People using the Yellow/Green core in flex as a live conducter!

[ban-all-sheds]

Assume a house was rewired with all the cables clipped to the surface of the walls and ceilings, running at all sort of odd angles from one point to another, with unnecessary (but unconcealed) round brown JBs all over the place, with grey and white cables randomly mixed, with different sizes ditto, with cables randomly changing direction, with accessories all at different heights, all of them crooked, all of them different makes, and different colours, and different styles, some or all of them second-hand and filthy dirty (but sound) and not one reg (e.g. mechanical risks or minimum CCC, or loop impedance etc) contravened, and compliance with every single explicit regulation.

Assume it was the most clumsy, carelessly done, ugly dogs breakfast of a job the world had ever seen, so bad that it made you cringe and feel nauseous, but nevertheless was safe.

Would it be "good workmanship"? Would anybody looking at it say "wow - they did a good job there"?

No it would not, and they would not.

Except you. You would say it was good workmanship, and they did do a good job.

As I said, WOE is the point of 134.1.1 if all that is needed to comply is not contravening any other regulation? You already aren't allowed to contravene any, so by your logic you already aren't allowed to do anything which is not good workmanship, so why have 134.1.1?

 

[JohnW2]

Assume it was the most clumsy, carelessly done, ugly dogs breakfast of a job the world had ever seen, but nevertheless was safe. ... Would it be "good workmanship"? Would anybody looking at it say "wow - they did a good job there"? ... No it would not, and they would not.

I will say this just once more .....

You are talking about a totally different sort of situation, in which there clearly was 'poor workmanship'.

I am talking about a situation in which even you would agree that the workmanship was 'otherwise' impeccable, the only issue being the colour of the insulation of the core of a multi-core cable that had been over-sleeved and used as a live conductor. If it were blue, grey or sky blue pink, over-sleeved with brown (or maybe red), that would not detract from your belief that the quality of the workmanship was fully acceptable.

We have a regulation which indicates (or, at least, very strongly implies) that it is 'acceptable', in the eyes of the authors, to over-sleeve a G/Y-insulated core of a multi-core cable and use it as a live conductor. They therefore do not distinguish G/Y from blue or sky-blue-pink, in a multi-core cable.

You and I may think the regulation is 'wrong', and we certainly think what it allows is 'bad practice' - but, as you are usually telling us, what matters is what the regulation "actually says", and one can't (or shouldn't) ignore that just because one doesn't like the regulation, or thinks that it is 'wrong'.

Do you really believe that, no matter how much you shouted about 'good workmanship' and 134.1.1, a hypothetical court presented with the wording of 514.4.2 would really conclude that someone had been non-compliant with BS7671 when they had undertaken (otherwise faultless and of high quality 'workmanship') electrical work because he/she had over-sleeved a G/Y core with brown and used it as a live conductor?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I have not got amendment 3 however with BS7671:2008 if one tries to read it using English rules there are a number of items which seem wrong, the RCD regulations do not exclude extra low voltage, and the use of an insulation monitoring device is required for most IT systems but one would think this is only (i) In a.c. systems RA x Id ≤ 50V (ii) In d.c. systems RA x Id ≤ 120V however although SELV is clearly an IT supply, with PELV you need an earth so as written a RCD seems to be required and with FELV it could go either way.

With reduced low voltage it seems we need the same protective devices as low voltage? however although you can get 110 volt RCD's they are not used that much. There are other items in the BS7671 where we use common sense rather than strict compliance, no one in their right mind would try fitting a RCD to the output of a door bell transformer even if the regulations seems to say it is required.

The regulation says we can fuse at the end of a cable rather than at origin if no branch and 3 meters or less, this would seem to include the unfused spur from a ring final, however we all know people do not seem to want to accept this as a rule, and make unfused spurs longer than 3 meters.

In other words we use some common sense, and this also goes to using wrong colours, we all know British 110 volt supplies are in the main split phase so there is no neutral, you have line 1 and line 2, so colours should be Brown, Black, Green/yellow, however nearly every yellow cable I have found has a blue core! One would expect the manufacturers know yellow cable is used on 110 volt systems with no neutral. Same with plugs and sockets still marked L and N one L1 and L2.

However it is made clear that to code the system must brake the regulations, so we can list a door bell supply without a RCD but not a immersion heater cable using a green/yellow over sleeved wire. It does not matter how dangerous we don't have to consider those who come after us. Other than leaving a plan in the consumer unit lid. So if I decide to split rings finals side to side of a house rather than up, down, there is nothing wrong with that, in fact since it likely reduces the ELI there is a lot going for it. However it could mean in the future some one will not switch off the correct circuit before working on it. Note I say switch off, not isolate as to isolate you need to disconnect all live cables including the neutral, so if isolated it would be switched off.

So however much some one in the future may assume wrong, it does not matter, they should test for dead, if they don't its their fault not yours. Same goes for down the wall then horizontal between sockets and up at end one, nothing says it should not be done. However much we think some one may put a nail through the cable does not matter it complies.

So as said I would never use a green/yellow as a line but neither could I code some one else who has done that. The only thing it may not comply with is if the wiring is considered as fixed. Although flex I would say it is fixed, so it needs an earth, so two flexes from boiler to junction box with one green/yellow over sleeved brown OK, but single flex to cylinder thermostat it needs an earth supply even if not used, so it would fail as no earth supply in cable, not because over sleeved. But so does any house wired before 1966 with no earth to lights, so it would like the no earth to lights need a sticker on the consumer unit to say only class II cylinder thermostats should be used.

So C3 missing label to inform only class II thermostats can be used, is about the only thing I can see can be listed.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I will say this just once more .....

You are talking about a totally different sort of situation, in which there clearly was 'poor workmanship'.

Using 3-core flex when you could just as easily have used 4-core, but simply CBA, is clearly poor workmanship.

So if you agree that there can be poor workmanship, even when no other regulation has been broken, you agree that 134.1.1 is a regulation to be complied with just like all the others.

It is simply a case that you and I draw the line in different places.

I clearly have higher standards of workmanship than you.

I am talking about a situation in which even you would agree that the workmanship was 'otherwise' impeccable, the only issue being the colour of the insulation of the core of a multi-core cable that had been over-sleeved and used as a live conductor. If it were blue, grey or sky blue pink, over-sleeved with brown (or maybe red), that would not detract from your belief that the quality of the workmanship was fully acceptable.

But blue, grey or sky blue pink do not have the significance of G/Y.

We have a regulation which indicates (or, at least, very strongly implies) that it is 'acceptable', in the eyes of the authors, to over-sleeve a G/Y-insulated core of a multi-core cable and use it as a live conductor. They therefore do not distinguish G/Y from blue or sky-blue-pink, in a multi-core cable.

The dog's breakfast I described above is "acceptable" in the eyes of the authors.

But you say, despite it being "acceptable", it would clearly contravene 134.1.1

You and I may think the regulation is 'wrong', and we certainly think what it allows is 'bad practice'

Indeed.

And it is a case that I believe that gratuitous bad practice, bad practice done for no good reason, bad practice done when it could easily have been avoided, is not something which counts as good workmanship. It is something which I do not believe qualifies as exercising reasonable skill and care.

Imagine someone installing some cable, and he has 3-core to hand, but his reel of 4-core is on the other side of the room. He thinks "No, I'm not bothering to walk 3m over there and 3m back to avoid doing something which is bad practice". I don't believe that is the behaviour of a good workman. I do not believe it is an exercise of reasonable skill and care.

Imagine someone repurposing a cable already installed. I would have no problem with the suggestion that it would be reasonable to oversleeve, and unreasonable to cut a new chase through meters of nicely decorated walls just to avoid it.

but, as you are usually telling us, what matters is what the regulation "actually says", and one can't (or shouldn't) ignore that just because one doesn't like the regulation, or thinks that it is 'wrong'.

134.1.1 requires good workmanship. One can't (or shouldn't) ignore that just because one doesn't like it, or thinks that it is 'wrong'.

Do you really believe that, no matter how much you shouted about 'good workmanship' and 134.1.1, a hypothetical court presented with the wording of 514.4.2 would really conclude that someone had been non-compliant with BS7671 when they had undertaken (otherwise faultless and of high quality 'workmanship') electrical work because he/she had over-sleeved a G/Y core with brown and used it as a live conductor?

I really have no interest in what a court might say, as I'm not a lawyer advising a client.

What I am is someone expressing his belief of what qualifies as good workmanship.

 

[JM2]

Using 3-core flex (with green/yellow) for the 3 terminal tank stats is both undesirable and confusing the first time you see it.
But, is common practise (certainly pre- 2000) for Y-plans and don't forget these are likely have been wired by plumbers (not electricians) - an "alternative" use for some green/yellow is probably the least of woes.
Of course, it isn't a CPC; it is a conductor the same size as the other two - it happens to be coloured green/yellow; and what do we usually say to folk about to connect/use/touch the <insert colour here> wire ...

 

[John D v2.0]

I think the real point is that the regs have gaps in areas that are not really an issue in real life.
In reality very few people use Gy conductors of flex as another conductor in a situation where they already have an earth at the terminations. If there wasn't already an earth, unless it was an existing lighting circuit, it would need one anyway to comply.

As an aside I'd have thought the prohibition on single Gy would be in the basis that most of it is not insulated and sheathed. It would presumably only be relevant if it's run in conduit or similar.

I'm assuming ban all sheds expects all runs to be wired in 10mm 3 core swa because anything less would show laziness on the part of the installer they CBA to go any buy the cable.

 

[JohnW2]

I think the real point is that the regs have gaps in areas that are not really an issue in real life.

I agree that's often the case, but I don't think it's the situation here - because I believe that, although not absolutely explicit, the meaning of of the regulation is so strongly implicit that I believe the intention was/is to 'allow' the practice we are talking about (and, as I said, I believe that is how a hypotehtical 'Court' would interpret the reg) ....

As an aside I'd have thought the prohibition on single Gy would be in the basis that most of it is not insulated and sheathed. It would presumably only be relevant if it's run in conduit or similar.

I would personally doubt that. The reg in question is about the 'identification' of the use of conductors - there are other regs which prohibit the use of a single-insulated conductor as a live conductor (unless in 'conduit or similar'). I would have thought that the reason for this prohibition is/was probably more likely that it's much more likely that someone (some idiot) would 'break into and use (as a CPC)' a G/Y single that they 'came across' than would be the case if it were part of multi-core cable.

I'm assuming ban all sheds expects all runs to be wired in 10mm 3 core swa because anything less would show laziness on the part of the installer they CBA to go any buy the cable.

He is always criticising people for 'ignoring' a regulation because they do not 'like' (or agree with) "what they actually say", or if they feel that what it "actually says" does not reflect the "actual intent", but he is effectively now trying to invoke 134.1.1 because he does not like/agree with what a regulation (at least in my opinion) "actually says".

As I've said, it would have taken so little change in the wording for them to prohibit over-sleeving of any G/Y-insulated conductor that I find it very hard to believe that, since they 'singled out' single-core G/Y cables for prohibition, they did not intend that over-sleeving G/Y cores in multi-core cables was to be 'allowed' - whether we agree with that or not.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

But blue, grey or sky blue pink do not have the significance of G/Y.

Not the same significance, but blue and grey certainly have significance.

The consequences of some idiot misinterpreting identification (and not doing any testing to confirm) are often going to be much the same when a blue has been over-sleeved as used as a line conductor as when a G/Y has been over-sleeved and used as a line conductor.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I agree that's often the case, but I don't think it's the situation here - because I believe that, although not absolutely explicit, the meaning of of the regulation is so strongly implicit that I believe the intention was/is to 'allow' the practice we are talking about (and, as I said, I believe that is how a hypotehtical 'Court' would interpret the reg)

Please show where I (or indeed anybody else) has claimed that it is not allowed.

If you can't why on earth do you keep reiterating that it is allowed when the discussion is about whether it is a good thing to do?

He is always criticising people for 'ignoring' a regulation because they do not 'like' (or agree with) "what they actually say", or if they feel that what it "actually says" does not reflect the "actual intent", but he is effectively now trying to invoke 134.1.1 because he does not like/agree with what a regulation (at least in my opinion) "actually says".

Oh FGS - do you really not understand what I am saying, or are you wilfully pretending that you don't?

Using 3-core flex (with green/yellow) for the 3 terminal tank stats is both undesirable and confusing the first time you see it.

Although it is compliant with regulations to over-sleeve a G/Y-insulated core in a multi-core cable in order to use it as a live conductor, I (and, I imagine, most others) would regard it as a highly undesirable practice. I am not saying that I have never done it, but that doesn't alter the fact that I regard it as a highly undesirable practice!

"Undesirable", "confusing", "highly undesirable".

And yet you refuse to accept that someone should regard it as poor workmanship to deliberately do something confusing and highly undesirable when it could reasonably have been avoided.

 

[JohnW2]

And yet you refuse to accept that someone should regard it as poor workmanship to deliberately do something confusing and highly undesirable when it could reasonably have been avoided.

Are you simply arguing on the basis that 514.4.2 is not totally explicit (although I personally think the meaning is very strongly implicit)?

In other words, if the regulation explicitly said "G/Y-insulated conductors in multi-core cables may be over-sleeved at their terminations and used as a live conductor" would you still persist in saying that to do so represented 'poor workmanship' and therefore was non-compliant with 134.1.1 ?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

OK, John - well done.

You have managed to bludgeon me out of this discussion.

Given how often I have repeated it, it is now impossible to believe that you genuinely do not understand that, although oversleeving is perfectly compliant, my position is that the fact that it is highly undesirable means that doing it when it could reasonably have been avoided is not good workmanship.

Basically, it is impossible to believe that you genuinely do not understand the view that someone deliberately choosing to do something highly undesirable and confusing when they could perfectly well have not done that has exhibited poor workmanship.

So I give up - I'll not discuss it any more with you.

 

[JohnW2]

OK, John - well done. You have managed to bludgeon me out of this discussion. ... So I give up - I'll not discuss it any more with you.

Does that meant that you can't, or won't, answer the question I posed in my last post?

Kind Regards, John

 

[John D v2.0]

To summarise, ban all sheds thinks it's text book bad workmanship, and John thinks it's basically allowed by default because they specifically only disallowed some other similar things.

So in the absence of a referee, let's go back to common sense - is it a risk to do that, when you otherwise have an earth at the ends, worth the cost of going back the wholesalers?

 

[EFLImpudence]

I suppose some are guilty as Bas is saying but -

I would think usually when it is done, it is because the cable is there buried already and a new part (thermostat?) is being fitted.

He may say it should not be fitted but that's a plumber's life.

 

[JohnW2]

I suppose some are guilty as Bas is saying but - I would think usually when it is done, it is because the cable is there buried already and a new part (thermostat?) is being fitted.

Indeed - and, to be fair, he appears to have said that he would find it acceptable in some such situations ...

Imagine someone repurposing a cable already installed. I would have no problem with the suggestion that it would be reasonable to oversleeve, and unreasonable to cut a new chase through meters of nicely decorated walls just to avoid it.

My main problem is that he seems to be making up his own rules, and exceptions to them, as regards what is acceptable ('good workmanship') as he goes along.

If it were to be regarded as 'textbook bad workmanship' to over-sleeve a G/Y core, I don't see why/how that should change if the alternative were to upset the decoration. Let's face it, these rules are meant to be primarily about safety, and such considerations are not altered by the effect of one's work on the decoration.

Kind Regards, John