Plastic consumer units and how to code them

[Soi disant]

The only version which is applicable is only ever the one current at the time.

Installations are not judged wrt the edition in force when they were created.

 

[old man sparky]

The only version which is applicable is only ever the one current at the time.

Installations are not judged wrt the edition in force when they were created.

The point is you cant Judge all installations on the current version of the regs. Because an older installation wont necessarily comply with that version. So when assessing the topic subject, ie plastic consumer units. Its either non compliant with code 3 minimum. Or not applicable to a regulation that came into force after it had been installed to a version of the regs whereby it was fully compliant at that time. So we know a consumer unit designed before AMD3 wont comply with a regulation specifically for after AMD3 consumer units were introduced So we ask why would such a regulation even be applicable to those older consumer units.
Thats the question. What do you consider to be the correct response to 4.4 where plastic is in use.

 

[Soi disant]

The point is you cant Judge all installations on the current version of the regs.

You have to.

No other edition exists any more. All the previous ones are obsolete. They have been replaced. They have zero validity. They mean nothing. They are dead and buried.

Because an older installation wont necessarily comply with that version.

Indeed not.

So when assessing the topic subject, ie plastic consumer units. Its either non compliant with code 3 minimum. Or not applicable to a regulation that came into force after it had been installed to a version of the regs whereby it was fully compliant at that time.

It may have been compliant at the time.

It is no longer compliant. Its previous status is a matter of nostalgia only.

Inspections and codings etc can only ever be done to the edition in force at the time. Compliance with earlier editions is of zero value.

So we know a consumer unit designed before AMD3 wont comply with a regulation specifically for after AMD3 consumer units were introduced

Indeed not.

So we ask why would such a regulation even be applicable to those older consumer units.

It's the current regulation which applies to all consumer units. There are no other regulations to decide to use.

What do you consider to be the correct response to 4.4 where plastic is in use.

Ah - well now.

If you decide that you are going to use the model schedule of inspections on pp481-482 of the regs, then you simply cannot give it anything other than a C2 or a C3, as it simply does not comply. (Again, I'm ignoring the other options for the same reasons as before.)

So, may you decide not to use that schedule, and create your own which omits items which are troublesome/contentious?

the example schedule in appendix 6 is merely a generic example, many on-line tools differ quite significantly, they only have to be based on the example, not rigid to it.

This is noted in 651

You don't need to include things that don't comply with the latest regs, only those which don't comply, which may give rise to danger.

The reporting is all based around what has been tested/inspected and anything that leads towards a dangerous condition

We have to consider the "reality" which exists within the context of the regulations.

However well we know the "real reality" of how the requirement for non-combustible CUs came about, the fact is that, within the context of the regulations, compliance/conformance/non-compliance/non-conformance is being adjudged, and I truly do not see how anyone could realistically argue that a requirement for non-combustible CUs is there for trivial or aesthetic reasons, or for some vague nicety like good materials and workmanship.

I truly do not see how anyone could realistically argue that non-combustible CUs are mandated for any other reason except safety, that plastic ones are unacceptable because of their combustibility.

So given that that is the "reality" constructed by the regulations, I truly do not see how anyone could realistically argue that in that reality a combustible CU cannot give rise to danger.

So as there's no escaping the fact that in the context of the regulations a combustible CU enclosure may give rise to danger, 651.2 (vi) makes it mandatory to do the check in 4.4.

 

[DPG]

I've just liked one of Soi's posts. I must be going soft ?

No offence intended. I think this bottle of Old Crafty Hen has mellowed me!

 

[old man sparky]

You have to.

No other edition exists any more. All the previous ones are obsolete. They have been replaced. They have zero validity. They mean nothing. They are dead and buried.


Indeed not.



It may have been compliant at the time.

It is no longer compliant. Its previous status is a matter of nostalgia only.

Inspections and codings etc can only ever be done to the edition in force at the time. Compliance with earlier editions is of zero value.



Indeed not.



It's the current regulation which applies to all consumer units. There are no other regulations to decide to use.



Ah - well now.

If you decide that you are going to use the model schedule of inspections on pp481-482 of the regs, then you simply cannot give it anything other than a C2 or a C3, as it simply does not comply. (Again, I'm ignoring the other options for the same reasons as before.)

So, may you decide not to use that schedule, and create your own which omits items which are troublesome/contentious?


We have to consider the "reality" which exists within the context of the regulations.

However well we know the "real reality" of how the requirement for non-combustible CUs came about, the fact is that, within the context of the regulations, compliance/conformance/non-compliance/non-conformance is being adjudged, and I truly do not see how anyone could realistically argue that a requirement for non-combustible CUs is there for trivial or aesthetic reasons, or for some vague nicety like good materials and workmanship.

I truly do not see how anyone could realistically argue that non-combustible CUs are mandated for any other reason except safety, that plastic ones are unacceptable because of their combustibility.

So given that that is the "reality" constructed by the regulations, I truly do not see how anyone could realistically argue that in that reality a combustible CU cannot give rise to danger.

So as there's no escaping the fact that in the context of the regulations a combustible CU enclosure may give rise to danger, 651.2 (vi) makes it mandatory to do the check in 4.4.

I agree with all you say. Of course the current version of the regulations is the only one you can base your judgement on. But we do Judge against older versions where older installations are concerned. As an example you would leave an older version of a consumer unit in service and conditions permitting be happy to do so. But you wouldn't install one of those units today from scratch. So a judgement is made based on this. As for plastic consumer units giving rise to danger !! No more than touching a metal one if there's a PEN fault on PME, I suppose.
I'm not disagreeing with you in any way, as said I code 3 plastic and mark 4.4 as C3 with a comment. And happy to do so. Even though I feel that often no code is necessary I feel I have to cover myself on this one, reluctantly. After all your the one signing so you have to be happy with your decisions.

 

[old man sparky]

I've just liked one of Soi's posts. I must be going soft ?

No offence intended. I think this bottle of Old Crafty Hen has mellowed me!

He makes some valid points so why not. ??

 

[Soi disant]

I agree with all you say. Of course the current version of the regulations is the only one you can base your judgement on. But we do Judge against older versions where older installations are concerned. As an example you would leave an older version of a consumer unit in service and conditions permitting be happy to do so. But you wouldn't install one of those units today from scratch.

No, and no more would you necessarily replace it.

I know what you're getting at with the argument that something used to be OK so we should think about that when evaluating it vis-a-vis the current regs, but I'm not sure how well it works. Life is full of things where we used to think they were OK but now we don't, either because new knowledge has shown us that they were never OK, like smoking, or because our standards have changed and we no longer consider the harms as acceptable as we once did, like crash helmets for motorcyclists, or because other factors have conspired to change the risk of something, like increased traffic volumes meaning that a road where it was OK to have a 60mph limit, now it isn't. (As an aside, if ever you're on a speeding charge re a road where the limit had been reduced, good luck with arguing that your speed would have been OK last year ? ).

So a judgement is made based on this. As for plastic consumer units giving rise to danger !!

Well, JPEL/64, in their "wisdom"

have decreed that a mandatory requirement for CU enclosures to be non-combustible comes under the heading "Protection For Safety".

As dubious as the evidence and case provided by the LFB were, and no matter how much JPEL/64 have embarked on a course of chasing ever-more marginal improvements which I'd bet they never subject to a proper cost-benefit analysis, it is what they have done.

So not giving it a C2 is saying that you do not accept that people's safety may be at risk if a safety requirement isn't complied with.

Hmmm.

No more than touching a metal one if there's a PEN fault on PME, I suppose.

Or a metal one where some numpty has carelessly wired in a TT supply and there's a line-to-case fault upstream of the RCD.

I'm not disagreeing with you in any way, as said I code 3 plastic and mark 4.4 as C3 with a comment. And happy to do so. Even though I feel that often no code is necessary I feel I have to cover myself on this one, reluctantly. After all your the one signing so you have to be happy with your decisions.

For the record, I think the whole thing is an utter farce, from the underlying 421.1.201 through to all the gyrations over how to code a contravention.

It's an area where I think we should all be grateful that, however specious their authority is, there are Best Practice Guides from (officially) respected organisations which allow a failure to meet a requirement which the regulations say is mandatory for safety to be coded as only "requires improvement" and not "potentially dangerous".

 

[Lister1987]

No, and no more would you necessarily replace it.

I know what you're getting at with the argument that something used to be OK so we should think about that when evaluating it vis-a-vis the current regs, but I'm not sure how well it works. Life is full of things where we used to think they were OK but now we don't, either because new knowledge has shown us that they were never OK, like smoking, or because our standards have changed and we no longer consider the harms as acceptable as we once did, like crash helmets for motorcyclists, or because other factors have conspired to change the risk of something, like increased traffic volumes meaning that a road where it was OK to have a 60mph limit, now it isn't. (As an aside, if ever you're on a speeding charge re a road where the limit had been reduced, good luck with arguing that your speed would have been OK last year ? ).



Well, JPEL/64, in their "wisdom"

have decreed that a mandatory requirement for CU enclosures to be non-combustible comes under the heading "Protection For Safety".

As dubious as the evidence and case provided by the LFB were, and no matter how much JPEL/64 have embarked on a course of chasing ever-more marginal improvements which I'd bet they never subject to a proper cost-benefit analysis, it is what they have done.

So not giving it a C2 is saying that you do not accept that people's safety may be at risk if a safety requirement isn't complied with.

Hmmm.


Or a metal one where some numpty has carelessly wired in a TT supply and there's a line-to-case fault upstream of the RCD.


For the record, I think the whole thing is an utter farce, from the underlying 421.1.201 through to all the gyrations over how to code a contravention.

It's an area where I think we should all be grateful that, however specious their authority is, there are Best Practice Guides from (allegedly) respected organisations which allow a failure to meet a requirement which the regulations say is mandatory for safety to be coded as only "requires improvement" and not "potentially dangerous".

Fixed that for you.

Page 2 of the regs tells us that while the contributors and publishers believe that while the information to be correct and accurate therein, that all parties must rely on thier skill and judgement when making use of it, so all this take of it takes decisions out of our hands is hokkum. Then we've the HSEs arse-covering exercise at the rear stating that compliance with the regs doesn't guarantee compliance with EAWR, so either way you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

[Julie.]

The wording of 4.4 does not drive one to mandate certain outcomes, this clear example/explanation was given previously:

1. Is it non-combustible wrt 421.1.201? If no then it does not comply, so it cannot be a "pass". It just cannot.
2. C1/C2/C3 - it can be one of those.
3. LIM - what limitation can you justify for not inspecting the CU?
4. N/V - how do you justify not verifying the condition of the CU?
5. N/A - why would it not be applicable to verify the condition of the CU?

(So CUs we MUST advise the customer to replace [C1/2/3] – no choice)

Well, if this is the case, this SAME process MUST be applied to every other case, so in respect of 5.1

1. Are the cables marked wrt 514.3.1 ? If no then it does not comply, so it cannot be a "pass". It just cannot.
2. C1/C2/C3 - it can be one of those.
3. LIM - what limitation can you justify for not inspecting the CU wiring?
4. N/V - how do you justify not verifying the the CU wiring?
5. N/A - why would it not be applicable to verify the CU wiring?

(So if the cables have old colouring we MUST advise the customer to replace [C1/2/3] – no choice)

This would be just plain ridiculous!

It would also mean that the advice given in the BPG wouldn’t line up, it would also mean the nappit guide wouldn’t line up, GN3 which advises similar though not specifically this point, would also not be in line, it would also mean you are not producing a report in line with regulation 653.2. – the list goes on

If however you took the advice/recommendations to report in line with 653.2, and apply codings reflecting the condition of the installation: pass, C1/2/3, lim, N/V, N/A on a per point basis then all the guidance note, BPG and Nappit guides would all basically line up with each other (not in terms of the actual choice, but in principle of allowing the same choices) and allowing the inspector the ability to apply their expertise.



Given the choice between interpreting the regulations of chapter 65 in the former, where it generates ridiculous outcomes, or the latter which appears to be how all the supporting documentation for chapter 65 interprets it – the latter appears the most sensible.

 

[loz2754]

The wording of 4.4 does not drive one to mandate certain outcomes, this clear example/explanation was given previously:

1. Is it non-combustible wrt 421.1.201? If no then it does not comply, so it cannot be a "pass". It just cannot.
2. C1/C2/C3 - it can be one of those.
3. LIM - what limitation can you justify for not inspecting the CU?
4. N/V - how do you justify not verifying the condition of the CU?
5. N/A - why would it not be applicable to verify the condition of the CU?

(So CUs we MUST advise the customer to replace [C1/2/3] – no choice)

Well, if this is the case, this SAME process MUST be applied to every other case, so in respect of 5.1

1. Are the cables marked wrt 514.3.1 ? If no then it does not comply, so it cannot be a "pass". It just cannot.
2. C1/C2/C3 - it can be one of those.
3. LIM - what limitation can you justify for not inspecting the CU wiring?
4. N/V - how do you justify not verifying the the CU wiring?
5. N/A - why would it not be applicable to verify the CU wiring?

(So if the cables have old colouring we MUST advise the customer to replace [C1/2/3] – no choice)

This would be just plain ridiculous!

It would also mean that the advice given in the BPG wouldn’t line up, it would also mean the nappit guide wouldn’t line up, GN3 which advises similar though not specifically this point, would also not be in line, it would also mean you are not producing a report in line with regulation 653.2. – the list goes on

If however you took the advice/recommendations to report in line with 653.2, and apply codings reflecting the condition of the installation: pass, C1/2/3, lim, N/V, N/A on a per point basis then all the guidance note, BPG and Nappit guides would all basically line up with each other (not in terms of the actual choice, but in principle of allowing the same choices) and allowing the inspector the ability to apply their expertise.



Given the choice between interpreting the regulations of chapter 65 in the former, where it generates ridiculous outcomes, or the latter which appears to be how all the supporting documentation for chapter 65 interprets it – the latter appears the most sensible.

Excellent arguments put forward here @Julie.

 

[brianmoooore]

Bring back C4. Problem solved.

 

[Julie.]

Bring back C4. Problem solved.

Probably worded as "no immediate action required "

That way the iet doesn't have to look like they have backtracked and makes sense to the average punter.

 

[Mike Johnson]

@Julie. Post 59 brilliantly concise without lots of irrelevant quotes and irreverent comments.

 

[Soi disant]

(So if the cables have old colouring we MUST advise the customer to replace [C1/2/3] – no choice)

This would be just plain ridiculous!

I agree.

Go and convince the idiots who decided to remove the option which meant "Does not comply but so what".

In general you cannot decide to just ignore what is clearly written in black and white just because you think that what is written is ridiculous, but you can pay close attention to what is written.

So...

you are not producing a report in line with regulation 653.2.

653.1 says EICRs shall be based on the model given in Appendix 6. A6 is Informative, not Normative, and it says that the example schedule is not exhaustive. So what's clearly written does provide flexibility, nothing says you must use the schedule as it appears in A6.

How much flexibility though, and in what areas?

653.2 says (edited for clarity) that the report shall include any dangerous conditions and any non-compliance with the requirements of BS 7671 which may give rise to danger.

Old colours do not give rise to danger, so don't inspect for that.
Lack of a 2-colour warning label does not give rise to danger, so don't inspect for that.
Absence of labels to indicate the purpose of switchgear and protective devices does not give rise to danger, so don't inspect for that.

But as I argued earlier, I think you'd be on shaky ground if you tried to argue that the absence of a feature deemed mandatory for fire safety reasons could not (the opposite of "may") give rise to danger.

N/A - why would it not be applicable to verify the CU wiring?

Because Chapter 51 is not the Safety chapter?

 

[old man sparky]

Bottom line is as said. Inspection schedule 4.4 leaves you no choice but to report plastic CUs as a minimum C3. Because thats what the 18th demands of you. And the deeper you go the more you realise that no older installation could ever be a clean report. Satisfactory with C3s yes but not clean. And thanks to all who have contributed to the post. Its how we all see into the mindset of other Electricians. (I just realised how scary that last comment sounds) ?

 

[old man sparky]

One other point I would very much like to make. I have a plastic consumer unit in my home. Its populated with RCBOs. From 1969 when I started, to present day. I have seen, fitted, and reported on installations with plastic throughout. So if I slept soundly from 1969 to 2018 with plastic enclosures. Im not going to start losing sleep because a group of powers to be. Have decided its a good idea. To enclose shoddy workmanship or poor quality materials in metal rather than plastic. And on that, I confess to wearing my heart on my sleeve.

 

[old man sparky]

Forgive me but I'm on my soapbox. Please stay with me as this rant has to be said.
Years ago electrical equipment was not built to the same technical spec as today. But !! and its a big but, the build quality was substantial and robust.
I haven't the strongest wrist in the world, but armed with a standard screw driver, I can strip out or split apart a BS 60947-3 main switch with impunity. IMHO something is very wrong. But large manufacturers are churning this stuff out and we have to accept and fit it accepting the BS/EN standards they adopt, without question. When these things melt !! its poor workmanship first, and loose connections secondly. Nice get out clause right there. Electrical demand has increased over the years along with loadings. So now we have larger tails 25mm and above within domestic use. But terminations as currently supplied have to be torqued to prevent damaging these poorly designed pieces of equipment, often leaving terminations under tightened, IMHO. As an example, a DNO meter installer fits a new meter. The tails are disturbed and quickly loosen, (and we all know how easy that is with standard copper cored tails). But the consumer units not in the DNOs remit. His connection are ok, the rest is the home owners problem. Not his fault, because if the terminations were doing there job, it would take a lot more than a bit of movement to loosen them, again IMHO.
Anyway !! A Spate of fires is reported by local fire departments.
The answer (And I know this has been thrashed many times) Enclose the problem in metal, rather than remove the problem itself. Thereby limiting the affects as and when they occur.
So again, IMHO, when I can tighten a terminal with nothing more than the strength of my wrist, and safe in the knowledge that doing so compromises nothing. (Because build quality is up to the task) Then and only then, will BS/EN for this stuff start to get the respect it use to deserve.
This is by no means exhaustive but its a start, and I apologise for the rant.

 

[Soi disant]

<A great deal of sense>

But sadly we are where we are.

 

[Soi disant]

One other point I would very much like to make. I have a plastic consumer unit in my home. Its populated with RCBOs. From 1969 when I started, to present day. I have seen, fitted, and reported on installations with plastic throughout. So if I slept soundly from 1969 to 2018 with plastic enclosures. Im not going to start losing sleep because a group of powers to be. Have decided its a good idea. To enclose shoddy workmanship or poor quality materials in metal rather than plastic. And on that, I confess to wearing my heart on my sleeve.

But how far back do you go with that argument? When you started in 1969 you could easily have heard someone who'd started out in 1920 saying "I've installed lighting circuits with no earth all my life, and slept soundly". Until 2008 you were no doubt quite happily installing socket circuits with no RCDs, but you've now got an all RCBO installation.

But in any event - we are where we are. When it comes to departures with designing/constructing, you're allowed to say "I didn't comply with XYZ because I did ABC instead, which is equivalently safe". You're not allowed to say "I didn't comply with XYZ because I think it's nonsense". Even when it is nonsense.

Same with some aspects of I&T. ?

 

[SparkyChick]

Forgive me but I'm on my soapbox. Please stay with me as this rant has to be said.
Years ago electrical equipment was not built to the same technical spec as today. But !! and its a big but, the build quality was substantial and robust.
I haven't the strongest wrist in the world, but armed with a standard screw driver, I can strip out or split apart a BS 60947-3 main switch with impunity. IMHO something is very wrong. But large manufacturers are churning this stuff out and we have to accept and fit it accepting the BS/EN standards they adopt, without question. When these things melt !! its poor workmanship first, and loose connections secondly. Nice get out clause right there. Electrical demand has increased over the years along with loadings. So now we have larger tails 25mm and above within domestic use. But terminations as currently supplied have to be torqued to prevent damaging these poorly designed pieces of equipment, often leaving terminations under tightened, IMHO. As an example, a DNO meter installer fits a new meter. The tails are disturbed and quickly loosen, (and we all know how easy that is with standard copper cored tails). But the consumer units not in the DNOs remit. His connection are ok, the rest is the home owners problem. Not his fault, because if the terminations were doing there job, it would take a lot more than a bit of movement to loosen them, again IMHO.
Anyway !! A Spate of fires is reported by local fire departments.
The answer (And I know this has been thrashed many times) Enclose the problem in metal, rather than remove the problem itself. Thereby limiting the affects as and when they occur.
So again, IMHO, when I can tighten a terminal with nothing more than the strength of my wrist, and safe in the knowledge that doing so compromises nothing. (Because build quality is up to the task) Then and only then, will BS/EN for this stuff start to get the respect it use to deserve.
This is by no means exhaustive but its a start, and I apologise for the rant.

I couldn't agree more. The build quality of most devices that go into consumer units is garbage.

But, is that the fault of manufacturers or us? Well, not specifically us, but those people in the industry who are engaged in the race to the bottom? I flat out refuse to fit cheap tat, but even the quality of supposedly reputable manufacturers can leave a lot to be desired and I do have to wonder if that is a result of the general market trend and them trying to increase their sales to compete.

I've just used a couple of Contactum boards and whilst for the most part I like the boards themselves, these last two I tried torquing them up to specification and as stated, the cases started to open, terminals felt like they were twisting. Not at all like the ones I used in 2019.

And another thing that is really beginning to get on my ---- is the fact that all screws seem to be made of putty, especially those in consumer unit earth and neutral bars. Modulo drivers don't help and right now I kind of wish they'd return to a simple slotted screw, with two screws per terminal.

I'll end my supportive rant there

 

[brianmoooore]

Until 2008 you were no doubt quite happily installing socket circuits with no RCDs,

Speak for yourself on that one. Since the mid '80s, I've not fitted a single socket circuit without RCD protection. Customer didn't get a choice.
Some early ones were whole board 100mA RCD/main switch, but as soon as I realised the problem of one out/all out with this arrangement, and the effect of earth-neutral faults, I switched to dual RCD boards, usually 100mA for lights, water heater, etc., but all circuits with a socket, on a 30mA, before changing to all 30mA in latter years.

 

[old man sparky]

Speak for yourself on that one. Since the mid '80s, I've not fitted a single socket circuit without RCD protection. Customer didn't get a choice.
Some early ones were whole board 100mA RCD/main switch, but as soon as I realised the problem of one out/all out with this arrangement, and the effect of earth-neutral faults, I switched to dual RCD boards, usually 100mA for lights, water heater, etc., but all circuits with a socket, on a 30mA, before changing to all 30mA in latter years.

And since mid 80s I have been telling young sparkies, DO NOT tell your customers 30ma rcds protect you from electric shock.
Because they don't.
And if you don't believe me, you haven't been on the end of a live cable connected to one ?
They can prevent death, maybe ?? sometimes ?? Depends on the condition of your heart.
Additional or enhanced protection I will go with, but these days there over rated and in danger of being relied on more than maybe they should. But as said when I hear people say they prevent you from getting a shock. I think don't make those kinds of promises please !! ?
Just wait until the RCBOs with built in AFDD modules become mandatory in the 19th editions Titanium enclosed CUs!!
You will see people getting loans out to pay for those bad boys ??

 

[loz2754]

And since mid 80s I have been telling young sparkies, DO NOT tell your customers 30ma rcds protect you from electric shock.
Because they don't.
And if you don't believe me, you haven't been on the end of a live cable connected to one ?
They can prevent death, maybe ?? sometimes ?? Depends on the condition of your heart.
Additional or enhanced protection I will go with, but these days there over rated and in danger of being relied on more than maybe they should. But as said when I hear people say they prevent you from getting a shock. I think don't make those kinds of promises please !! ?
Just wait until the RCBOs with built in AFDD modules become mandatory in the 19th editions Titanium enclosed CUs!!
You will see people getting loans out to pay for those bad boys ??

I've never heard anyone say that RCDs protect you from electric shock.
Anyone who says that clearly doesn't understand RCDs.
I sometimes tell lay people that it's the thing that'll stop you from dying if you touch a live wire, you'll still get a shock but it probably won't kill you!

 

[Dartlec]

I've never heard anyone say that RCDs protect you from electric shock.
Anyone who says that clearly doesn't understand RCDs.
I sometimes tell lay people that it's the thing that'll stop you from dying if you touch a live wire, you'll still get a shock but it probably won't kill you!

They (if working) may well protect you from electrocution - that's not the same as stopping you getting a shock of course...

From a quick google, seems like electrocution seems to be rare in domestic settings fortunately (< 10 per year), despite the state of some of the installations we see...

Not sure what that says about the relative risks of electricity compared to simple things like stairs that kill plenty of people though.

 

[old man sparky]

I've never heard anyone say that RCDs protect you from electric shock.

Next time your in a wholesalers full of Sparkies.
Pretend your a laymen and say.
I've been asked to pick up one of those devices that protects you from electric shock.
Then cover your ears from the chorus of. "You mean an rcd mate"
Honest, try it ??

 

[Dartlec]

Next time your in a wholesalers full of Sparkies.
Pretend your a laymen and say.
I've been asked to pick up one of those devices that protects you from electric shock.
Then cover your ears from the chorus of. "You mean an rcd mate"
Honest, try it ??

The correct answer is - that device is my business card - here you are Sir... ?

 

[LastManOnline]

. To enclose shoddy workmanship or poor quality materials in metal rather than plastic. And on that, I confess to wearing my heart on my sleeve.

Was, nt planning to involve myself in this peculiarly British sparks thread but the point above caught my attention as there was discussion here (in ROI) about following the UK example regarding metal CU, s. Until it was realised that the above measure was in fact "cart before the horse".

 

[Soi disant]

I've been asked to pick up one of those devices that protects you from electric shock.

 

[i=p/u]

No type A rcd in kitchen appliances c3
No sticker of wiring colours used c3
No arc fault detection in wooden sheds in many back gardens c3

C3 as minimum

 

[old man sparky]

Noooo!! We dont want to know what you get up to on a saturday night. ??

 

[Soi disant]

Since lockdown every day is a Saturday. Or a wet Sunday in Rhyl.

 

[Lister1987]

They (if working) may well protect you from electrocution - that's not the same as stopping you getting a shock of course...

From a quick google, seems like electrocution seems to be rare in domestic settings fortunately (< 10 per year), despite the state of some of the installations we see...

Not sure what that says about the relative risks of electricity compared to simple things like stairs that kill plenty of people though.

More people die from electrical fires than electric shock and yet little thought is given to fault currents and fire, all that emphasis is on RCDs as a magic bullet that will magically negate ---- electrical design

 

[Soi disant]

More people die from electrical fires fires decreed by the fire brigade investigators to have been electrical than electric shock

Fixed it for ya.

 

[LastManOnline]

They (if working) may well protect you from electrocution - that's not the same as stopping you getting a shock of course...

If working properly (average operation time 20ms) severity of shock will be significantly reduced

From a quick google, seems like electrocution seems to be rare in domestic settings fortunately (< 10 per year), despite the state of some of the installations we see...

It is (fortunately) rare. Its strange that we tolerate hundreds of road deaths every year as "normal" but a death by electrocution gets headlines

 

[Soi disant]

Its strange that we tolerate hundreds of road deaths every year as "normal"

It's actually thousands.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Probably because electrocution has become a rarity, road deaths are an every day occurrence unfortunately.

 

[LastManOnline]

all that emphasis is on RCDs as a magic bullet that will magically negate ---- electrical design

Have noticed how the rcd, s "reputation" varies from country to country, celebrated in one, maligned in the other.
However, whichever way you look at them, they are your only hope in a number of dangerous situations that no other safety measures can negate. Ultimately we have to ask ourselves if those risks are worth spending 20 quid on.
One other point I would like to highlight is the sometimes undervalued role they play in fire prevention. Apart from detecting line to earth arcing greater that 30 milliamps, bear in mind that many line to earth faults will be detected by either an rcd at an early stage of deterioration(heating elements) or by an mcb/fuse at a much later stage of deterioration. The major difference is the degree of current required to clear the fault. Will it be milliamps or hundreds of amps?
In the latter the risk of a potential fire is greatly increased

 

[nicebutdim]

It is (fortunately) rare. Its strange that we tolerate hundreds of road deaths every year as "normal" but a death by electrocution gets headlines

Might be down to the fact that driving licences are easily obtained by anyone who can demonstrate a very basic level of ability. If training cost thousands of pounds and took place over several years, with rigourous assessment of every stage, I'm sure road deaths would be significantly lower.

No one is allowed to perform brain surgery after answering some multiple choice questions, and proving they know which end of a scalpel to hold, yet it seems that people believe they have a God given right to wield several hundred kg of vehicle with impunity.

 

[Soi disant]

Might be down to the fact that driving licences are easily obtained by anyone who can demonstrate a very basic level of ability.

Unlike a qualification to wire up houses.

Oh, hang on a minute....

 

[nicebutdim]

Unlike a qualification to wire up houses.

Oh, hang on a minute....

In theory, that's how it works in most of the UK. Of course, I could expand upon that earlier analogy by including people who drive without a licence or when unfit to do so...

 

[Soi disant]

So in most of the UK a "qualification" to "allow" house wiring is not easily obtained by anyone who can demonstrate a very basic level of ability?

 

[DPG]

So in most of the UK a "qualification" to "allow" house wiring is not easily obtained by anyone who can demonstrate a very basic level of ability?

Is it a riddle?

 

[nicebutdim]

So in most of the UK a "qualification" to "allow" house wiring is not easily obtained by anyone who can demonstrate a very basic level of ability?

The difference would be that domestic installers must demonstrate some understanding of electrical principles, whereas no one is required to learn basic physics before taking to the road.

 

[Soi disant]

Is it a riddle?

I didn't think so.

I'll start again.

Might be down to the fact that driving licences are easily obtained by anyone who can demonstrate a very basic level of ability.

[sarcasm]Unlike a qualification to wire up houses.[/sarcasm]

 

[Soi disant]

The difference would be that domestic installers must demonstrate some understanding of electrical principles,

I'm afraid the evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[nicebutdim]

I'm afraid the evidence suggests otherwise.

In order to qualify they must do exactly that. It may be that the required level of understanding is less than ideal, or less than you might like, but nonetheless those requirements are in place.

 

[DPG]

I'm going to have another IPA, and reassess the situation.

Note, I have had 6 drinks and I am still puntuating correctly.

 

[UNG]

The difference would be that domestic installers must demonstrate some understanding of electrical principles, whereas no one is required to learn basic physics before taking to the road.

You mean the principles and physics of connecting a socket, light switch or a pendant lampholder

I was always told until you pass your driving test you don't learn to drive and the same goes for the electrical industry until you finish your apprenticeship and you are on your own do you learn how to be an electrician as the decision making comes down to you

 

[nicebutdim]

You mean the principles and physics of connecting a socket, light switch or a pendant lampholder

I was always told until you pass your driving test you don't learn to drive and the same goes for the electrical industry until you finish your apprenticeship and you are on your own do you learn how to be an electrician as the decision making comes down to you

Are you suggesting that there is no requirement to learn anything about electrical principles by trainee electricians?

 

[UNG]

Are you suggesting that there is no requirement to learn anything about electrical principles by trainee electricians?

You said domestic installers there is a limit on what can be taught in a few weeks before you are supposedly "qualified",