On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:06:44 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:48:44 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:18:44 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 22:50:33 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 12/09/15 21:46, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:43:09 +0100, Fredxxx
wrote:

On 12/09/2015 20:21, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

snip

The trouble with RCDs is they aren't intelligent. And they stop
you
taking nice shortcuts like using an earth as a neutral. Or
grabbing
a
neutral that happens to be nearby on another circuit when you're
in
a
cramped space in the attic and can't be bothered finding the right
one.

If you don't understand why a circuit protective conductor should
not
be
used as a line conductor you're not very bright.

Earth and neutral are the same thing, they're both zero volts.

At some point in the distribution. Not anywhere else.

In my meter box. There won't be much more than a volt along the cable
to
the rest of the house.

In fact
we could do without it and just connect the chassis of metal
equipment
to neutral.

And when your neutral breaks?

What's the chances of that? And if it did, everything would go off,
and
I'd know there was a problem.

Not necessarily until after you had got fried.

What's the chances of me happening to touch the right things to get a
shock just at the point the neutral breaks?

Doesn't have to be just after, any time after the neutral fails
can kill you with the neutral connected to the body and you
have to go out of your way to never touch the body in case
it might have had a neutral failure

Ah, I thought we were talking about neutral failure in the whole house.

That is much less likely to happen than neutral failure
with a single device.

Well I guess with this case, it would be better just not to have the
chassis connected to anything.

Yes, that's why the entire world moved to double insulated.

Which means you don't have earthed metal stuff all over the house anyway
to connect you to ground. Think of a shock received in the kitchen when
you touch live with your hand and have your knee on the earthed washing
machine. If the washing machine wasn't earthed, you'd get no shock.

So your original proposal of connecting the neutral
to the body was stupid and the regs got it right.

No, it means you'd have one less conductor to bother wiring all over your house. And things that need RF shielding still get it. And if the live comes detached inside the machine and touches the chassis, it blows the fuse. The only problem that you're pointing out is you might get connected in series with the load, which is nothing like touching the live straight up.

and with quite a bit of
stuff like power tools and small appliances, you actually
grip the body so that you won't be able to let go if the
neutral has failed.

AC allows you to let go of things.

Not when you grip something like that it doesn't.

Yes it does. I have done so. I just got a rather warm hand for a second.

And the other problem with that approach is when
the active and neutral are swapped in the GPO etc.

What is a GPO? In the UK that is a post office.

Power point. That's why the etc was
there and for extension cords etc.

Why the **** would you wire one up backwards?

Plenty of them come like that with the multiple
socket power points having easy one wired the
opposite to the other, active and neutral wise.

Where the **** do you buy that **** from? I've never encountered such a thing.

--
If breasts had no nipples, they'd be pointless.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:10:08 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:43:49 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:09:41 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:24:25 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 12/09/15 20:13, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 18:07:06 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 12/09/15 16:59, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I won't try again,

Ah - the moron's defence...

Those smart alecs who claim to have an answer haven't produced it
yet.

How about "because the regs say so".

Because someone tells you to is NEVER a reason.

It is when you are employed to do that work and
you will be sacked if you don't observe the regs
or shafted for not observing the regs with work
you are paid to do.

Then work in a job without silly rules.

Makes a lot more sense to observe the sensible
rules that the electrical industry has instead.

And ignore the stupid ones when you can get away with doing that.

If you can get away with ignoring a decent amount of rules, then perhaps.
But there comes a point when there are too many stupid rules you can't get
away with breaking.

That isn't the case with the two PIR sensors being discussed.

It is, see my post about the dangers being none to minimal.

Try thinking for yourself, or are you incapable of that?

You clearly are, which is why you are completely unemployable
and why you keep getting the bums rush from any operation
that is actually stupid enough to give you a job until they
notice your problem with ear to ear dog ****.

Actually, my willingness to bend rules to get the job done was welcomed
at
the two main jobs I've worked in.

And you got the bums rush anyway because of your ear to ear dog ****..

I'll assume bums rush means fired. You are incorrect. One I got fired
from for revealing that the bosses had lost £4 million.

That was the ear to ear dog **** becoming visible.

I didn't lose the millions.

The other I resigned from due to illness.

Bet that was due to ear to ear dog **** too.

Dunno, medical science isn't a science yet.

--
Rescuers in Pakistan today reported rescuing a man from the rubble.
They became aware when they heard a faint voice saying "we're still open".

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:19:43 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I'm right, if you think I'm not, prove it. A sensor needs power to
activate the relay. It cannot have this until its source circuit is
made live, and you switched that off. All the other sensor can do is
connect live to the output of the relay contact of the first sensor.
This will not power up the first sensor so its relay remains open.


If you ignore the circuit to the lights and any manual override switch.

Only the light in question could become live, nothing else.

--
A pack-a-day smoker will lose approximately 2 teeth every 10 years.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:00:56 +0100, hqhy wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:04:50 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 13/09/2015 16:39, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:33:51 +0100, ARW

wrote:

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news

Actually, my willingness to bend rules to get the job done was
welcomed at
the two main jobs I've worked in.

Bending the rules is not the same thing as leaving an electrical
installaion
in a dangerous condition.

The rules we are talking about are those concerned with being overly
cautious, so in this case, they are precisely the same.

irony_mode

Yeah this is one of those two sides of the same coin things....

We have a situation where the circuit that someone has isolated and
tested dead, can now randomly become live again, st the whim of a
neighbours cat that decides to walk up a path and trigger a PIR.

To you apparently even giving this scenario even a moments
consideration
is being "overly cautious".

To us it indicates that you are a complete imbecile, and letting you
near any electrical installation would likely be criminal negligence.

/irony_mode

Actually it can't. For the circuit to backfeed, both sensors need to
switch on the light at once.

Wrong.

If you've switched off the input power to one of the sensors, it cannot
operate.

Wrong.

I'm right, if you think I'm not, prove it. A sensor needs power to
activate the relay. It cannot have this until its source circuit is made
live, and you switched that off. All the other sensor can do is connect
live to the output of the relay contact of the first sensor. This will
not power up the first sensor so its relay remains open.

That assumes the PIRs produce power when not activated but powered.

False assumption with all of them.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:38:32 +0100, hqhy wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:00:56 +0100, hqhy wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:04:50 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 13/09/2015 16:39, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:33:51 +0100, ARW

wrote:

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news

Actually, my willingness to bend rules to get the job done was
welcomed at
the two main jobs I've worked in.

Bending the rules is not the same thing as leaving an electrical
installaion
in a dangerous condition.

The rules we are talking about are those concerned with being overly
cautious, so in this case, they are precisely the same.

irony_mode

Yeah this is one of those two sides of the same coin things....

We have a situation where the circuit that someone has isolated and
tested dead, can now randomly become live again, st the whim of a
neighbours cat that decides to walk up a path and trigger a PIR.

To you apparently even giving this scenario even a moments
consideration
is being "overly cautious".

To us it indicates that you are a complete imbecile, and letting you
near any electrical installation would likely be criminal negligence.

/irony_mode

Actually it can't. For the circuit to backfeed, both sensors need to
switch on the light at once.

Wrong.

If you've switched off the input power to one of the sensors, it cannot
operate.

Wrong.

I'm right, if you think I'm not, prove it. A sensor needs power to
activate the relay. It cannot have this until its source circuit is made
live, and you switched that off. All the other sensor can do is connect
live to the output of the relay contact of the first sensor. This will
not power up the first sensor so its relay remains open.

That assumes the PIRs produce power when not activated but powered.

False assumption with all of them.

I assumed no such thing. The relay of the sensor is open when sat in the box before you connect it up. It remains so unless it has power given to it on its own circuit, and detects movement. If you switch off one of your two circuits, this means one of the PIRs cannot connect live to the lamp, so there is no way for backfeeding to occur.

--
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia - The fear of long words.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:06:44 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:48:44 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:18:44 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 22:50:33 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 12/09/15 21:46, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:43:09 +0100, Fredxxx
wrote:

On 12/09/2015 20:21, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

snip

The trouble with RCDs is they aren't intelligent. And they stop
you
taking nice shortcuts like using an earth as a neutral. Or
grabbing
a
neutral that happens to be nearby on another circuit when you're
in
a
cramped space in the attic and can't be bothered finding the
right
one.

If you don't understand why a circuit protective conductor should
not
be
used as a line conductor you're not very bright.

Earth and neutral are the same thing, they're both zero volts.

At some point in the distribution. Not anywhere else.

In my meter box. There won't be much more than a volt along the
cable
to
the rest of the house.

In fact
we could do without it and just connect the chassis of metal
equipment
to neutral.

And when your neutral breaks?

What's the chances of that? And if it did, everything would go off,
and
I'd know there was a problem.

Not necessarily until after you had got fried.

What's the chances of me happening to touch the right things to get a
shock just at the point the neutral breaks?

Doesn't have to be just after, any time after the neutral fails
can kill you with the neutral connected to the body and you
have to go out of your way to never touch the body in case
it might have had a neutral failure

Ah, I thought we were talking about neutral failure in the whole house.

That is much less likely to happen than neutral failure
with a single device.

Well I guess with this case, it would be better just not to have the
chassis connected to anything.

Yes, that's why the entire world moved to double insulated.

Which means you don't have earthed metal stuff all over the house anyway
to connect you to ground. Think of a shock received in the kitchen when
you touch live with your hand and have your knee on the earthed washing
machine. If the washing machine wasn't earthed, you'd get no shock.

So your original proposal of connecting the neutral
to the body was stupid and the regs got it right.

No, it means you'd have one less conductor to bother wiring all over your
house.

But don't have the safety feature of an earthed body that
protects against an active coming loose and connecting
to the body, or the device failing in way that connects
the active to the body. It isn't economic to double
insulate everything, it makes more sense to have
an earth for the stuff that isn't double insulated.

And things that need RF shielding still get it. And if the live comes
detached inside the machine and touches the chassis, it blows the fuse.

Not when you have backed off from your original stupid
approach of connecting the neutral to the body.

And you can't rely on the fuse to blow in a fault condition
that will still provide enough current to kill you.

The only problem that you're pointing out is you might get connected in
series with the load, which is nothing like touching the live straight up.

But can still be enough to kill you or see you fall off
the ladder and break something important etc.

and with quite a bit of
stuff like power tools and small appliances, you actually
grip the body so that you won't be able to let go if the
neutral has failed.

AC allows you to let go of things.

Not when you grip something like that it doesn't.

Yes it does.

No it does not.

I have done so. I just got a rather warm hand for a second.

And others have died that way.

And the other problem with that approach is when
the active and neutral are swapped in the GPO etc.

What is a GPO? In the UK that is a post office.

Power point. That's why the etc was
there and for extension cords etc.

Why the **** would you wire one up backwards?

Plenty of them come like that with the multiple
socket power points having easy one wired the
opposite to the other, active and neutral wise.

Where the **** do you buy that **** from? I've never encountered such a
thing.

Its quite common in europe.

And quite common in Britain for people to wire
plugs incorrectly, swapping the neutral and active.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:10:08 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:43:49 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:09:41 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:24:25 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 12/09/15 20:13, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 18:07:06 +0100, Tim Watts

wrote:

On 12/09/15 16:59, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I won't try again,

Ah - the moron's defence...

Those smart alecs who claim to have an answer haven't produced it
yet.

How about "because the regs say so".

Because someone tells you to is NEVER a reason.

It is when you are employed to do that work and
you will be sacked if you don't observe the regs
or shafted for not observing the regs with work
you are paid to do.

Then work in a job without silly rules.

Makes a lot more sense to observe the sensible
rules that the electrical industry has instead.

And ignore the stupid ones when you can get away with doing that.

If you can get away with ignoring a decent amount of rules, then
perhaps.
But there comes a point when there are too many stupid rules you can't
get
away with breaking.

That isn't the case with the two PIR sensors being discussed.

It is, see my post about the dangers being none to minimal.

See the two posts pointing out your error there.

Try thinking for yourself, or are you incapable of that?

You clearly are, which is why you are completely unemployable
and why you keep getting the bums rush from any operation
that is actually stupid enough to give you a job until they
notice your problem with ear to ear dog ****.

Actually, my willingness to bend rules to get the job done was
welcomed
at
the two main jobs I've worked in.

And you got the bums rush anyway because of your ear to ear dog ****.

I'll assume bums rush means fired. You are incorrect. One I got fired
from for revealing that the bosses had lost £4 million.

That was the ear to ear dog **** becoming visible.

I didn't lose the millions.

It was your ear to ear dog **** that produced the revealing.

The other I resigned from due to illness.

Bet that was due to ear to ear dog **** too.

Dunno, medical science isn't a science yet.

Its plenty science enough to establish that.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:19:43 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I'm right, if you think I'm not, prove it. A sensor needs power to
activate the relay. It cannot have this until its source circuit is
made live, and you switched that off. All the other sensor can do is
connect live to the output of the relay contact of the first sensor.
This will not power up the first sensor so its relay remains open.


If you ignore the circuit to the lights and any manual override switch.

Only the light in question could become live, nothing else.

And that can be the one you are rewiring that can kill you or see you
fall of the ladder from the shock and break something important.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:46:33 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:06:44 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:48:44 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:18:44 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 22:50:33 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 12/09/15 21:46, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:43:09 +0100, Fredxxx
wrote:

On 12/09/2015 20:21, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

snip

The trouble with RCDs is they aren't intelligent. And they stop
you
taking nice shortcuts like using an earth as a neutral. Or
grabbing
a
neutral that happens to be nearby on another circuit when you're
in
a
cramped space in the attic and can't be bothered finding the
right
one.

If you don't understand why a circuit protective conductor should
not
be
used as a line conductor you're not very bright.

Earth and neutral are the same thing, they're both zero volts.

At some point in the distribution. Not anywhere else.

In my meter box. There won't be much more than a volt along the
cable
to
the rest of the house.

In fact
we could do without it and just connect the chassis of metal
equipment
to neutral.

And when your neutral breaks?

What's the chances of that? And if it did, everything would go off,
and
I'd know there was a problem.

Not necessarily until after you had got fried.

What's the chances of me happening to touch the right things to get a
shock just at the point the neutral breaks?

Doesn't have to be just after, any time after the neutral fails
can kill you with the neutral connected to the body and you
have to go out of your way to never touch the body in case
it might have had a neutral failure

Ah, I thought we were talking about neutral failure in the whole house.

That is much less likely to happen than neutral failure
with a single device.

Well I guess with this case, it would be better just not to have the
chassis connected to anything.

Yes, that's why the entire world moved to double insulated.

Which means you don't have earthed metal stuff all over the house anyway
to connect you to ground. Think of a shock received in the kitchen when
you touch live with your hand and have your knee on the earthed washing
machine. If the washing machine wasn't earthed, you'd get no shock.

So your original proposal of connecting the neutral
to the body was stupid and the regs got it right.

No, it means you'd have one less conductor to bother wiring all over your
house.

But don't have the safety feature of an earthed body that
protects against an active coming loose and connecting
to the body, or the device failing in way that connects
the active to the body.

The neutral would protect this just as well.

It isn't economic to double
insulate everything, it makes more sense to have
an earth for the stuff that isn't double insulated.

And things that need RF shielding still get it. And if the live comes
detached inside the machine and touches the chassis, it blows the fuse.

Not when you have backed off from your original stupid
approach of connecting the neutral to the body.

I hereby un-back off. Metal chassis which aren't well insulated form live should be joined to nuetral.

And you can't rely on the fuse to blow in a fault condition
that will still provide enough current to kill you.

********. If it won't blow the fuse, it isn't enough to even hurt you badly.

The only problem that you're pointing out is you might get connected in
series with the load, which is nothing like touching the live straight up.

But can still be enough to kill you or see you fall off
the ladder and break something important etc.

You're such a pessimist. These things are very unlikely.

and with quite a bit of
stuff like power tools and small appliances, you actually
grip the body so that you won't be able to let go if the
neutral has failed.

AC allows you to let go of things.

Not when you grip something like that it doesn't.

Yes it does.

No it does not.

Did with me. That's one of the reasons why we have AC, and why DC on trains is more dangerous.

I have done so. I just got a rather warm hand for a second.

And others have died that way.

Survival of the fittest.

And the other problem with that approach is when
the active and neutral are swapped in the GPO etc.

What is a GPO? In the UK that is a post office.

Power point. That's why the etc was
there and for extension cords etc.

Why the **** would you wire one up backwards?

Plenty of them come like that with the multiple
socket power points having easy one wired the
opposite to the other, active and neutral wise.

Where the **** do you buy that **** from? I've never encountered such a
thing.

Its quite common in europe.

And quite common in Britain for people to wire
plugs incorrectly, swapping the neutral and active.

That's their problem.

--
Connecticut police are investigating a string of shootings where clues are reportedly contained in a rap CD.
They are also questioning Bob Marley about the shooting of a sheriff.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:49:09 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:10:08 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:43:49 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:09:41 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:24:25 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 12/09/15 20:13, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 18:07:06 +0100, Tim Watts

wrote:

On 12/09/15 16:59, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I won't try again,

Ah - the moron's defence...

Those smart alecs who claim to have an answer haven't produced it
yet.

How about "because the regs say so".

Because someone tells you to is NEVER a reason.

It is when you are employed to do that work and
you will be sacked if you don't observe the regs
or shafted for not observing the regs with work
you are paid to do.

Then work in a job without silly rules.

Makes a lot more sense to observe the sensible
rules that the electrical industry has instead.

And ignore the stupid ones when you can get away with doing that.

If you can get away with ignoring a decent amount of rules, then
perhaps.
But there comes a point when there are too many stupid rules you can't
get
away with breaking.

That isn't the case with the two PIR sensors being discussed.

It is, see my post about the dangers being none to minimal.

See the two posts pointing out your error there.

Nobody has provided evidence of this. If you think you can, draw a circuit diagram.

Try thinking for yourself, or are you incapable of that?

You clearly are, which is why you are completely unemployable
and why you keep getting the bums rush from any operation
that is actually stupid enough to give you a job until they
notice your problem with ear to ear dog ****.

Actually, my willingness to bend rules to get the job done was
welcomed
at
the two main jobs I've worked in.

And you got the bums rush anyway because of your ear to ear dog ****.

I'll assume bums rush means fired. You are incorrect. One I got fired
from for revealing that the bosses had lost £4 million.

That was the ear to ear dog **** becoming visible.

I didn't lose the millions.

It was your ear to ear dog **** that produced the revealing.

The truth is always best.

The other I resigned from due to illness.

Bet that was due to ear to ear dog **** too.

Dunno, medical science isn't a science yet.

Its plenty science enough to establish that.

Nope. They don't know what my illness is.

--
Two cowboys are talking over a beer, discussing various sex positions.
The first cowboy says his favorite position is "the rodeo".
The other cowboy asks what the position is, and how to do it. The first cowboy says, "You tell your wife to get on the bed on all fours and then do it doggy style. Once things start to get under way and she's really enjoying it, lean forward, grab her by her hair and whisper in her ear, 'Your sister likes this position too.' Then try to hang on for 8 seconds".

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:50:55 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:19:43 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I'm right, if you think I'm not, prove it. A sensor needs power to
activate the relay. It cannot have this until its source circuit is
made live, and you switched that off. All the other sensor can do is
connect live to the output of the relay contact of the first sensor.
This will not power up the first sensor so its relay remains open.


If you ignore the circuit to the lights and any manual override switch.

Only the light in question could become live, nothing else.

And that can be the one you are rewiring that can kill you or see you
fall of the ladder from the shock and break something important.

If you're rewiring the light, you make sure both PIRs are inactive DOH! Why would anyone assume that they are both on the same circuit? You switch off a breaker, then walk in front of each PIR and see what happens.

--
Pilot to tower, pilot to tower, I am 300 miles from land, 600 feet over water, and running out of fuel, please instruct!
Tower to pilot, tower to pilot, repeat after me: "Our Father, which art in heaven....."

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:38:32 +0100, hqhy wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:00:56 +0100, hqhy wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:04:50 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 13/09/2015 16:39, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:33:51 +0100, ARW

wrote:

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news

Actually, my willingness to bend rules to get the job done was
welcomed at
the two main jobs I've worked in.

Bending the rules is not the same thing as leaving an electrical
installaion
in a dangerous condition.

The rules we are talking about are those concerned with being overly
cautious, so in this case, they are precisely the same.

irony_mode

Yeah this is one of those two sides of the same coin things....

We have a situation where the circuit that someone has isolated and
tested dead, can now randomly become live again, st the whim of a
neighbours cat that decides to walk up a path and trigger a PIR.

To you apparently even giving this scenario even a moments
consideration
is being "overly cautious".

To us it indicates that you are a complete imbecile, and letting you
near any electrical installation would likely be criminal negligence.

/irony_mode

Actually it can't. For the circuit to backfeed, both sensors need to
switch on the light at once.

Wrong.

If you've switched off the input power to one of the sensors, it
cannot
operate.

Wrong.

I'm right, if you think I'm not, prove it. A sensor needs power to
activate the relay. It cannot have this until its source circuit is
made
live, and you switched that off. All the other sensor can do is connect
live to the output of the relay contact of the first sensor. This will
not power up the first sensor so its relay remains open.

That assumes the PIRs produce power when not activated but powered.

False assumption with all of them.

I assumed no such thing. The relay of the sensor is open when sat in the
box before you connect it up. It remains so unless it has power given to
it on its own circuit, and detects movement. If you switch off one of
your two circuits, this means one of the PIRs cannot connect live to the
lamp, so there is no way for backfeeding to occur.

There is more than just the PIRs involved,
there is also the manual override switch(es)

And the PIRs can be connected in parallel rather than in series too.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:23:01 +0100, hqhy wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:38:32 +0100, hqhy wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:00:56 +0100, hqhy wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:04:50 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 13/09/2015 16:39, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:33:51 +0100, ARW

wrote:

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news

Actually, my willingness to bend rules to get the job done was
welcomed at
the two main jobs I've worked in.

Bending the rules is not the same thing as leaving an electrical
installaion
in a dangerous condition.

The rules we are talking about are those concerned with being overly
cautious, so in this case, they are precisely the same.

irony_mode

Yeah this is one of those two sides of the same coin things....

We have a situation where the circuit that someone has isolated and
tested dead, can now randomly become live again, st the whim of a
neighbours cat that decides to walk up a path and trigger a PIR.

To you apparently even giving this scenario even a moments
consideration
is being "overly cautious".

To us it indicates that you are a complete imbecile, and letting you
near any electrical installation would likely be criminal negligence.

/irony_mode

Actually it can't. For the circuit to backfeed, both sensors need to
switch on the light at once.

Wrong.

If you've switched off the input power to one of the sensors, it
cannot
operate.

Wrong.

I'm right, if you think I'm not, prove it. A sensor needs power to
activate the relay. It cannot have this until its source circuit is
made
live, and you switched that off. All the other sensor can do is connect
live to the output of the relay contact of the first sensor. This will
not power up the first sensor so its relay remains open.

That assumes the PIRs produce power when not activated but powered.

False assumption with all of them.

I assumed no such thing. The relay of the sensor is open when sat in the
box before you connect it up. It remains so unless it has power given to
it on its own circuit, and detects movement. If you switch off one of
your two circuits, this means one of the PIRs cannot connect live to the
lamp, so there is no way for backfeeding to occur.

There is more than just the PIRs involved,
there is also the manual override switch(es)

Why on earth would you switch on one of those to deliberately electrocute yourself?

And the PIRs can be connected in parallel rather than in series too.

Of course they're connected in parallel. That's what I have assumed in the above.

--
Mistress: Something between a mister and a mattress.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:46:33 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:06:44 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:48:44 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:18:44 +0100, Jim Thomas
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 22:50:33 +0100, Tim Watts

wrote:

On 12/09/15 21:46, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:43:09 +0100, Fredxxx
wrote:

On 12/09/2015 20:21, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

snip

The trouble with RCDs is they aren't intelligent. And they
stop
you
taking nice shortcuts like using an earth as a neutral. Or
grabbing
a
neutral that happens to be nearby on another circuit when
you're
in
a
cramped space in the attic and can't be bothered finding the
right
one.

If you don't understand why a circuit protective conductor
should
not
be
used as a line conductor you're not very bright.

Earth and neutral are the same thing, they're both zero volts.

At some point in the distribution. Not anywhere else.

In my meter box. There won't be much more than a volt along the
cable
to
the rest of the house.

In fact
we could do without it and just connect the chassis of metal
equipment
to neutral.

And when your neutral breaks?

What's the chances of that? And if it did, everything would go
off,
and
I'd know there was a problem.

Not necessarily until after you had got fried.

What's the chances of me happening to touch the right things to get
a
shock just at the point the neutral breaks?

Doesn't have to be just after, any time after the neutral fails
can kill you with the neutral connected to the body and you
have to go out of your way to never touch the body in case
it might have had a neutral failure

Ah, I thought we were talking about neutral failure in the whole
house.

That is much less likely to happen than neutral failure
with a single device.

Well I guess with this case, it would be better just not to have the
chassis connected to anything.

Yes, that's why the entire world moved to double insulated.

Which means you don't have earthed metal stuff all over the house
anyway
to connect you to ground. Think of a shock received in the kitchen
when
you touch live with your hand and have your knee on the earthed
washing
machine. If the washing machine wasn't earthed, you'd get no shock.

So your original proposal of connecting the neutral
to the body was stupid and the regs got it right.

No, it means you'd have one less conductor to bother wiring all over
your
house.

But don't have the safety feature of an earthed body that
protects against an active coming loose and connecting
to the body, or the device failing in way that connects
the active to the body.

The neutral would protect this just as well.

Not if it comes off at the same time the active
does, which is very likely when the end of the
cord in the device comes free.

It isn't economic to double
insulate everything, it makes more sense to have
an earth for the stuff that isn't double insulated.

And things that need RF shielding still get it. And if the live comes
detached inside the machine and touches the chassis, it blows the fuse.

Not when you have backed off from your original stupid
approach of connecting the neutral to the body.

I hereby un-back off. Metal chassis which aren't well insulated form live
should be joined to nuetral.

Which will kill you with an active neutral swap in the
power point or extension lead or a badly fitted plug.

That is the reason the regs don't allow that.

And you can't rely on the fuse to blow in a fault condition
that will still provide enough current to kill you.

********. If it won't blow the fuse, it isn't enough to even hurt you
badly.

That is just plain wrong. A lot more current is
required to blow the fuse than will kill you.

The only problem that you're pointing out is you might get connected in
series with the load, which is nothing like touching the live straight
up.

But can still be enough to kill you or see you fall off
the ladder and break something important etc.

You're such a pessimist. These things are very unlikely.

Same with anything that can kill you.

and with quite a bit of
stuff like power tools and small appliances, you actually
grip the body so that you won't be able to let go if the
neutral has failed.

AC allows you to let go of things.

Not when you grip something like that it doesn't.

Yes it does.

No it does not.

Did with me.

Killed others.

That's one of the reasons why we have AC,

The reason for that is because that allows transformers
which reduce current losses in the distribution system.

and why DC on trains is more dangerous.

I have done so. I just got a rather warm hand for a second.

And others have died that way.

Survival of the fittest.

You're actually the least fit, completely unemployable.

And the other problem with that approach is when
the active and neutral are swapped in the GPO etc.

What is a GPO? In the UK that is a post office.

Power point. That's why the etc was
there and for extension cords etc.

Why the **** would you wire one up backwards?

Plenty of them come like that with the multiple
socket power points having easy one wired the
opposite to the other, active and neutral wise.

Where the **** do you buy that **** from? I've never encountered such a
thing.

Its quite common in europe.

And quite common in Britain for people to wire
plugs incorrectly, swapping the neutral and active.

That's their problem.

It's the reason the regs don't have the neutral
connected to the body and no earth.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:49:09 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:10:08 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:43:49 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:09:41 +0100, Jim Thomas
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:24:25 +0100, Tim Watts

wrote:

On 12/09/15 20:13, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 18:07:06 +0100, Tim Watts

wrote:

On 12/09/15 16:59, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I won't try again,

Ah - the moron's defence...

Those smart alecs who claim to have an answer haven't produced
it
yet.

How about "because the regs say so".

Because someone tells you to is NEVER a reason.

It is when you are employed to do that work and
you will be sacked if you don't observe the regs
or shafted for not observing the regs with work
you are paid to do.

Then work in a job without silly rules.

Makes a lot more sense to observe the sensible
rules that the electrical industry has instead.

And ignore the stupid ones when you can get away with doing that.

If you can get away with ignoring a decent amount of rules, then
perhaps.
But there comes a point when there are too many stupid rules you can't
get
away with breaking.

That isn't the case with the two PIR sensors being discussed.

It is, see my post about the dangers being none to minimal.

See the two posts pointing out your error there.

Nobody has provided evidence of this. If you think you can, draw a
circuit diagram.

Don't need any circuit diagram with PIRs in parallel and manual override
switch(es)

Try thinking for yourself, or are you incapable of that?

You clearly are, which is why you are completely unemployable
and why you keep getting the bums rush from any operation
that is actually stupid enough to give you a job until they
notice your problem with ear to ear dog ****.

Actually, my willingness to bend rules to get the job done was
welcomed
at
the two main jobs I've worked in.

And you got the bums rush anyway because of your ear to ear dog ****.

I'll assume bums rush means fired. You are incorrect. One I got
fired
from for revealing that the bosses had lost £4 million.

That was the ear to ear dog **** becoming visible.

I didn't lose the millions.

It was your ear to ear dog **** that produced the revealing.

The truth is always best.

It clearly wasn't for you.

The other I resigned from due to illness.

Bet that was due to ear to ear dog **** too.

Dunno, medical science isn't a science yet.

Its plenty science enough to establish that.

Nope. They don't know what my illness is.

They do actually, ear to ear dog ****.

En el artículo , John
Rumm escribió:

To us it indicates that you are a complete imbecile

Seeing the thread outline where PHucker is arguing with the **** Wodney
and two of his sockpuppets, "Jim Thomas" and "hqhy", plus input from
dennis, is a scream.

The lack of cluons there is mind-boggling, it's a wonder the group
doesn't disappear into a black hole.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=104oqkm&s=8

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:50:55 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:19:43 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I'm right, if you think I'm not, prove it. A sensor needs power to
activate the relay. It cannot have this until its source circuit is
made live, and you switched that off. All the other sensor can do is
connect live to the output of the relay contact of the first sensor.
This will not power up the first sensor so its relay remains open.


If you ignore the circuit to the lights and any manual override switch.

Only the light in question could become live, nothing else.

And that can be the one you are rewiring that can kill you or see you
fall of the ladder from the shock and break something important.

If you're rewiring the light, you make sure both PIRs are inactive DOH!

Not even possible without turning off the power to the entire house.

Why would anyone assume that they are both on the same circuit? You
switch off a breaker, then walk in front of each PIR and see what happens.

Useless when the breaker turns off the power to the light, but not
one of the PIRs which has no indication that its been triggered.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:31:28 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:46:33 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:06:44 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:48:44 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:18:44 +0100, Jim Thomas
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 22:50:33 +0100, Tim Watts

wrote:

On 12/09/15 21:46, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:43:09 +0100, Fredxxx
wrote:

On 12/09/2015 20:21, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

snip

The trouble with RCDs is they aren't intelligent. And they
stop
you
taking nice shortcuts like using an earth as a neutral. Or
grabbing
a
neutral that happens to be nearby on another circuit when
you're
in
a
cramped space in the attic and can't be bothered finding the
right
one.

If you don't understand why a circuit protective conductor
should
not
be
used as a line conductor you're not very bright.

Earth and neutral are the same thing, they're both zero volts.

At some point in the distribution. Not anywhere else.

In my meter box. There won't be much more than a volt along the
cable
to
the rest of the house.

In fact
we could do without it and just connect the chassis of metal
equipment
to neutral.

And when your neutral breaks?

What's the chances of that? And if it did, everything would go
off,
and
I'd know there was a problem.

Not necessarily until after you had got fried.

What's the chances of me happening to touch the right things to get
a
shock just at the point the neutral breaks?

Doesn't have to be just after, any time after the neutral fails
can kill you with the neutral connected to the body and you
have to go out of your way to never touch the body in case
it might have had a neutral failure

Ah, I thought we were talking about neutral failure in the whole
house.

That is much less likely to happen than neutral failure
with a single device.

Well I guess with this case, it would be better just not to have the
chassis connected to anything.

Yes, that's why the entire world moved to double insulated.

Which means you don't have earthed metal stuff all over the house
anyway
to connect you to ground. Think of a shock received in the kitchen
when
you touch live with your hand and have your knee on the earthed
washing
machine. If the washing machine wasn't earthed, you'd get no shock.

So your original proposal of connecting the neutral
to the body was stupid and the regs got it right.

No, it means you'd have one less conductor to bother wiring all over
your
house.

But don't have the safety feature of an earthed body that
protects against an active coming loose and connecting
to the body, or the device failing in way that connects
the active to the body.

The neutral would protect this just as well.

Not if it comes off at the same time the active
does, which is very likely when the end of the
cord in the device comes free.

In which case an earth would do the same.

It isn't economic to double
insulate everything, it makes more sense to have
an earth for the stuff that isn't double insulated.

And things that need RF shielding still get it. And if the live comes
detached inside the machine and touches the chassis, it blows the fuse.

Not when you have backed off from your original stupid
approach of connecting the neutral to the body.

I hereby un-back off. Metal chassis which aren't well insulated form live
should be joined to nuetral.

Which will kill you with an active neutral swap in the
power point or extension lead or a badly fitted plug.

That is the reason the regs don't allow that.

Why protect the very very very few that stupidly wire things backwards? There's a reason the wires are colour coded.

And you can't rely on the fuse to blow in a fault condition
that will still provide enough current to kill you.

********. If it won't blow the fuse, it isn't enough to even hurt you
badly.

That is just plain wrong. A lot more current is
required to blow the fuse than will kill you.

If it can't blow the fuse, there is some resistance somewhere, which means you will be in series with that resistance, and not get the full voltage.

The only problem that you're pointing out is you might get connected in
series with the load, which is nothing like touching the live straight
up.

But can still be enough to kill you or see you fall off
the ladder and break something important etc.

You're such a pessimist. These things are very unlikely.

Same with anything that can kill you.

So stop worrying. You're beginning to sound like a Brit. Where are your Aussie balls?

and with quite a bit of
stuff like power tools and small appliances, you actually
grip the body so that you won't be able to let go if the
neutral has failed.

AC allows you to let go of things.

Not when you grip something like that it doesn't.

Yes it does.

No it does not.

Did with me.

Killed others.

Survival of the fittest.

That's one of the reasons why we have AC,

The reason for that is because that allows transformers
which reduce current losses in the distribution system.

That is another reason.

and why DC on trains is more dangerous.

I have done so. I just got a rather warm hand for a second.

And others have died that way.

Survival of the fittest.

You're actually the least fit, completely unemployable.

I am self employed. I do not have an alarm clock.

--
When advised that France had announced it would not assist, become allied with, or otherwise support the US in any war on Iraq, former US Presidential candidate Ross Perot reportedly said: "Having to go to war without France is sorta like having to go deer hunting without an accordion".

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:34:39 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:49:09 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:10:08 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:43:49 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:09:41 +0100, Jim Thomas
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:24:25 +0100, Tim Watts

wrote:

On 12/09/15 20:13, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 18:07:06 +0100, Tim Watts

wrote:

On 12/09/15 16:59, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I won't try again,

Ah - the moron's defence...

Those smart alecs who claim to have an answer haven't produced
it
yet.

How about "because the regs say so".

Because someone tells you to is NEVER a reason.

It is when you are employed to do that work and
you will be sacked if you don't observe the regs
or shafted for not observing the regs with work
you are paid to do.

Then work in a job without silly rules.

Makes a lot more sense to observe the sensible
rules that the electrical industry has instead.

And ignore the stupid ones when you can get away with doing that..

If you can get away with ignoring a decent amount of rules, then
perhaps.
But there comes a point when there are too many stupid rules you can't
get
away with breaking.

That isn't the case with the two PIR sensors being discussed.

It is, see my post about the dangers being none to minimal.

See the two posts pointing out your error there.

Nobody has provided evidence of this. If you think you can, draw a
circuit diagram.

Don't need any circuit diagram with PIRs in parallel and manual override
switch(es)

You do, you need to prove to me that you are right. Go on, then you can gloat forever.

Try thinking for yourself, or are you incapable of that?

You clearly are, which is why you are completely unemployable
and why you keep getting the bums rush from any operation
that is actually stupid enough to give you a job until they
notice your problem with ear to ear dog ****.

Actually, my willingness to bend rules to get the job done was
welcomed
at
the two main jobs I've worked in.

And you got the bums rush anyway because of your ear to ear dog ****.

I'll assume bums rush means fired. You are incorrect. One I got
fired
from for revealing that the bosses had lost £4 million.

That was the ear to ear dog **** becoming visible.

I didn't lose the millions.

It was your ear to ear dog **** that produced the revealing.

The truth is always best.

It clearly wasn't for you.

Their loss. I know what happened after I left.

The other I resigned from due to illness.

Bet that was due to ear to ear dog **** too.

Dunno, medical science isn't a science yet.

Its plenty science enough to establish that.

Nope. They don't know what my illness is.

They do actually, ear to ear dog ****.

If it was that it could be sucked out.

--
Many of the world's greatest runners come from Kenya because they have a unique training program there -- it's called a lion.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:37:17 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:50:55 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:19:43 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I'm right, if you think I'm not, prove it. A sensor needs power to
activate the relay. It cannot have this until its source circuit is
made live, and you switched that off. All the other sensor can do is
connect live to the output of the relay contact of the first sensor.
This will not power up the first sensor so its relay remains open.


If you ignore the circuit to the lights and any manual override switch.

Only the light in question could become live, nothing else.

And that can be the one you are rewiring that can kill you or see you
fall of the ladder from the shock and break something important.

If you're rewiring the light, you make sure both PIRs are inactive DOH!

Not even possible without turning off the power to the entire house.

Why would anyone assume that they are both on the same circuit? You
switch off a breaker, then walk in front of each PIR and see what happens.

Useless when the breaker turns off the power to the light, but not
one of the PIRs which has no indication that its been triggered.

Like I just said, you switch off the breaker, then walk in front of both PIRs. If the light does not come on, you have no power available, and it's safe to work on the light.

--
Why is there no Disneyland China?
No one's tall enough to go on the good rides.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:31:28 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:46:33 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:06:44 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:48:44 +0100, Jim Thomas
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:18:44 +0100, Jim Thomas
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 22:50:33 +0100, Tim Watts

wrote:

On 12/09/15 21:46, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:43:09 +0100, Fredxxx

wrote:

On 12/09/2015 20:21, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

snip

The trouble with RCDs is they aren't intelligent. And they
stop
you
taking nice shortcuts like using an earth as a neutral. Or
grabbing
a
neutral that happens to be nearby on another circuit when
you're
in
a
cramped space in the attic and can't be bothered finding the
right
one.

If you don't understand why a circuit protective conductor
should
not
be
used as a line conductor you're not very bright.

Earth and neutral are the same thing, they're both zero volts.

At some point in the distribution. Not anywhere else.

In my meter box. There won't be much more than a volt along the
cable
to
the rest of the house.

In fact
we could do without it and just connect the chassis of metal
equipment
to neutral.

And when your neutral breaks?

What's the chances of that? And if it did, everything would go
off,
and
I'd know there was a problem.

Not necessarily until after you had got fried.

What's the chances of me happening to touch the right things to
get
a
shock just at the point the neutral breaks?

Doesn't have to be just after, any time after the neutral fails
can kill you with the neutral connected to the body and you
have to go out of your way to never touch the body in case
it might have had a neutral failure

Ah, I thought we were talking about neutral failure in the whole
house.

That is much less likely to happen than neutral failure
with a single device.

Well I guess with this case, it would be better just not to have the
chassis connected to anything.

Yes, that's why the entire world moved to double insulated.

Which means you don't have earthed metal stuff all over the house
anyway
to connect you to ground. Think of a shock received in the kitchen
when
you touch live with your hand and have your knee on the earthed
washing
machine. If the washing machine wasn't earthed, you'd get no shock.

So your original proposal of connecting the neutral
to the body was stupid and the regs got it right.

No, it means you'd have one less conductor to bother wiring all over
your
house.

But don't have the safety feature of an earthed body that
protects against an active coming loose and connecting
to the body, or the device failing in way that connects
the active to the body.

The neutral would protect this just as well.

Not if it comes off at the same time the active
does, which is very likely when the end of the
cord in the device comes free.

In which case an earth would do the same.

That is connected differently, for just that reason.

It isn't economic to double
insulate everything, it makes more sense to have
an earth for the stuff that isn't double insulated.

And things that need RF shielding still get it. And if the live comes
detached inside the machine and touches the chassis, it blows the
fuse.

Not when you have backed off from your original stupid
approach of connecting the neutral to the body.

I hereby un-back off. Metal chassis which aren't well insulated form
live
should be joined to nuetral.

Which will kill you with an active neutral swap in the
power point or extension lead or a badly fitted plug.

That is the reason the regs don't allow that.

Why protect the very very very few that stupidly wire things backwards?

So that even those as stupid as you are less
likely to kill or significantly injure yourselves.

There's a reason the wires are colour coded.

But not everyone understands that stuff.

And you can't rely on the fuse to blow in a fault condition
that will still provide enough current to kill you.

********. If it won't blow the fuse, it isn't enough to even hurt you
badly.

That is just plain wrong. A lot more current is
required to blow the fuse than will kill you.

If it can't blow the fuse, there is some resistance somewhere, which means
you will be in series with that resistance, and not get the full voltage.

But the current is what matters and you can be killed
by a lot less current than it takes to blow the fuse.

The only problem that you're pointing out is you might get connected
in
series with the load, which is nothing like touching the live straight
up.

But can still be enough to kill you or see you fall off
the ladder and break something important etc.

You're such a pessimist. These things are very unlikely.

Same with anything that can kill you.

So stop worrying.

I don't worry. I do however have enough of a clue to check
if a car is coming before crossing the road and do things
safely when that is just as easy as doing things dangerously.

and with quite a bit of
stuff like power tools and small appliances, you actually
grip the body so that you won't be able to let go if the
neutral has failed.

AC allows you to let go of things.

Not when you grip something like that it doesn't.

Yes it does.

No it does not.

Did with me.

Killed others.

Survival of the fittest.

In your case it was survival of the most stupid.

That's one of the reasons why we have AC,

The reason for that is because that allows transformers
which reduce current losses in the distribution system.

That is another reason.

That was the reason for the change.

and why DC on trains is more dangerous.

I have done so. I just got a rather warm hand for a second.

And others have died that way.

Survival of the fittest.

You're actually the least fit, completely unemployable.

I am self employed.

Must be why you whine about having to
comply with the requirements to get benefits.

I do not have an alarm clock.

No point in one when completely unemployable.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:34:39 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:49:09 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:10:08 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:43:49 +0100, Jim Thomas
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:09:41 +0100, Jim Thomas
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:24:25 +0100, Tim Watts

wrote:

On 12/09/15 20:13, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 18:07:06 +0100, Tim Watts

wrote:

On 12/09/15 16:59, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I won't try again,

Ah - the moron's defence...

Those smart alecs who claim to have an answer haven't produced
it
yet.

How about "because the regs say so".

Because someone tells you to is NEVER a reason.

It is when you are employed to do that work and
you will be sacked if you don't observe the regs
or shafted for not observing the regs with work
you are paid to do.

Then work in a job without silly rules.

Makes a lot more sense to observe the sensible
rules that the electrical industry has instead.

And ignore the stupid ones when you can get away with doing that.

If you can get away with ignoring a decent amount of rules, then
perhaps.
But there comes a point when there are too many stupid rules you
can't
get
away with breaking.

That isn't the case with the two PIR sensors being discussed.

It is, see my post about the dangers being none to minimal.

See the two posts pointing out your error there.

Nobody has provided evidence of this. If you think you can, draw a
circuit diagram.

Don't need any circuit diagram with PIRs in parallel and manual override
switch(es)

You do, you need to prove to me that you are right. Go on, then you can
gloat forever.

Try thinking for yourself, or are you incapable of that?

You clearly are, which is why you are completely unemployable
and why you keep getting the bums rush from any operation
that is actually stupid enough to give you a job until they
notice your problem with ear to ear dog ****.

Actually, my willingness to bend rules to get the job done was
welcomed
at
the two main jobs I've worked in.

And you got the bums rush anyway because of your ear to ear dog
****.

I'll assume bums rush means fired. You are incorrect. One I got
fired
from for revealing that the bosses had lost £4 million.

That was the ear to ear dog **** becoming visible.

I didn't lose the millions.

It was your ear to ear dog **** that produced the revealing.

The truth is always best.

It clearly wasn't for you.

Their loss. I know what happened after I left.

The other I resigned from due to illness.

Bet that was due to ear to ear dog **** too.

Dunno, medical science isn't a science yet.

Its plenty science enough to establish that.

Nope. They don't know what my illness is.

They do actually, ear to ear dog ****.

If it was that it could be sucked out.

Then your head would implode and
that would look bad on their records.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:37:17 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:50:55 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:19:43 +0100, dennis@home

wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I'm right, if you think I'm not, prove it. A sensor needs power to
activate the relay. It cannot have this until its source circuit is
made live, and you switched that off. All the other sensor can do
is
connect live to the output of the relay contact of the first sensor.
This will not power up the first sensor so its relay remains open.


If you ignore the circuit to the lights and any manual override
switch.

Only the light in question could become live, nothing else.

And that can be the one you are rewiring that can kill you or see you
fall of the ladder from the shock and break something important.

If you're rewiring the light, you make sure both PIRs are inactive DOH!

Not even possible without turning off the power to the entire house.

Why would anyone assume that they are both on the same circuit? You
switch off a breaker, then walk in front of each PIR and see what
happens.

Useless when the breaker turns off the power to the light, but not
one of the PIRs which has no indication that its been triggered.

Like I just said, you switch off the breaker, then walk in front of both
PIRs. If the light does not come on, you have no power available, and
it's safe to work on the light.

Not when the cat triggers the PIR that has not been turned off.

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
En el artículo , John
Rumm escribió:

To us it indicates that you are a complete imbecile

Seeing the thread outline where PHucker is arguing with the **** Wodney
and two of his sockpuppets, "Jim Thomas" and "hqhy", plus input from
dennis, is a scream.

The lack of cluons there is mind-boggling, it's a wonder the group
doesn't disappear into a black hole.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=104oqkm&s=8

LOL, 'tis bloody funny though.

"bm" wrote in message
eb.com...

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
En el artículo , John
Rumm escribió:

To us it indicates that you are a complete imbecile

Seeing the thread outline where PHucker is arguing with the **** Wodney
and two of his sockpuppets, "Jim Thomas" and "hqhy", plus input from
dennis, is a scream.

The lack of cluons there is mind-boggling, it's a wonder the group
doesn't disappear into a black hole.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=104oqkm&s=8

LOL, 'tis bloody funny though.

EDIT: You wouldn't believe that one is an adolescent and the other a coffin
dodger. They both appear to be ~8.

On 13/09/2015 20:22, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:19:43 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I'm right, if you think I'm not, prove it. A sensor needs power to
activate the relay. It cannot have this until its source circuit is
made live, and you switched that off. All the other sensor can do is
connect live to the output of the relay contact of the first sensor.
This will not power up the first sensor so its relay remains open.


If you ignore the circuit to the lights and any manual override switch.

Only the light in question could become live, nothing else.

And let's say someone wanted to work on the switched live - adding an
additional lamp perhaps?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 13/09/2015 21:36, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , John
Rumm escribió:

To us it indicates that you are a complete imbecile

Seeing the thread outline where PHucker is arguing with the **** Wodney
and two of his sockpuppets, "Jim Thomas" and "hqhy", plus input from
dennis, is a scream.

The lack of cluons there is mind-boggling, it's a wonder the group
doesn't disappear into a black hole.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=104oqkm&s=8

You think there is a danger we will reach a critical density soon? ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 02:48:48 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:22, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:19:43 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I'm right, if you think I'm not, prove it. A sensor needs power to
activate the relay. It cannot have this until its source circuit is
made live, and you switched that off. All the other sensor can do is
connect live to the output of the relay contact of the first sensor.
This will not power up the first sensor so its relay remains open.


If you ignore the circuit to the lights and any manual override switch.

Only the light in question could become live, nothing else.

And let's say someone wanted to work on the switched live - adding an
additional lamp perhaps?

They'd have checked neither PIR was turning the thing on. Why would you assume they were on the same circuit?

--
The only differences between lawyers and prostitutes are that prostitutes are generally better looking and more honest about how they make a living.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 22:12:25 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:37:17 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:50:55 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:19:43 +0100, dennis@home

wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I'm right, if you think I'm not, prove it. A sensor needs power to
activate the relay. It cannot have this until its source circuit is
made live, and you switched that off. All the other sensor can do
is
connect live to the output of the relay contact of the first sensor.
This will not power up the first sensor so its relay remains open.


If you ignore the circuit to the lights and any manual override
switch.

Only the light in question could become live, nothing else.

And that can be the one you are rewiring that can kill you or see you
fall of the ladder from the shock and break something important.

If you're rewiring the light, you make sure both PIRs are inactive DOH!

Not even possible without turning off the power to the entire house.

Why would anyone assume that they are both on the same circuit? You
switch off a breaker, then walk in front of each PIR and see what
happens.

Useless when the breaker turns off the power to the light, but not
one of the PIRs which has no indication that its been triggered.

Like I just said, you switch off the breaker, then walk in front of both
PIRs. If the light does not come on, you have no power available, and
it's safe to work on the light.

Not when the cat triggers the PIR that has not been turned off.

What part of "walk in front of both PIRs" didn't you understand?

--
What has got two legs and bleeds?
Half a dog!

On 14/09/2015 15:12, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 02:48:48 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:22, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:19:43 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I'm right, if you think I'm not, prove it. A sensor needs power to
activate the relay. It cannot have this until its source circuit is
made live, and you switched that off. All the other sensor can do is
connect live to the output of the relay contact of the first sensor.
This will not power up the first sensor so its relay remains open.


If you ignore the circuit to the lights and any manual override switch.

Only the light in question could become live, nothing else.

And let's say someone wanted to work on the switched live - adding an
additional lamp perhaps?

They'd have checked neither PIR was turning the thing on. Why would you
assume they were on the same circuit?

So if we apply that logic, before touching anything we need to check
every light switch, PIR, FCU and anything else with a switch on it, on
any circuit, just in case some clueless PHucker decided to wire it up to
the lamp as well.

Does your horse need feeding?



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 20:06:41 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 14/09/2015 15:12, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 02:48:48 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:22, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:19:43 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I'm right, if you think I'm not, prove it. A sensor needs power to
activate the relay. It cannot have this until its source circuit is
made live, and you switched that off. All the other sensor can do is
connect live to the output of the relay contact of the first sensor.
This will not power up the first sensor so its relay remains open.


If you ignore the circuit to the lights and any manual override switch.

Only the light in question could become live, nothing else.

And let's say someone wanted to work on the switched live - adding an
additional lamp perhaps?

They'd have checked neither PIR was turning the thing on. Why would you
assume they were on the same circuit?

So if we apply that logic, before touching anything we need to check
every light switch, PIR, FCU and anything else with a switch on it, on
any circuit, just in case some clueless PHucker decided to wire it up to
the lamp as well.

Does your horse need feeding?

What a stupid train of thought. Both PIRs activate the outside light you're working on, so you check both. Why would you check the bedroom light switch when you know that doesn't activate it, and you know there's nobody else in the house to press it?

--
Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
Why would you assume they were on the same circuit?

On a installation that meets the IET regs than I would expect them to be on
the same circuit.

However I assume nothing as I have seen some right bodge jobs (and not just
from DIYers).

--
Adam

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 20:19:12 +0100, ARW wrote:

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
Why would you assume they were on the same circuit?

On a installation that meets the IET regs than I would expect them to be on
the same circuit.

However I assume nothing as I have seen some right bodge jobs (and not just
from DIYers).

Assuming someone else has done something a particular way is stupid, which is why you don't. So you've just answered your own question. It's not dangerous to have two circuits, as people like you check.

--
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change ready.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 22:12:25 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:37:17 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:50:55 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:19:43 +0100, dennis@home

wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I'm right, if you think I'm not, prove it. A sensor needs power
to
activate the relay. It cannot have this until its source circuit
is
made live, and you switched that off. All the other sensor can do
is
connect live to the output of the relay contact of the first
sensor.
This will not power up the first sensor so its relay remains open.


If you ignore the circuit to the lights and any manual override
switch.

Only the light in question could become live, nothing else.

And that can be the one you are rewiring that can kill you or see you
fall of the ladder from the shock and break something important.

If you're rewiring the light, you make sure both PIRs are inactive
DOH!

Not even possible without turning off the power to the entire house.

Why would anyone assume that they are both on the same circuit? You
switch off a breaker, then walk in front of each PIR and see what
happens.

Useless when the breaker turns off the power to the light, but not
one of the PIRs which has no indication that its been triggered.

Like I just said, you switch off the breaker, then walk in front of both
PIRs. If the light does not come on, you have no power available, and
it's safe to work on the light.

Not when the cat triggers the PIR that has not been turned off.

What part of "walk in front of both PIRs" didn't you understand?

What part of "PIRs which has no indication that its been triggered" didn't
you understand?

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 20:34:22 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 22:12:25 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:37:17 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:50:55 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:19:43 +0100, dennis@home

wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I'm right, if you think I'm not, prove it. A sensor needs power
to
activate the relay. It cannot have this until its source circuit
is
made live, and you switched that off. All the other sensor can do
is
connect live to the output of the relay contact of the first
sensor.
This will not power up the first sensor so its relay remains open.


If you ignore the circuit to the lights and any manual override
switch.

Only the light in question could become live, nothing else.

And that can be the one you are rewiring that can kill you or see you
fall of the ladder from the shock and break something important.

If you're rewiring the light, you make sure both PIRs are inactive
DOH!

Not even possible without turning off the power to the entire house.

Why would anyone assume that they are both on the same circuit? You
switch off a breaker, then walk in front of each PIR and see what
happens.

Useless when the breaker turns off the power to the light, but not
one of the PIRs which has no indication that its been triggered.

Like I just said, you switch off the breaker, then walk in front of both
PIRs. If the light does not come on, you have no power available, and
it's safe to work on the light.

Not when the cat triggers the PIR that has not been turned off.

What part of "walk in front of both PIRs" didn't you understand?

What part of "PIRs which has no indication that its been triggered" didn't
you understand?

The wires you're working on would become live, and your meter would indicate this.

--
Men wake up as good-looking as they went to bed.
Women somehow deteriorate during the night.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 20:19:12 +0100, ARW
wrote:

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
Why would you assume they were on the same circuit?

On a installation that meets the IET regs than I would expect them to be
on
the same circuit.

However I assume nothing as I have seen some right bodge jobs (and not
just
from DIYers).

Assuming someone else has done something a particular way is stupid, which
is why you don't. So you've just answered your own question. It's not
dangerous to have two circuits, as people like you check.

You cannot always tell if two circuits are/may be connected together via bad
workmanship unless you have stripped the house apart to check every last
electrical connection.

The best solution is just to wire the job up correctly in the first place.


--
Adam

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 21:13:02 +0100, ARW wrote:

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 20:19:12 +0100, ARW
wrote:

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
Why would you assume they were on the same circuit?

On a installation that meets the IET regs than I would expect them to be
on
the same circuit.

However I assume nothing as I have seen some right bodge jobs (and not
just
from DIYers).

Assuming someone else has done something a particular way is stupid, which
is why you don't. So you've just answered your own question. It's not
dangerous to have two circuits, as people like you check.

You cannot always tell if two circuits are/may be connected together via bad
workmanship unless you have stripped the house apart to check every last
electrical connection.

The best solution is just to wire the job up correctly in the first place.

As I've already said three times, you walk in front of both PIRs and make sure neither make the wiring live.

--
The Muslim across the road started yelling "I'm going to end it all!", and started to pour petrol over himself.
As he was about to strike a match, I shouted "Abdul, no! Stop, wait, it's times like these that you need your family around you!"

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 20:06:41 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 14/09/2015 15:12, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 02:48:48 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:22, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:19:43 +0100, dennis@home

wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I'm right, if you think I'm not, prove it. A sensor needs power to
activate the relay. It cannot have this until its source circuit is
made live, and you switched that off. All the other sensor can do
is
connect live to the output of the relay contact of the first sensor.
This will not power up the first sensor so its relay remains open.


If you ignore the circuit to the lights and any manual override
switch.

Only the light in question could become live, nothing else.

And let's say someone wanted to work on the switched live - adding an
additional lamp perhaps?

They'd have checked neither PIR was turning the thing on. Why would you
assume they were on the same circuit?

So if we apply that logic, before touching anything we need to check
every light switch, PIR, FCU and anything else with a switch on it, on
any circuit, just in case some clueless PHucker decided to wire it up to
the lamp as well.

Does your horse need feeding?

What a stupid train of thought.

We'll see...

Both PIRs activate the outside light you're working on, so you check both.
Why would you check the bedroom light switch

Because with fools like you around, anything
is possible with borrowed neutrals etc.

when you know that doesn't activate it,

But don't know what some fool like you has done with borrowed neutrals etc.

and you know there's nobody else in the house to press it?

Irrelevant if some fool like you has done
something stupid with borrowed neutrals etc.

Even turning the entire house off before touching anything
isn't going to protect you with fools like you around who
could have done anything, including steal power.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 21:26:56 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 20:06:41 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 14/09/2015 15:12, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 02:48:48 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:22, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:19:43 +0100, dennis@home

wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I'm right, if you think I'm not, prove it. A sensor needs power to
activate the relay. It cannot have this until its source circuit is
made live, and you switched that off. All the other sensor can do
is
connect live to the output of the relay contact of the first sensor.
This will not power up the first sensor so its relay remains open.


If you ignore the circuit to the lights and any manual override
switch.

Only the light in question could become live, nothing else.

And let's say someone wanted to work on the switched live - adding an
additional lamp perhaps?

They'd have checked neither PIR was turning the thing on. Why would you
assume they were on the same circuit?

So if we apply that logic, before touching anything we need to check
every light switch, PIR, FCU and anything else with a switch on it, on
any circuit, just in case some clueless PHucker decided to wire it up to
the lamp as well.

Does your horse need feeding?

What a stupid train of thought.

We'll see...

Both PIRs activate the outside light you're working on, so you check both.
Why would you check the bedroom light switch

Because with fools like you around, anything
is possible with borrowed neutrals etc.

If the device works, it was done correctly.

when you know that doesn't activate it,

But don't know what some fool like you has done with borrowed neutrals etc.

That's what a multimeter is for. And borrowed neutrals don't endanger you when working on the lights.

and you know there's nobody else in the house to press it?

Irrelevant if some fool like you has done
something stupid with borrowed neutrals etc.

Even turning the entire house off before touching anything
isn't going to protect you with fools like you around who
could have done anything, including steal power.

Then never assume, carry a meter or volt probe with you. Or you could stop acting like a Brit and have some balls.

--
Q. What's a Catholic priest and a pint of Guinness got in common?
A. A black coat, white collar and you've got to watch your arse if you get a dodgy one!

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 20:34:22 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 22:12:25 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:37:17 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:50:55 +0100, Jim Thomas
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:19:43 +0100, dennis@home

wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I'm right, if you think I'm not, prove it. A sensor needs power
to
activate the relay. It cannot have this until its source
circuit
is
made live, and you switched that off. All the other sensor can
do
is
connect live to the output of the relay contact of the first
sensor.
This will not power up the first sensor so its relay remains
open.


If you ignore the circuit to the lights and any manual override
switch.

Only the light in question could become live, nothing else.

And that can be the one you are rewiring that can kill you or see
you
fall of the ladder from the shock and break something important.

If you're rewiring the light, you make sure both PIRs are inactive
DOH!

Not even possible without turning off the power to the entire house.

Why would anyone assume that they are both on the same circuit? You
switch off a breaker, then walk in front of each PIR and see what
happens.

Useless when the breaker turns off the power to the light, but not
one of the PIRs which has no indication that its been triggered.

Like I just said, you switch off the breaker, then walk in front of
both
PIRs. If the light does not come on, you have no power available, and
it's safe to work on the light.

Not when the cat triggers the PIR that has not been turned off.

What part of "walk in front of both PIRs" didn't you understand?

What part of "PIRs which has no indication that its been triggered"
didn't
you understand?

The wires you're working on would become live, and your meter would
indicate this.

But you can't see the meter when you walk in front of both PIRs.