Bathroom Wiring - D Skelton - Other Interpretations.

[D Skelton]

Replacing an existing faulty accessory is different from designing a new installed accessory...

(same principal as like for like replacement work not necessarily requiring bring up to full compliance with current regs)..

However...   I don't think the original question was about faulty replacement work..  was it??

it was designing new work..!!

This was the question we were all answering..

and why I guess Deke suggested an isolator as a requirement of good guidance for the original bloke asking the questioin..

You said that was wrong!!

implying that others were just mindlessly following regs without applying them sensibly and practically 

and then then you went off with your daft idea of suggesting designing to use the OCPD...

As I pointed.. any idiot knows it is functional and possible..

But It is just a plain daft design idea showing lack of common sence..

Even tying to bring it up as a point of debate gives little or no merit to the discussion..

So I am glad to see you finally admit your suggestion was poor to say the least... :Applaud

and ultimately we have come back to the place where the actual original guidance given was all quite logical and sound without any blindly following of any regs...

so your input actually brought nothing new to the discussion of the question in hand.....!

  :C

Jeeeeesus, you're like a broken record aren't you! One that also likes to twist the words of the artist to suit your own end, but hey, whatever floats yer boat pal.

Deke didn't suggest that an isolator be fitted as a requirement of good guidance though did he? He said one must be fitted. I never said it was wrong to fit an isolator, only that it was wrong to tell someone that one must be fitted. I never said that anyone was mindlessly following regs, nor did I suggest that the OP designed to use the OCPD, only that it was an option available to him.

If as you say any 'idiot' knows that it is functional and possible, why are so many people (and I'm not just referring to the people in this thread) saying that it cannot be done?! And your opinion that raising the issue brings nothing of merit to the discussion is completely and utterly subjective.

Finally, I have certainly not admitted to anything, regardless of how little you value my opinion. My input was solely there to correct an incorrect statement, one made by someone who funnily enough I notice hasn't received any grief from you or anyone else (not that I'm suggesting for a minute that he'd be deserving of it). No, the only one who gets grief is me, the only one who gets accused of making crap suggestions (notice I never actually suggested anything to the OP) is me. The only likely reasons for being on the receiving end of such disapproval I have already made clear, and as much as I welcome your tired attempts to discredit me, as much as I accept that as the newbie on here I'll have to take at least some stick, it ain't half getting boring now. Move on fella, I ain't your enemy.

 

[kme]

Oh, for Gawd`s sake!

Can you get over the "woe is me" attitude, please? Its getting sodding monotonous  headbang

There isn`t a "clique" ( unlike some forums I could mention) - we`re an equal opportunities forum ray  .

BUT - the reason you feel you`re being "got at" is because you can`t keep a straight story. One minute you`re saying "this is wrong" - the next you`re berating other posters, time after time, for making a specific statement, which YOU feel should be generalised. 

We`re each entitled to our opinions - and you have made yours abundantly clear. So lets drop it now, please? ( mods? lock? any further use to be served by this thread?)

 

[D Skelton]

Oh, for Gawd`s sake!

Can you get over the "woe is me" attitude, please? Its getting sodding monotonous  headbang

There isn`t a "clique" ( unlike some forums I could mention) - we`re an equal opportunities forum ray  .

BUT - the reason you feel you`re being "got at" is because you can`t keep a straight story. One minute you`re saying "this is wrong" - the next you`re berating other posters, time after time, for making a specific statement, which YOU feel should be generalised. 

We`re each entitled to our opinions - and you have made yours abundantly clear. So lets drop it now, please? ( mods? lock? any further use to be served by this thread?)

Haha!

I'll drop it when people like you quit the urge to get one last petty dig in. I've kept a straight story all along fella, although you'll have probably missed that, the same as you have missed the blatantly apparent cliquey (if that's a word) atmosphere in here, and believe me, this place is well known to many many many of those outside of it to be probably the most cliquey of all (not that others aren't cliquey too [but that's just a sad fact of all forums without exception])!

As for the monotony, you're totally right, it got monotonous days ago, but you lot wouldn't leave it be would ya?! You simply couldn't take anyone swimming against the tide.

Lock the thread, don't lock the thread, I couldn't give a monkeys, but from this moment on I won't be returning to it or subscribing to it. Farewell for now me ol' chums. Until next time

 

[Sharpend]

I'm not sure why or for what reason this has come about, whilst there is an argument for both, I do believe that we as the professionals should be capable of distinguishing when either method is used. I would suggest that whilst you have knowledge of the regs Damien, that perhaps a little more tact or diplomacy in putting the knowledge across might be helpful? I appreciate that the written word on a forum can be interpreted by each and every undividual according to their perception, however if you have an alternative view than those already posted then perhaps a reverse question or use of smilies may tone down the wording so it may not be taken personally, offensively, etc?

I suppose that some may suggest that this post is patronising? Not intended in anyway.

I would like to think that as adults we can have a forum that is both friendly and of good debate without offending. It is after all an open forum which means that not all are electricians so may not understand the technical argument but will pick up on attitudes.

Well that's my piece, but then what so I know!!!!

 

[Steve3948]

I have read every post and in my personal opinion everyone is right and nobody is wrong.

Its all down to how you want to do it and are happy that what you have done complies.

Many years ago during an assessment I was asked if installing an electric shower required an isolation switch in or outside the bathroom.

I thought straight away local isolation and said yes, the reply was if a lock off device was left at the fuseboard there would be no need for the local isolation switch. That was his view and it would comply, but it is not the way I would do it regardless.

Because I won't do it that way it does not mean that way is wrong.

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

My OP was originally made to slightly correct wrong advice given, and that was that manufacturers instructions require a 3A fuse and that the OP would need to provide three pole isolation. In itself this also advises the OP that he is not bound to only one solution. This is not my interpretation of the regs, it is the regs, and I sure as hell don't consider it to be hijacking a thread to correct someones wrong advice.

I view this to be helpful and constructive, I even went back and edited my OP in order to show it as being informative and not a dig. My posts have nowhere contradicted themselves, nor do I believe they give an impression that I have no useful knowledge to contribute to a question and answer thread on bathroom fan wiring.

From your post it would seem you just want to add yourself to the list of people who have nothing better to do than put down someone who isn't part of your gang with sly and poorly disguised insults. It was not me who chose to start the witch hunt that made this thread as long as it is now, I have just continued to contribute in an effort to justify myself (not that I have any obligation to) to people who don't know me from Adam but wish to try and pick apart what I have said is written in black and white for no other reason than because I am not a regular member here.

I get it, I really do. If you want to stick your head above the parapet and challenge not only popular opinion but also the views of someone who is an established member, regardless of whether or not they are wrong or right, you've got to expect to take some slack. But don't for a minute confuse someone who is openly outspoken about popular misconceptions and who freely presents alternative views as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

I think you'll find if you read back through the thread you'll find it isn't me who is keen on cluttering the topic as I have stuck to the point the whole way through, it is in fact many of the 'elite' club on here that have cluttered it with insults and poorly constructed challenges of my knowledge.

The question was answered as best as it could be one or two posts in, but three or four posts in some technically incorrect advise was given. I corrected this, and I did my best to ensure my advice was informative and non-offencive, unlike the mud slinging that ensued afterwards! If you're looking for insecurity, odd-balls or people who want to satisfy nothing but their own egos, you need to look a bit closer to home fella.

Well i have sat back and read this whole thread again.  The majority of points from 'both sides' are good.

The reason i have quoted this particular post is  in my opinion you have raised some very good points (throughout) but have gone about it the wrong way.  When a known user post in a certain way the other regular readers know whether hes digging, asking or simply probing.  Is that Clique ish ? 

Now i think if you had started this thread in a different manor such as 'Why do people blindly follow each other when many recommendations are treated like life or death situations' then a completely different set of replies would have come flowing. In the same way many of your responses are very valid but you didnt explain the reasoning behind many of them being 'maybe' rather than 'have to'.  Another point  i am surprised has not been raised is BS7671 is not a statutory document anyhow, why follow any of it.

Another reason possibly for the types of reply is only a few short years back you were asking how to do the most simple and basic things, yet recently you then stood in front of some 'leaders' of the country along with others & failed to get anything changed in the industry.

 

[ProDave]

Okay, I'll stick my nose in.

WHAT is it with an isolation switch for a fan?  Why do people so insist on them?

In another thread discussing a functional issue, I suggested the functional issue could be solved by putting the fan isolator on the wall outside the bathroom.  He replied that what if someone turned in back on why he was in the loft changing the fan?

Well FFS do people REALLY change a fan with the only means of isolation being a non lockable switch?  do they not isolate the circuit properly at the CU, locking it off if there are doubts that some plonker might turn it back on again?

And what do people that paranoid do when they need to change a light fitting where it's wired loop at the light?  Would they insist on the installation having a local 3 pole isolator for every light fitting?  would they isolate at the CU with or without lock off?

I can never understand why this "special" treatment is given to a fan, over and above any other electrical accessory where we just use proper isolation and test for dead before working on the item.

 

[Sidewinder]

It's to do with the requirements for maintenance, under other statute laws PD, which mean that you must be able to do this "mechanical maintenance" with the local lighting working, if, you interpret them in the "conventional" manner.

 

[ProDave]

It's to do with the requirements for maintenance, under other statute laws PD, which mean that you must be able to do this "mechanical maintenance" with the local lighting working, if, you interpret them in the "conventional" manner.

That argument works well when said fan is in the loft and there isn't a light in the loft. 

someone has read a regulation probably aimed at big industrial motors where someone might be removing a guard and changing a drive belt, and quite rightly doesn't want the motor starting while doing that, and then applied that regulation to a poxy 10W domestic fan that wouldn't even hurt you if you put your finger in the blades while it was running. 

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

Okay, I'll stick my nose in.

WHAT is it with an isolation switch for a fan?  Why do people so insist on them?

In another thread discussing a functional issue, I suggested the functional issue could be solved by putting the fan isolator on the wall outside the bathroom.  He replied that what if someone turned in back on why he was in the loft changing the fan?

Well FFS do people REALLY change a fan with the only means of isolation being a non lockable switch?  do they not isolate the circuit properly at the CU, locking it off if there are doubts that some plonker might turn it back on again?

And what do people that paranoid do when they need to change a light fitting where it's wired loop at the light?  Would they insist on the installation having a local 3 pole isolator for every light fitting?  would they isolate at the CU with or without lock off?

I can never understand why this "special" treatment is given to a fan, over and above any other electrical accessory where we just use proper isolation and test for dead before working on the item.

I was going to comment on your post but the OP got back first.   Firstly the point about a Fan isolator is, its  for maintenance and not for the customers use so it should be in the loft  next to the fan and not outside the bathroom ( although  why not fit an additional one or ten if the customer wants them) . Now i was taught the isolator is for  Mechanical maintenance and not electrical, meaning its to stop an injury due to moving parts. Thats the difference between this and  say, a pendant. Now this did used to be a reg stating this  in an earlier version. There is still something in the book but i will have to search it out.

PS, 2 more posts added i have not read whilst writing this.

Its 537.3  & in definitions mechanical maintenance is not electrical. Most of 537.3 is valid for domestic fans. Would Mr Skelton please comment why this should not be followed.

 

[Sidewinder]

That argument works well when said fan is in the loft and there isn't a light in the loft. 

someone has read a regulation probably aimed at big industrial motors where someone might be removing a guard and changing a drive belt, and quite rightly doesn't want the motor starting while doing that, and then applied that regulation to a poxy 10W domestic fan that wouldn't even hurt you if you put your finger in the blades while it was running. 

It also works if the fan has to be changed when it is dark and you have to rely on the lighting in the vicinity to work on the unit at any time.

That is foreseeable, thus you have a statute law duty to foresee it.

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

Ok, it seems 537.3 is for BS EN60204 which is not any domestic fan, so these regs do not apply. As i mentioned above though, there is something in the book that does relate to this.

 

[kerching]

Well he has promised to never subscribe to this thread or even returning to it....so let us see if he is as good as his word

Quote

Lock the thread, don't lock the thread, I couldn't give a monkeys, but from this moment on I won't be returning to it or subscribing to it. Farewell for now me ol' chums. Until next time

Unquote

'Nuff said

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

It also works if the fan has to be changed when it is dark and you have to rely on the lighting in the vicinity to work on the unit at any time.

That is foreseeable, thus you have a statute law duty to foresee it.

Now i would argue that, why a fan and nothing else. It has nothing to do with light, dark, windows that open or dont. Its because its mechanical, not electrical.

 

[Sidewinder]

No slips, 537.3 EXCLUDES  BS EN 60204 covered equipment from its scope, thus, a bathroom fan is INCLUDED in BS7671

 

[Sidewinder]

It applies to mechanical maintenance, and it can be interpreted to ensure that the same situation is available for all maintenance.

Difficult I agree when you are working on the lighting circuit, however, electrically skilled persons "should" be working on the electrical circuit, where as "ordinary" persons can legitimately undertake mechanical maintenance on the "bathroom fan" hence the different requirement.

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

Read the reg again, it needs reading a few times  :innocent

Thanks , 537.3 does apply.

I blame the aura i have been suffering (off topic but anyone else had this)

It applies to mechanical maintenance, and it can be interpreted to ensure that the same situation is available for all maintenance.

Difficult I agree when you are working on the lighting circuit, however, electrically skilled persons "should" be working on the electrical circuit, where as "ordinary" persons can legitimately undertake mechanical maintenance on the "bathroom fan" hence the different requirement.

I still disagree with this, mechanical maintenance is non electrical . In this case its to stop injury due to moving parts. Now if someone had said the most domestic 100mm fans couldn't rip a bit of toilet paper, let alone cause bodily  injury then i  am not sure of a reply   O)  

 

[kerching]

He did the same on the IET thread when the kitchen got too hot (he didn't understand that when i mentioned it :slap ) 

Although apparently he spoke to them (no I am not sure who) on the phone and they all agreed with him (i think) - at least thats what he said (I think) which is why he didn't need to respond anymore on the IET as it was sorted (I think)

Perhaps he will ring you up Kerch / SW / Slips / Steps / PD / Others.....

Who knows

Just Adding to the whitewash and verbal muck.....

E&OE (Red Wines Out)

Well if i had talked to someone who I looked up to / had much more knowledge than I AND they agreed with me on a "tricky point" i would be more than happy to name them ( with their permission of course )

It is like when the Press say "an eye witness said the bearded bloke looked like a right paedo in training" BUT never actually NAME the "eye witness"...it all becomes a bit meaningless and speculative

Just saying

 

[Sidewinder]

Slips,

Can you "prove" this in a court of law that it is perfectly safe for an "unskilled" person to be cleaning a bathroom fan with the power on to the unit with the possibility of of it being turned on whilst they were cleaning it, and it not causing ANY injury, plus, taking the cover off would probably expose live connections, so really it should be electrically isolated to ensure that it is safe to work on, again can you guarantee that this will be so without total isolation of all live conductors?...

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

An 'unskilled' person would be personally at fault if they unscrew a lid when something was live. The installer would have nothing to answer.