Oh no! I can't Adam & Eve it. I got rockin' horse all over me backed beans because of you now.

I wasn't going bonkers mate was just continuing the discussion, there's little point in me covering old ground seen as so much has gone on while I've been busy today, a few of the lads on here have already done a good job of going over it all

314.4 - Where an installation comprises more than one final circuit, each final circuit shall be connected to a separate way in a distribution board. The wiring of each final circuit shall be electrically separate from that of every other final circuit, so as to prevent the indirect energising of a final circuit intended to be isolated.

Building regs state as follows: Cooker control switches, extractor fan switches, etc, should not be mounted so that it is necessary to lean or reach over gas or electric hobs for their operation.

Think about it - a pan fire starts and the switch is behind the pan that is on fire. Common sense I would have thought.

Yes.... Yes they do but we are looking at the requirements of 7671 and so far as reasonably practicable the safety of persons against the effects of electric shock and burns, protection against damage to property by fire and heat arising from an installation defect, confirmation that the installation is not damaged or deteriorated so as to impair safety and identify installation defects and departures from the current version of 7671 that may give rise to danger

Just out of interest which other building regs do you use to railroad your clients into spending money they may not need to spend? Do you go in and C2 DB's that don't meet the requirements of part M or lighting installs that fall short of part L?

 

[Guest125]

I wasn't going bonkers mate was just continuing the discussion, there's little point in me covering old ground seen as so much has gone on while I've been busy today, a few of the lads on here have already done a good job of going over it all




Yes.... Yes they do but we are looking at the requirements of 7671 and so far as reasonably practicable the safety of persons against the effects of electric shock and burns, protection against damage to property by fire and heat arising from an installation defect, confirmation that the installation is not damaged or deteriorated so as to impair safety and identify installation defects and departures from the current version of 7671 that may give rise to danger

Just out of interest which other building regs do you use to railroad your clients into spending money they may not need to spend? Do you go in and C2 DB's that don't meet the requirements of part M or lighting installs that fall short of part L?

Nice use of the word rail!!

 

[mache]

314.4 - Where an installation comprises more than one final circuit, each final circuit shall be connected to a separate way in a distribution board. The wiring of each final circuit shall be electrically separate from that of every other final circuit, so as to prevent the indirect energising of a final circuit intended to be isolated.

I'm not an electrician but do read the forum with interest. Would i be right in thinking that a correct example of an installation being in breach of the above would be a supposed rfc that was actually installed with one end of the circuit in one ocpd and the other closing end installed in a different ocpd. i.e. isolation of just one of the ocpd devices leaves that rfc live. ????

 

[D Skelton]

I'm not an electrician but do read the forum with interest. Would i be right in thinking that a correct example of an installation being in breach of the above would be a supposed rfc that was actually installed with one end of the circuit in one ocpd and the other closing end installed in a different ocpd. i.e. isolation of just one of the ocpd devices leaves that rfc live. ????

Yes, you would be correct. This point was addressed in post #65

 

[mache]

Yes, you would be correct. This point was addressed in post #65

Thanks for the confirmation DS, apologies I had missed your referenced post number. I thought it was quite clear what the requirement was but doubted myself when certain others seemed to having difficulty.

Regards
Martin.

 

[ipf]

Remember coming across that one in a friend's house. The dipstick who'd 'done' the kitchen had one leg of a ring in with a radial.... and the other in a 16amp cb. Lucky to find it, really...testing before installing an extra socket....puzzling for a bit, that continuity test.

 

[GB.Kayak]

Remember coming across that one in a friend's house. The dipstick who'd 'done' the kitchen had one leg of a ring in with a radial.... and the other in a 16amp cb. Lucky to find it, really...testing before installing an extra socket....puzzling for a bit, that continuity test.

So it is not just the person who did the wiring in my house then ... I wonder whether it was a mistake on their part, doing the wrong thing by 'accident', or whether it was a misunderstanding on their part as to how to wire a RFC. The latter by virtue either of no training, inadequate training or their understanding of what had been taught.