Hi all

Looking at the Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate left by the
now infamous Building Control Inspector, there is a field labelled "Method
of protection against indirect contact".
My B-I-L thought that the letters ADS should be included here - automatic
disconnection of supply.

Now for the ring main I could see this being appropriate - having an RCD on
that would give protection against contacting something that had indirectly
become live - is this what is meant by protection against indirect contact?
For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the mcb. Is this device considered
to give protection against indirect contact?

In brief, what should I be writing in this field for ring main and lighting
circuits?

Thanks

Phil

TheScullster wrote:
Hi all

Looking at the Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate left
by the now infamous Building Control Inspector, there is a field
labelled "Method of protection against indirect contact".
My B-I-L thought that the letters ADS should be included here -
automatic disconnection of supply.

Now for the ring main I could see this being appropriate - having an
RCD on that would give protection against contacting something that
had indirectly become live - is this what is meant by protection
against indirect contact? For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the
mcb. Is this device considered to give protection against indirect
contact?
In brief, what should I be writing in this field for ring main and
lighting circuits?

Well the easy answer is EEBADS as the work is designed and installed to the
16th and there was no such thing as ADS in the 16th.

Are any of your circuits new installations or are they all modifications to
existing circuits?

And you need to fill in a minor works certificate for every circuit that you
have worked on.

--
Adam

TheScullster wrote:
For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the mcb. *Is this device considered
to give protection against indirect contact?

Isn't lighting protected by out-of-reach?

JGH

jgharston wrote:
TheScullster wrote:
For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the mcb. Is this device
considered to give protection against indirect contact?

Isn't lighting protected by out-of-reach?

And your lightswitches?

--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:
Isn't lighting protected by out-of-reach?
And your lightswitches?

Yes, thought that just as I pressed 'Send'

JGH

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
jgharston wrote:
TheScullster wrote:
For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the mcb. Is this device
considered to give protection against indirect contact?

Isn't lighting protected by out-of-reach?

And your lightswitches?

The string breaks before you pull the switch down.

dennis wrote:
Isn't lighting protected by out-of-reach?
And your lightswitches?
The string breaks before you pull the switch down.

Just had a quick look at my (20-year-old) lecture notes,
and protection by out-of-reach can only be applied to
outlets/appliances, not to circuits, such as a light fitting
on a high ceiling, protected by virtue of requiring a ladder
to reach and twenty-foot arms to be able to touch another
conducting part.

JGH

dennis@home wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
jgharston wrote:
TheScullster wrote:
For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the mcb. Is this device
considered to give protection against indirect contact?

Isn't lighting protected by out-of-reach?

And your lightswitches?

The string breaks before you pull the switch down.


Have you got high ceilings or are you a short arse?

--
Adam

jgharston wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:
Isn't lighting protected by out-of-reach? And your lightswitches?

Yes, thought that just as I pressed 'Send'

The main bit is that EEBADS was replaced by ADS as equipotential bonding is
no longer needed in a bathroom under some 17th edition rules (but
equipotential bonding is still is required in some cases).


--
Adam

jgharston wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:
Isn't lighting protected by out-of-reach? And your lightswitches?

Yes, thought that just as I pressed 'Send'


Go on then. I'll make a confession.

The 3 phase compressor would not fire up at my brothers garage. I diagnosed
the problem as a failed DOL starter later that evening. It was an old MEM
metal clad DOL starter that had failed.

My brother needed the compressor for work the next day but I was working in
Kent for the next couple of days. I devised a plan that worked until I could
sort out a replacement. The solution was called a wooden stick. My brother
was able to hold the contacts of the "now open to stick your fingers in 3
phase DOL starter" with the wooden stick until his compressor was at 160PSI.

He lived to see a new DOL starter..

--
Adam

On 18/05/2011 22:21, jgharston wrote:

Just had a quick look at my (20-year-old) lecture notes,

Two changes of regs since then; time to ditch the old notes I reckon.

Obstacles and placing out of reach are shock protective measures against
direct contact (now known as basic protection) only. They're not
relevant to indirect contact (now called fault protection), so are
something of a red herring in this thread.

And yes, as Owain has said, they're now applicable only to supervised
installations (skilled or instructed persons), which rules them out for
normal domestic installations. [See section 417 in the 17th ed.]

To answer The Scullster's original question: shock by indirect contact
means contact with parts which are live as the result of a fault.
Automatic Disconnection of Supply was traditionally provided by the
blowing of a fuse (or fuses), later by MCBs or alternatively by ELCBs
and RCDs where Zs is too high to assure operation of an OPD.

--
Andy

"ARWadsworth" wrote

TheScullster wrote:
Hi all

Looking at the Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate left
by the now infamous Building Control Inspector, there is a field
labelled "Method of protection against indirect contact".
My B-I-L thought that the letters ADS should be included here -
automatic disconnection of supply.

Now for the ring main I could see this being appropriate - having an
RCD on that would give protection against contacting something that
had indirectly become live - is this what is meant by protection
against indirect contact? For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the
mcb. Is this device considered to give protection against indirect
contact?
In brief, what should I be writing in this field for ring main and
lighting circuits?

Well the easy answer is EEBADS as the work is designed and installed to
the 16th and there was no such thing as ADS in the 16th.


Thanks Adam


Can I still claim EEBADS, when Mr B has stated that no additional bonding is
required in the kitchen?
Was this a general term to cover all domestic work whether equipotential
bonding is provided in that particular area or not?



Are any of your circuits new installations or are they all modifications
to existing circuits?


Yes all circuits are modifications.


And you need to fill in a minor works certificate for every circuit that
you have worked on.


Ring main and lighting will have separate certs


--
Adam

On May 18, 4:51*pm, "TheScullster" wrote:
Hi all

Looking at the Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate left by the
now infamous Building Control Inspector, there is a field labelled "Method
of protection against indirect contact".
My B-I-L thought that the letters ADS should be included here - automatic
disconnection of supply.

Now for the ring main I could see this being appropriate - having an RCD on
that would give protection against contacting something that had indirectly
become live - is this what is meant by protection against indirect contact?
For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the mcb. *Is this device considered
to give protection against indirect contact?

In brief, what should I be writing in this field for ring main and lighting
circuits?

Thanks

Phil


Must be one of his own recipe my BS7671 17th edition sample says
method of FAULT protection. Is this the same guy who doesn't think
diversity applies in his universe - or was that another poster?

Im ny opinion ADS would be a perfectly acceptable entry for the IEE
form, regardless of whether this was achieved by an RCD or by the
operation of a circuit fuse or circuit breaker due to the fault
current flowing to earth (as long as your EFLI complies with the
requirements of BS7671).

"cynic" wrote in message
...
On May 18, 4:51 pm, "TheScullster" wrote:
Hi all

Looking at the Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate left by the
now infamous Building Control Inspector, there is a field labelled "Method
of protection against indirect contact".
My B-I-L thought that the letters ADS should be included here - automatic
disconnection of supply.

Now for the ring main I could see this being appropriate - having an RCD
on
that would give protection against contacting something that had
indirectly
become live - is this what is meant by protection against indirect
contact?
For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the mcb. Is this device considered
to give protection against indirect contact?

In brief, what should I be writing in this field for ring main and
lighting
circuits?

Thanks

Phil


Must be one of his own recipe my BS7671 17th edition sample says
method of FAULT protection. Is this the same guy who doesn't think
diversity applies in his universe - or was that another poster?

Im ny opinion ADS would be a perfectly acceptable entry for the IEE
form, regardless of whether this was achieved by an RCD or by the
operation of a circuit fuse or circuit breaker due to the fault
current flowing to earth (as long as your EFLI complies with the
requirements of BS7671).


Hi Cynic

Yes you are right, this is Mr "No Diversity"!

But, as the project was started (as far as the council are concerned) back
in 2005, he is happy for me to complete the wiring to the 16th Edition.
Presumably his Part P certificates are based on the 16th rather than 17th
edition regs/terminology.

From Adam's post it appears that EEBADS is the appropriate entry for 16th
edition compliance.
Yes EFLIs have been tested and are compliant.

Phil

TheScullster wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote

TheScullster wrote:
Hi all

Looking at the Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate left
by the now infamous Building Control Inspector, there is a field
labelled "Method of protection against indirect contact".
My B-I-L thought that the letters ADS should be included here -
automatic disconnection of supply.

Now for the ring main I could see this being appropriate - having an
RCD on that would give protection against contacting something that
had indirectly become live - is this what is meant by protection
against indirect contact? For the lighting, there is no RCD, just
the mcb. Is this device considered to give protection against
indirect contact?
In brief, what should I be writing in this field for ring main and
lighting circuits?

Well the easy answer is EEBADS as the work is designed and installed
to the 16th and there was no such thing as ADS in the 16th.


Thanks Adam


Can I still claim EEBADS, when Mr B has stated that no additional
bonding is required in the kitchen?
Was this a general term to cover all domestic work whether
equipotential bonding is provided in that particular area or not?

Yes, it was the 16th edition version of ADS. The fact that you have not
actually installed any equiptential bonding is irrelevant.


--
Adam