Boiler wiring /spur

[RandomGrinch]

Just replying to this, as I was a respondent to the thread that Eric has quoted...

On another post today View attachment 325142 this is typical of Plumbers doing electrical work, and if you don't inspect and test, then the fault becomes yours.

As limited as my understanding may be - the only issue I see with what you have highlighted as a 'problem', is that the G/Y wire is unsleeved.
As you know, the regs aren't retrospective, and the oversleeving of G/Y, was only explicitly forbidden in Amendment 2...

514.4.2 It is no longer permissible to oversleeve the green/yellow protective conductor in a multicore cable to use it as a live conductor.

...and yet you don't list the blue S/L wire as a problem for being unsleeved, or the G/Y being cut short from the flex carrying the L and N, when it should have been neatly parked in the earth terminal.

 

[JohnW2]

As limited as my understanding may be - the only issue I see with what you have highlighted as a 'problem', is that the G/Y wire is unsleeved.

Indeed - plus, I suppose, for the pedantic, a little bit of visible biut of copper in that wire.

As you know, the regs aren't retrospective, and the oversleeving of G/Y, was only explicitly forbidden in Amendment 2...

Very true - but what eric illustrated (a G/Y-insulated conductor used as a live one,but without any over-sleeving) has never been compliant.

...and yet you don't list the blue S/L wire as a problem for being unsleeved, or the G/Y being cut short from the flex carrying the L and N, when it should have been neatly parked in the earth terminal.

All true (and both so common at light switches) but, at last in my opinion, far less naughty/worrying than a G/Y conductor used as a live one,without any over-sleeving (which may well have been permitted when that was done).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Just replying to this, as I was a respondent to the thread that Eric has quoted...

As limited as my understanding may be - the only issue I see with what you have highlighted as a 'problem', is that the G/Y wire is unsleeved.
As you know, the regs aren't retrospective, and the oversleeving of G/Y, was only explicitly forbidden in Amendment 2...


...and yet you don't list the blue S/L wire as a problem for being unsleeved, or the G/Y being cut short from the flex carrying the L and N, when it should have been neatly parked in the earth terminal.

The bi-colour combination green-and-yellow shall be used exclusively for identification of a protective conductor and this combination shall not be used for any, other purpose.

note the full stop, yes it continued

Single-core cables that are coloured green-and-yellow throughout their length shall only be used as a protective conductor and shall not be over-marked at their terminations, except as permitted by Regulation 514.4.3.
In this combination one of the colours shall cover at least 30 % and at most 70 % of the surface being coloured, while the other colour shall cover the remainder of the surface.
A bare conductor or busbar used as a protective conductor shall be identified. where necessary, by equal green-and yellow stripes, each not less than 15 mm and not more than 100 mm wide, close together, either throughout the length of the conductor or in each compartment and unit and at each accessible position. If adhesive tape is used, it shall be bi-coloured.

But this is after a full stop, so it has never said you can use the bi-colour combination green-and-yellow if over sleeved with another colour and part of a multi-core cable. What Amendment 2 did was to clarify this. I have not checked with 16th Edition.

I do find clarification is a problem, as this means if read wrongly in the past, then the item is non compliant, the old does not comply coding for PIR/EICR has been dropped, and all we now have is potentially dangerous, however I would say a bi-colour combination green-and-yellow wire used for a live wire is potentially dangerous, so is not satisfactory.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I see that you have moved from "testing" to "minimal testing". What do you feel would suffice (in the immersion case)?

Good grief, John.

How do you ensure something is safe for use without testing?

 

[pcaouolte]

What it got (not by me) was a visual inspection that the correct coloured cores had been connected to the appropriate terminals. It then passed the "bang test" as it survived being switched on and the immersion heater makes the water hot.

No IR testing, no polarity testing, no earth testing.

The person who changed the immersion heater is a plumber, not an electrician, he doesn't carry any electrical test gear beyond that required to check that the circuit is dead before working on it. I suspect that there are a huge number of plumbers in the same position, changing immersion heaters on a regular basis. If I wanted another immersion heater changed I would contact a plumber to do the work, I wouldn't expect to also pay for an electrician to test the connection.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, I know that is what happens but I was an electrician who also changed immersion heaters.

Let us suppose the circuit has a disconnected CPC somewhere, i.e. no earth, when would this be discovered?

 

[pcaouolte]

Let us suppose the circuit has a disconnected CPC somewhere, i.e. no earth, when would this be discovered?

I guess not ever. The immersion will be earthed through the copper hot water tank and associated plumbing, assuming there are no plastic pipes (which in this case there are not).

 

[EFLImpudence]

Oh well, that's alright, then, we'll assume.

Why are people arguing against doing things properly?

 

[pcaouolte]

I'm not arguing with anyone. I'm certainly not against doing things properly although I wouldn't expect to pay an electrician and a plumber to change an immersion heater. I'm just stating how it was done and suspecting that it is often done that way. An observation, not an argument.

Perhaps I would be better giving the job to an electrician rather than a plumber in future, but my reasoning behind selecting a plumber for the job is that if the boss gets twisted out of the tank when the 20 year old immersion is removed a plumber would be the correct person to replace the tank.

 

[martygturner]

well the op must be confused...he could just fit a 1gang + 1 gang and have a socket and fcu side by side.

1 + 1 Gang Back Boxes | Wiring Accessories | Screwfix

Buy 1 + 1 Gang Back Boxes at Screwfix.com. Free returns. Over 40,000 products. Free next day delivery available. Products reviewed by the trade and home improvers.

www.screwfix.com

 

[JohnW2]

Good grief, John. ... How do you ensure something is safe for use without testing?

I'm still trying to work out what testing I would be expected (by you) to do "to ensure it was safe" before plugging in that new fridge - since I see so little (electrical) difference between doing that and connecting a new fridge to an existing FCU )r a new immersion to an existing FCU).

Indeed, even closer to the example you're talking about, although I have suggested to him that it's not really a very good idea, one of my neighbours has an immersion connected by plug/socket. Should that circuit be tested when he 'plugs in' a replacement immersion?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Let us suppose the circuit has a disconnected CPC somewhere, i.e. no earth, when would this be discovered?

The answer to that question (whatever the answer may be) would presumably be the same in a situation in which a new (or even old!) fridge (or anything else) was plugged into a sockets circuit that "had a disconnected CPC somewhere" ?

...so what is your answer to those questions?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

The answer to that question (whatever the answer may be) would presumably be the same in a situation in which a new (or even old!) fridge (or anything else) was plugged into a sockets circuit that "had a disconnected CPC somewhere" ?

...so what is your answer to those questions?

Errm. One could check that it was earthed.


Let us take another example:

Mrs. Customer has asked you to connect a new cooker to the cooker outlet.
(The deliverers said they would connect it but apparently there was a Y in the day.)

Would you just simply connect the three wires and walk away?

 

[JohnW2]

Errm. One could check that it was earthed.

One certainly could. However, it is surely apparent that my underlying (essentially rhetorical) question is whether or not anyone does (or would dream of doing) that before they plug anything into a socket?

More specifically (since you have mentioned this example) ... someone has bought a new fridge and wants the dead one replaced by it. Two possibilities:

1... If old and new fridges both had 13A plugs, one would unplug the old frdge and plug in the new fridge.​

2... If the old one had been hard wired into an FCU, one would cut the plug off the new fridge's cable and connect the cable to the existing FCU​

Are you saying that you would "check that it [the circuit] was earthed" in (2) but not in (1) - and, if so, why?

Let us take another example:
Mrs. Customer has asked you to connect a new cooker to the cooker outlet.
(The deliverers said they would connect it but apparently there was a Y in the day.)
Would you just simply connect the three wires and walk away?

Really not particularly different from the above. What if it were an oven with a 13A plug, replacing a dead one which also had a 13A plug. Would you just plug the new one in "and walk away",or would you test the circuit?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

You are forgetting again that my original remark was in relation to a new immersion being connected to an old flex.

I have never delivered a fridge.
Would it be unreasonable that someone doing that could at the very least plug in a socket tester?


I note you are not answering any of my questions.

I'll ask again.

What would you do to ensure that whatever you had done was safe to operate (as per Part P).