| Home | Register | Members | Search | Links |
 |
| Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
John Rumm wrote
NT wrote >> Whether it ought to be fitted is another matter, one of opinion, and >> the job is one which most households arent concerned about doing. > Which only demonstrates that many of them are poorly informed about these things. One could certainly argue that. But I think the average householder is well aware that on their list of priorities its extremely low, and in safety terms theyre quite correct on that point. >> Given the near zero safety benefit I'd personally agree with them. > I am not sure why you consider this to be of "near zero safety" benefit. The near zero number of resulting deaths. When you compare the spend per benefit of equi bonding to many other measures one can take, it simply ceases to be a path worth pursuing unless one is for some reason obliged to do so. > It is equal I would say to having no RCD protection on a outdoor power feed. Unless I'm mistaken, the level of fatalities don't agree with that claim. > It is after all the greatly increased risk of severe shock imposed > by the surroundings that make the RCD protected supply desirable. Same > applies in a bathroom. But that is an incorrect way to assess safety. There is no end of things that could happen, what matters is which ones do and how often. On Jul 23, 12:33*am, John Rumm <see.my.signat...@nowhere.null> wrote: > NT wrote: > > On Jul 22, 5:34 pm, "ARWadsworth" <adamwadswo...@blueyonder.co.uk> > > wrote: > >> "NT" <meow2...@care2.com> wrote in message > > >>news:87164220-b039-4f01-b206-(E-Mail Removed).... > >> On Jul 21, 6:01 pm, John Rumm <see.my.signat...@nowhere.null> wrote: > > >>> NT wrote: > >>>> On Jul 21, 1:33 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 20, 2:57 pm, John Rumm <see.my.signat...@nowhere.null> wrote: > >>>>>> NT wrote: > >>>>>>> This article could do with input/suggestions: > >>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/mewmhe > >>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...trics#Suppleme... > >>>> The article is now edited to read > >>>> "Unless an installation complies with the latest requirements of the > >>>> 17th edition... then supplementary equipotential bonding is > >>>> required." > >>>> Are you saying that there is a requirement to bring all existing > >>>> installations into line with this? I'm not aware of any requirement to > >>>> do so. > >>> Yes, but I think you are misinterpreting the sense of "required" to mean > >>> something that building regs or some other authority say you must do now. > >>> The "requirement" is a technical one from BS7671. There is no *legal* > >>> obligation to install missing bonding (unless you a changing something > >>> electrical in the room anyway, when one might argue that part P would > >>> make it so). > >>> However, to wire or alter a room containing bath or shower then one > >>> *may* be required (for reasons of complying with BS7671 and for best > >>> practice / good workmanship) to install or upgrade bonding. I use the > >>> word "may" since the 17th edition is the first version in recent times > >>> to offer an alternative to installing bonding. > >> Sounds like we agree on the principle, but differ on the wording. I > >> wanted to try and clarify it in the article as its a much > >> misunderstood area, and many people sent into a tailspin over nothing, > >> or paying out for work that doesn't need doing. > > >> So in short there is no real world requirement for such bonding to be > >> retrofitted to existing wiring unless electrical work is being carried > >> out, in which case the end result should be regs compliant. > > >> I propose adding a sentence to explain that, probably much further up > >> in the article since it affects most of it. > > >> NT > > >> Hi > > >> The lack of supplementary bonding would be flagged up on a PIR if the wiring > >> was to the 16th edition. However the lack of RCD protection for cables > >> behind plaster would also be flagged if the system was installed to the 16th > >> edition. > > >> The main difference is that the the lack of supplementary bonding would be > >> code 1 (requires immediate attention) and the lack of RCD protection for the > >> cables would be code 4 (does not comply with BS17671:2008). > > >> I would suggest that supplementary bonding "when required but not present" > >> should be installed ASAP regardless of any proposed electrical installation. > >> As John pointed out, any installations are part P governed and so would need > >> the supplementary bonding to be installed. > > >> The other point to note is that any alterations to bathroom or kitchen > >> electrics also need the main equipotential bonding to be brought up to > >> current standards when the work is carried out. > > >> A mixture of RCD protected and non RCD protected bathroom electrics still > >> need supplementary bonding. eg a split load 16th edition install with the > >> bathroom lights non RCD protected and then an electric shower is addedto > >> the RCD side. Supplementary bonding must be fitted between the lighting and > >> the shower. > > >> HTH > > >> Adam > > > So if I understand you correctly you also think equi bonding only need > > be installed if and when electrical work is done. Note I say 'need > > be', not 'is an option'. > > I think there are two things at issue here: > > One is semantics - yes you could argue that if you are changing nothing, > then installing bonding is not "required". Thats a true fact, not semantics  > However, if no change is > being made or contemplated, why refer an article on bathroom electrics > in the first place? Chances are if you are looking for information on > this, then you plan to make some alterations, at which point this work > becomes required. Many times people get a PIR done that says you need to fit equi bonding, and they mistakenly believe it to be so. Our article should tell them the truth, that there is no requirement to fit it unless youre carrying out electrical work. Theres nothing wrong with also adding a section of whether we think you should, but I dont think we ought to tell porkies by saying yes you're required to do it. > Also if we are addressing competent DIYers seeking to > improve bad things on their electrical system, then encouraging them to > add bonding when its required but missing, is a "good thing" IMHO. Its > cheap, easy to do, and depending on the circumstances can make a life or > death difference should you be unlucky enough to have something go bang > unexpectedly. So opinion is mixed. If, as we did once before, guess the average cost of installing it, multiply by the number of houses, and divide by the number of lives it saves per year it works out at a phenonmenally high price per life, when many other simple domestic works for the same money/time would yield far greater safety improvement. It just isnt warranted on safety grounds. Why not... Lets say install cost £20 materials, 4 hours labour for a diying novice, including going and getting the bits. Total cost £20 + 4x7-15, perhaps £40 as a balpark figure = £60 total x20 million houses = £1.2 billion If this saves one life every 5 years, thats a cost of 6 billion per life saved, which is orders of magnitude higher than a whole swathe of more practical constructive measures one can take. > Secondly, there is the issue of severity. I expect based on comments you > have made in the past that you don't consider the lack of "required" > bonding to be of particular concern. However as I see it (and as Adam > highlights, as any form of proper inspection would see it), it is > classed as a fairly severe fault. That only shows a recognised flaw in such testing, namely that the results given are sometimes entirely unrealistic and to encourage needless spending. NT note top and bottom replies |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Re: Bathroom electrics | Mungo | Electrical | 3 | 04-26-2006 01:48 PM |
| Re: Bathroom electrics | John Rumm | Electrical | 0 | 04-25-2006 08:53 PM |
| Bathroom extractor fan electrics | Adam-the-Kiwi | Electrical | 6 | 02-23-2006 10:19 PM |
| Regs re electrics in the bathroom? Requirements for a socket? | Mike Barnard | Electrical | 11 | 11-25-2004 08:33 PM |
| bathroom lighting electrics question | Ray Holden | Electrical | 0 | 02-19-2004 07:53 AM |
Linear Mode
