18th Edition - Plastic cable clips?

[ban-all-sheds]

Interesting how you've missed the point BAS. The original post from EFLI was pointing out that the IET were not following their own rules (and indeed the rules of all the other organisations that publish standards).

My point was not one of challenging the rule.

It was, actually two points:

1. Someone would have to be spectacularly lacking in comprehension to not be able to tell if what was meant was meant was "Wiring systems hanging across access or egress routes might hinder evacuation and firefighting activities" or "Wiring systems hanging across access or egress routes are permitted to hinder evacuation and firefighting activities", (or, indeed, what is meant in any of the examples I quoted).
   
2. Pointing (1) out does not merit an accusation of being obtuse.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

"Wiring systems hanging across access or egress routes may hinder evacuation and firefighting activities"

Change one word and add 4 words and meaning is less ambiguous.

It is possible that wiring systems hanging across access or egress routes will hinder evacuation and firefighting activities

If you are bothered by it it would be more efficient (and would comply with the quoted rules) to change just one word and add none:

"Wiring systems hanging across access or egress routes might hinder evacuation and firefighting activities".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Can anybody find an example of the use of the word "may" where it is not clear to any non-obtuse person whether permission or possibility is meant?

 

[JohnW2]

Countless. "Provided you are old enough, you may buy alcohol".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I did think it was clear that I meant examples in BS 7671.

 

[JohnW2]

422.5 Note 2 ... "Fire detectors may be provided to activate measures for preventing propagation of fire, for example, the closing of fireproof shutters in ducts, troughs or trunking"

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Detlef - what is the document you quoted?

What force does it have?

Was it mandatory for the authors of BS 7671 to comply with it, in which case they have clearly produced a document which is not a valid British Standard, or is it only advisory, in which case they have (it seems so far) made clear distinctions between requirements, recommendations, permissions, possibilities and capabilities.

I've found these:

https://www.iso.org/sites/directives/current/part2/index.xhtml
https://www.iec.ch/standardsdev/res...ations/directives/principles/verbal_forms.htm

but BS 7671 is not an IEC or ISO directive or standard.

And those documents do not redefine "preferred", so a list of preferred forms is not the same as a list of compulsory forms.

Nor do they redefine "verbal forms", so that continues to mean root, third-person singular, present participle, past, and past participle. These are different verbal forms:

sing, sings, singing, sang, sung​

These are not different verbal forms:

sing, hum, chant, speak, whistle​

they are different verbs.

So far it seems that you are relying on rules which do not apply to BS 7671, which even if they did do not make the use of particular verbs mandatory, and are incorrectly written in the first place.

So far it seems that the more we go into this the more fatuous it appears to be to insist that the note has to be interpreted as "Wiring systems hanging across access or egress routes are permitted to hinder evacuation and firefighting activities" or that it is ambiguous.

So far it seems that it is not I who is being obtuse.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

422.5 Note 2 ... "Fire detectors may be provided to activate measures for preventing propagation of fire, for example, the closing of fireproof shutters in ducts, troughs or trunking"

Indeed, they are allowed be.

And therefore they might be.

 

[EFLImpudence]

View attachment 151706

Can anybody find an example of the use of the word "may" where it is not clear to any non-obtuse person whether permission or possibility is meant?

Surely 'obtuse' is not the relevant factor. My original comment was not being obtuse but pointing out the flaw.

It should be clear to a person who is unsure of the requiremnets.

What about 543.2.1 "A protective conductor may consist of one or more of the following"?
Here either meaning could be meant, although obviously it means 'allowed to'.
The same in 543.2.5.

As this might be unclear to someone already unsure, the use of 'may' throughout the regulations for both meanings is clearly undesirable when so easily avoided.

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed, they are allowed be. ... And therefore they might be.

Or .. they 'might be', even if there were not allowed to be'. Either meaning is possible, hence (even if there were no rules about use of words in such documents), as EFLI has said, the intended meaning is not certain and therefore would benefit from (simple) improvement, in the name of achieving 'clear and unambiguous communication'.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It's also a far cry from someone who frequently used to say "It doesn't matter how you interpret it, what does the regulation actually say?".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It's also a far cry from someone who frequently used to say "It doesn't matter how you interpret it, what does the regulation actually say?".

422.5 says this (with my emphasis):

422.5 Fire propagating structures
The requirements of this regulation shall be applied in addition to those of Section 421 in locations where CB2 conditions exist. Where the risk of flame propagation is high the cable shall meet the requirements of the appropriate part of BS EN 60332-3 series.
NOTE 1: CB2 conditions relate to the propagation of fire and exist where a building has a shape and dimensions which facilitate the spread of fire (e.g. chimney effect), such as high-rise buildings or where a building has a forced ventilation system (see Appendix 5).
NOTE 2: Fire detectors may be provided to activate measures for preventing propagation of fire, for example, the closing of fireproof shutters in ducts, troughs or trunking.

Just how obtuse would someone have to be to think for one second that Note 2 meant

Fire detectors which activate measures for preventing propagation of fire, for example, the closing of fireproof shutters in ducts, troughs or trunking are not allowed to be provided but nevertheless they might be.​

?

Surely 'obtuse' is not the relevant factor. My original comment was not being obtuse but pointing out the flaw.

I'm not sure that a charge of being obtuse could not be levelled at someone who invents a flaw via suggesting a meaning which cannot possibly be true.

What about 543.2.1 "A protective conductor may consist of one or more of the following"?
Here either meaning could be meant, although obviously it means 'allowed to'.

Firstly, "is possible" vs "is permitted" only makes a difference to someone so obtuse that they think a regulation would list possibilities for a protective conductor which were not permitted.
Secondly, I wonder if neither "may" nor "might" is the word they should use, as all that would do would be to list a number of options which might be used or were permitted to be used. Should it not read "A protective conductor shall consist of one or more of the following"?

The same in 543.2.5.

The same comments - what sort of person would think that that meant

The metal covering including the sheath (bare or insulated) of a cable, in particular the sheath of a mineral insulated cable, trunking and ducting for electrical purposes and metal conduit, might be used as a protective conductor for the associated circuit, if it satisfies both requirements of items (i) and (ii) of Regulation 543.2.2, but this is not permitted.​

?

As this might be unclear to someone already unsure,

Really?

You really think it credible that someone could look at a regulation and think it was saying that it was possible for them to install something which was not permitted?

the use of 'may' throughout the regulations for both meanings is clearly undesirable when so easily avoided.

It is undesirable, and of course it would be better if clarity were to be improved. But I have yet to see any example where saying that something which is permitted is possible can create any meaningful confusion. It automatically follows that anything which is permitted is possible, and as I keep pointing out you'd have to have a particularly special form of obtuseness to think that a regulation would tell you that things were possible if they were in fact not allowed, except in the context of a clear warning about historic practices, for example.

I have found several examples where a slavish insistence on the meaning "is permitted", despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is utterly absurd.

But I genuinely would like to know what rules govern the wording of British Standards, and whether they are mandatory or advisory. It won't stop me poking fun at the authors of those rules because of their own incorrect use of words to form their rules on how others should write, but IMO it is very important to the status of BS 7671. IMO if it contravenes mandatory rules it is not fit for purpose, nobody can insist that it be followed, nobody can rely on it for any statutory purposes, and it has no value, therefore there are no IP violations in copying or disseminating it until is is reclassified as a work of art.