Fused spur - distance to draining board
- Thread starter DaveFix
- Start date
No No No No NO
Mmmm. Do you think that might not be statutory?
The only electrical law for domestic premises (apart from notifications) is Building Regulation Part P itself which just states that safety must be ensured.
Reasonable provision.
Indeed, and the courts probably regard BS7671 as being more than just a 'benchmark' ...
Approved DOC P is intended to be a guide to the interpretation/implementation of the law (Part P of the Building Regs), and Courts are likely to regard it as such. It effectively says that compliance with BS7671 implies compliance with the law, and Courts are likely to accept that - so to be able to demonstrate compliance with BS7671 would be an excellent defence if anyone was ever accused in court with having failed to comply with Part P (has that ever happened, I wonder?).
It's less straightforward the other way around. As I think Approved Doc P also says, non-compliance with BS7671 does not necessarily mean non-compliance with Part P, since the accused may have some other way of demonstrating that compliance (although it is then likely to come down to matters of opinion.
Furthermore, Courts are very used to using 'non-statutory' sources of information/guidance in order to reach judgements. In the absence of written rules/regulations/guidances, the Court will often rely on (human) 'expert witnesses' - and an 'authoritive' set of written rules/regulations (even if 'not law', hence not 'mandatory') is probably going to be considered as a stronger basis for decision making than would the opinions of a human witness.
Kind Regards, John
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2021
- Messages
- 1,907
- Reaction score
- 290
- Country
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2021
- Messages
- 1,907
- Reaction score
- 290
- Country
We went through that a number of posts ago.
The outcome being that whilst they can be less safe for the intended purpose of protecting children from sticking something into the live terminal, in the instance of this thread, they were suggested for something completely different (splash guard) and thus the points made in the link were N/A.
Now, you could argue that they won't be any good as a splash guard either but that another thing for another day.
The other point made from the link, was that due to non-conformity with British Standards, the dimensions of the socket covers can vary.
This in turn can splay the contacts within the socket; leading to high resistance and over heating when a plug is reinserted.
...but as you say, water resistance is another discussion!
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2021
- Messages
- 1,907
- Reaction score
- 290
- Country
The other point made from the link, was that due to non-conformity with British Standards, the dimensions of the socket covers can vary.
This in turn can splay the contacts within the socket; leading to high resistance and over heating when a plug is reinserted.
...but as you say, water resistance is another discussion!
I enjoyed the article, it's impressive that these plugs were designed in the 40's as a industry wide consolidation of the sector.
The 40's and 50's were fantastic decades for engineering and innovation.
I'm not sure the enthusiasm of the article for the UK socket and plug is justified.
The sockets and the holes in them are far larger than others around the world (re: babies' fingers) and others also have shutters.
The plug incorporating a fuse was only necessary to allow existing appliances designed for 15A circuits to be plugged into the new 30A ring circuit; which was invented only to facilitate extending and doubling the capacity of existing radials with the minimum of extra cable.
I'll repeat again ring circuits were in service much earlier than BS1362/3
As I u8nderstand it, BS1363 was initially introduced in 1947. How much earlier than that do you believe that ring circuits started being used?
Kind Regards, John
50 years
1897?
How many 'electrical circuits' of any sort were around then, I wonder?
Kind Regards, John