 |
|
| UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message ll.com... So not far short of 10 people *per day* are killed on UK roads. I don't see any new regulations coming in to enforce higher driving standards or banning the general public from driving completely, allowing only those who are members of a closed shop body to drive. But how long before you aren't allowed to do your own vehicle maintenance? |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article , StealthUK wrote: It's the first I've heard about burying cables 50mm. How many builders or electricians do you think have complied with these regulations? Only a fool would run cables diagonally across a wall. I can't think of any real reason ever to do it - apart from to 'save' cable. What has burying cables 50mm got to do with diagonally running cables? Do you bother reading posts before you respond? But while on the subject of diagonal runs, the report states that the cable was meandering. To me, that doesn't imply the fitter ran the cable diagonally to save cable, more likely a dodgy 'straight' run that swerved all over the place. |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
StealthUK wrote: It's the first I've heard about burying cables 50mm. How many builders or electricians do you think have complied with these regulations? Only a fool would run cables diagonally across a wall. I can't think of any real reason ever to do it - apart from to 'save' cable. What has burying cables 50mm got to do with diagonally running cables? Do you bother reading posts before you respond? Do you bother to read regs before opening your gob? But while on the subject of diagonal runs, the report states that the cable was meandering. To me, that doesn't imply the fitter ran the cable diagonally to save cable, more likely a dodgy 'straight' run that swerved all over the place. You can read anything into anything. -- *Why don't sheep shrink when it rains? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , IMM
writes The builders may be at fault to some degree, but the man who installed the rack, when cable detectors have been around for along time now, is the culprit. I doubt the builders would be roasted. Fried, perhaps? -- Paul |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 13 Oct 2004 "Bob" wrote:
"Richard Porter" wrote: On 12 Oct 2004 "Bob" wrote: Certainly there are rules things that could imposed to reduce the toll - 30 mph everywhere maximum speed for a car, visible conduits for wiring - but those kind of limits would be unacceptable to most people. AFAIAA most road casualities occur in 30mph or lower limits. You misunderstand - I didn't mean 30mph speed limit signs, I meant cars being physically limited to 30mph! No, no. I meant that most accidents occur near home where the vehicles involved aren't doing more than 30 anyway. If they were all fitted with govenors then people would drive them flat out all the time without thinking and it would be a lot more dangerous. I'd quite like to have visible trunking for sockets, though conduit would be a bit unsightly for lights and switches. It would be ugly for both, which is why people don't want it. It would actually be easier to wire a house if visible conduit were the way to go - obviously aesthetics still have some importance. I meant a properly designed trunking system which would replace the skirting board (probably secured to the walls before plastering) or be at worktop height in the kitchen. You could then fit mains, telephone, ethernet, aerial and loudspeaker sockets as required. This sort of thing is widely used in commercial premeses. -- Richard Porter Mail to username ricp at domain minijem.plus.com "You can't have Windows without pains." |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 13 Oct 2004 "Bob" wrote:
"Dave Liquorice" wrote: So not far short of 10 people *per day* are killed on UK roads. I don't see any new regulations coming in to enforce higher driving standards or banning the general public from driving completely, allowing only those who are members of a closed shop body to drive. But how long before you aren't allowed to do your own vehicle maintenance? At least 9 of the 10 are killed because of road user error at the time, not by mechanical failure, poor maintenance or other causes. I get my car maintenance skills tested twice a year by the MoT test, but my driving skills were mandatorily tested once when I was 17 and that was over 40 years ago. I have since passed the IAM test and will be retested every three years if I join the qualified observer scheme, but that's entirely voluntary. Kit car and classic car insurance is relatively cheap because people who put a lot of effort into building, restoring and maintaining their own cars tend to drive them more carefully and don't have more claims because their vehicles are unroadworthy. In fact they're more likely to spot problems before they become serious. We need to do something about maintaining driving standards and updating people on the latest techniques, changes to the law, etc. How many drivers have even bothered to get the 2004 edition of the Highway Code? How many even know it was revised this year? How many have looked at any edition since passing their basic driving tests? -- Richard Porter Mail to username ricp at domain minijem.plus.com "You can't have Windows without pains." |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:53:06 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named
"Dave Plowman (News)" randomly hit the keyboard and produced: Only a fool would run cables diagonally across a wall. I can't think of any real reason ever to do it - apart from to 'save' cable. My first taste of "work experience" was labouring for a week with a couple of electricians on a barn conversion in Derbyshire (admittedly in the 1970's). My jobs included chasing out the walls for the sockets in as straight a line as I could from one corner of the wall to the diagonally opposite one, and mixing the plaster for the 'professionals' to plaster straight over them when they'd wired the sockets up. Don't know why they did it that way, but one has to wonder why someone doing a barn conversion in the Peak District would employ electricians from over fifty miles away at a time of high unemployment, unless they were exceedingly cheap. -- Hugo Nebula 'What you have to ask yourself is, "if no-one on the internet wants a piece of this, just how far from the pack have you strayed?"' |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
Phil Addison wrote:
Isn't running it on the surface where its obvious to everyone also allowed? And what does a 2" trench in a wall do to it's structural integrity? Yes, surface-run is also allowed, though not if it's likely to be damaged. (So, in domestic kitchen behind cooker - fine; in busy workshop/warehouse, unprotected T&E surface-run would be inappropriate). As for digging a 2-inch trench - that's not really what the regs-writers are trying to encourage! Rather, it's saying "if you must take a non-obvious route, put the cable out of the way of normal little nails and screws"; e.g. if in a partition wall, clipped to the centre line of the studwork (makes it a b*g*r to replace, of course - and not many studs-n-noggins running diagonally ;-); where not feasible to go that deep, provide bad-ass degree of cable protection. Mostly, the regs-writers would like you as an installer to reconsider running cables other than in the Expected routes, imposing pretty onerous requirements for such routes to sway the economics back in the direction of "obvious" up/down/across routes. Stefek |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:33:58 +0100, Hugo Nebula abuse@localhost
wrote: On 12 Oct 2004 09:51:41 -0700, a particular chimpanzee named (StealthUK) randomly hit the keyboard and produced: It's the first I've heard about burying cables 50mm. How many builders or electricians do you think have complied with these regulations? You'd be chasing half the brick wall out and that's not going to be easy without some heavy duty machinery and surely would compromise strength in the wall? Vertical chases up to 1/3rd of the leaf thickness are allowed (33mm for a 100mm block) but horizontal ones no more than 1/6th. Given that most walls will have a reasonable thickness of render & skim over (probably 13-15mm) or plasterboard on dabs (9.5mm + 10mm gap), then the actual chase into the masonry should only be of the order of 30-35mm. So any cable should only be in a vertical chase. Which presumably also makes diagonal runs a non-starter anyway? I guess that there isn't a formula which gives you a depth based on the angle...... ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:53:06 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: Only a fool would run cables diagonally across a wall. Suddenly there's a fool shortage ? -- Smert' spamionam |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Huge" wrote in message ... "Bob" writes: "Richard Porter" wrote in message ... On 12 Oct 2004 "Bob" wrote: Certainly there are rules things that could imposed to reduce the toll - 30 mph everywhere maximum speed for a car, visible conduits for wiring - but those kind of limits would be unacceptable to most people. AFAIAA most road casualities occur in 30mph or lower limits. You misunderstand - I didn't mean 30mph speed limit signs, I meant cars being physically limited to 30mph! I trust you were joking. Yes :-) It was meant to illustrate the extreme lengths you would need to go to in order to save all those lives lost on the roads, showing that in some areas at least, we do not attempt to save lives "at any cost". In this context, the 10 lives out of 60 million lost due to home electrocutions each year would not warrent extra regulation such as Part P. |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
"G&M" wrote in message ...
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message ll.com... On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:30:28 +0100, Stefek Zaba wrote: there's some information from the predisposed-to-take-safety-Very-Seriously lobby. They tell us there were 5 fatalities annually from fixed wiring between 1990 and 1998, and 14 more from portable and non-portable equipment. Additionally, around 25 deaths annually are attributable to fires caused by "faulty electrical equipment and wiring" 44 on average, not many. How many get killed on the roads each year? FX:Google Figures for 2003: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2004_0125 "3,508 people were killed on Britains roads in 2003, 2 per cent more than in 2002. The number of people seriously injured fell to 33,707, 6 per cent lower than in 2002. Total casualties in 2003 were 290,607, 4 percent fewer than in 2002;" So not far short of 10 people *per day* are killed on UK roads. What amazes me is when less than 10 people get killed in a very rare train crash, the whole system gets suspended for months. And the railway companies are forced to spend *billions* on protection systems that will save, at best, only a few tens of lives. Crazy. In today's world, spin rules over statistics every time. MBQ |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Hugo Nebula abuse@localhost wrote: Only a fool would run cables diagonally across a wall. I can't think of any real reason ever to do it - apart from to 'save' cable. My first taste of "work experience" was labouring for a week with a couple of electricians on a barn conversion in Derbyshire (admittedly in the 1970's). My jobs included chasing out the walls for the sockets in as straight a line as I could from one corner of the wall to the diagonally opposite one, and mixing the plaster for the 'professionals' to plaster straight over them when they'd wired the sockets up. Don't know why they did it that way, but one has to wonder why someone doing a barn conversion in the Peak District would employ electricians from over fifty miles away at a time of high unemployment, unless they were exceedingly cheap. Yes - I've come across pro installations with no grommets in the box knockouts, no earth sleeving, no tails to the box earth, and boxes 'fixed' with the most amazing things. Masonry nails into wood. Clouts into brick. Some just take a delight in saving pennies regardless. -- *If you don't like the news, go out and make some. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Andy Dingley wrote: Only a fool would run cables diagonally across a wall. Suddenly there's a fool shortage ? No. But I'd hope anyone reading this group and DIYing electrical work would have an idea of the perils of nailing or screwing through a cable. -- *It is wrong to ever split an infinitive * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
Phil Addison wrote in message ... Bloody 'ell, you've just reminded me that my daughter has one of these metal racks above her hob, and below the cupboard where an extractor fan can be fitted. And I do recall seeing a fused outlet in the back of the cupboard. I'll be round there with my meters and detectors tomorrow to see if its feed is anywhere near the screws!!! Well, I hope your detector works better than mine. For a start, I need a magnifying glass to see whether I'm on stud or electrical detection (is there a difference?). Then I get readings suggesting the cable is 6" wide. Now it's above the fitting, now it's below. Oh sod it! Turn the power off and use a cordless drill. But that's probably what the rack fitter did in this incident. Is there really no more accurate method? Any treasure hunters out there? |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:15:02 +0100, Richard Porter wrote:
It would be ugly for both, which is why people don't want it. It would actually be easier to wire a house if visible conduit were the way to go - obviously aesthetics still have some importance. I meant a properly designed trunking system which would replace the skirting board (probably secured to the walls before plastering) or be at worktop height in the kitchen. You could then fit mains, telephone, ethernet, aerial and loudspeaker sockets as required. This sort of thing is widely used in commercial premeses. I like the idea - but is there any product which isn't fug-ugly? Timbo |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Richard Porter wrote: Kit car and classic car insurance is relatively cheap because people who put a lot of effort into building, restoring and maintaining their own cars tend to drive them more carefully and don't have more claims because their vehicles are unroadworthy. In fact they're more likely to spot problems before they become serious. Hmm. More likely because of the restricted mileage. And that they usually have to be *not* the main car. And secured when parked. -- *Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Richard Porter" wrote in message ... On 13 Oct 2004 "Bob" wrote: "Dave Liquorice" wrote: So not far short of 10 people *per day* are killed on UK roads. I don't see any new regulations coming in to enforce higher driving standards or banning the general public from driving completely, allowing only those who are members of a closed shop body to drive. But how long before you aren't allowed to do your own vehicle maintenance? At least 9 of the 10 are killed because of road user error at the time, not by mechanical failure, poor maintenance or other causes. I get my car maintenance skills tested twice a year by the MoT test, but my driving skills were mandatorily tested once when I was 17 and that was over 40 years ago. I have since passed the IAM test and will be retested every three years if I join the qualified observer scheme, but that's entirely voluntary. Kit car and classic car insurance is relatively cheap because people who put a lot of effort into building, restoring and maintaining their own cars tend to drive them more carefully and don't have more claims because their vehicles are unroadworthy. In fact they're more likely to spot problems before they become serious. We need to do something about maintaining driving standards and updating people on the latest techniques, changes to the law, etc. How many drivers have even bothered to get the 2004 edition of the Highway Code? How many even know it was revised this year? How many have looked at any edition since passing their basic driving tests? Not many judging by the number of people of my parents age (60s) who think there is only one national speed limit - 60mph - and therefore slam on their brakes at every dual carriageway speed camera. |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:10:53 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: No. But I'd hope anyone reading this group and DIYing electrical work would have an idea of the perils of nailing or screwing through a cable. The trouble with running cable diagonally is that it isn't dangerous. _You_ know it's there, so you avoid it. It's the poor bugger who buys the house in a few years time who gets caught. -- Smert' spamionam |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , "Bob"
says... "Huge" wrote in message ... "Bob" writes: "Richard Porter" wrote in message ... On 12 Oct 2004 "Bob" wrote: Certainly there are rules things that could imposed to reduce the toll - 30 mph everywhere maximum speed for a car, visible conduits for wiring - but those kind of limits would be unacceptable to most people. AFAIAA most road casualities occur in 30mph or lower limits. You misunderstand - I didn't mean 30mph speed limit signs, I meant cars being physically limited to 30mph! I trust you were joking. Yes :-) It was meant to illustrate the extreme lengths you would need to go to in order to save all those lives lost on the roads, showing that in some areas at least, we do not attempt to save lives "at any cost". In this context, the 10 lives out of 60 million lost due to home electrocutions each year would not warrent extra regulation such as Part P. Did you know that, in an average year: · 600 people die from falling down the stairs in their own home; · 20 die falling out of bed; · 30 drown in the bath; http://www.ex.ac.uk/safety/docs/safetynet/snet42.pdf On that basis we should be looking at legislating on compulsory stairlifts, futons and showers. |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hugo Nebula wrote:
My first taste of "work experience" was labouring for a week with a couple of electricians on a barn conversion in Derbyshire (admittedly in the 1970's). My jobs included chasing out the walls for the sockets in as straight a line as I could from one corner of the wall to the diagonally opposite one, [...] All quite legit at the time, even if not very wise. The current rules - horizontal and vertical lines & prescribed zones unless 50mm deep or in earthed conduit - only came into force on 12th June 1987 as an Amendment to the 15th Edition regs. -- Andy |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
Peter Parry wrote:
Actually they will make things worse. By making minor improvements - like adding extra sockets - much more expensive for most people they will encourage the use of extension sockets, trailing leads etc with the consequent increase in risk from both falling over them and fires. Moreover they can be said to encourage the extension of existing circuits in situations where the provision of a new circuit would be both more appropriate and safer. -- Andy |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
Andy Hall wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:33:58 +0100, Hugo Nebula abuse@localhost wrote: On 12 Oct 2004 09:51:41 -0700, a particular chimpanzee named (StealthUK) randomly hit the keyboard and produced: It's the first I've heard about burying cables 50mm. How many builders or electricians do you think have complied with these regulations? You'd be chasing half the brick wall out and that's not going to be easy without some heavy duty machinery and surely would compromise strength in the wall? Vertical chases up to 1/3rd of the leaf thickness are allowed (33mm for a 100mm block) but horizontal ones no more than 1/6th. Given that most walls will have a reasonable thickness of render & skim over (probably 13-15mm) or plasterboard on dabs (9.5mm + 10mm gap), then the actual chase into the masonry should only be of the order of 30-35mm. So any cable should only be in a vertical chase. Which presumably also makes diagonal runs a non-starter anyway? I guess that there isn't a formula which gives you a depth based on the angle...... .andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl Having been led to believe that the cowboy builder had buried cables all over the place in fact the offending cable was only 5 degrees off vertical. I think that if I was installing something, even allowing for vertical runs I would give several inches of latitude just in case. Kevin |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jimbo" (remove $ ) wrote in message ...
"Hugo Nebula" abuse@localhost wrote in message ... On 12 Oct 2004 01:17:50 -0700, a particular chimpanzee named (TimD) randomly hit the keyboard and produced: In the Evening Standard last night. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...vening%20Stand ard Very sad story, but no doubt will be seized upon as justification for changes to the Electrical Wiring Regulations (Part P) "... a family friend tried to put something onto the same rack, which was under the cooker hood, that same day and received a small shock." A 'lectric DIY-er would immediately have applied the test meter he/she had from the last time they rewired the house, verified the fault and at least unscrewed the rack. With DIY banned, no one will know what to do and won't want to call in a pro and wait a week for them to turn up and charge a huge callout fee. Only last week someone reported late at night getting a shock from a light switch in the church loo. I found (at midnight when you won't see many pros around) a non-waterproof "grid" switch which had slowly let in soapy water over the years. Fitted, of course, by a pro. In the course of the investigations I discovered that the water piping, installed by a corgi, wasn't earthed. Chris |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article , StealthUK wrote: It's the first I've heard about burying cables 50mm. How many builders or electricians do you think have complied with these regulations? Only a fool would run cables diagonally across a wall. I can't think of any real reason ever to do it - apart from to 'save' cable. What has burying cables 50mm got to do with diagonally running cables? Do you bother reading posts before you respond? Do you bother to read regs before opening your gob? But while on the subject of diagonal runs, the report states that the cable was meandering. To me, that doesn't imply the fitter ran the cable diagonally to save cable, more likely a dodgy 'straight' run that swerved all over the place. You can read anything into anything. Again, what has burying cables 50mm got to do with diagonally running cables? You obviously misread my post and I misread your response. I'm not spouting regs. I've already admitted that I wasn't aware of the regulations regarding 50mm depth. I certainly know cables should not be run diagonally but I don't claim to be a know-it-all. Cable is so cheap I doubt anyone would want to penny pinch to that degree, surely? More likely that someone would run a diagonal just to save work on chasing the wall or to avoid conflict with present cable runs. |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
Again, what has burying cables 50mm got to do with diagonally running
cables? You obviously misread my post and I misread your response. I'm not spouting regs. I've already admitted that I wasn't aware of the regulations regarding 50mm depth. I certainly know cables should not be run diagonally but I don't claim to be a know-it-all. Cable can be run diagonally. It can be run in a spiral if you like, or as a picture of your pet dog, provided it is one of the following: 1. Surface run (hence visible) 2. Buried 50mm. 3. Protected. Christian. |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Andy Dingley wrote: No. But I'd hope anyone reading this group and DIYing electrical work would have an idea of the perils of nailing or screwing through a cable. The trouble with running cable diagonally is that it isn't dangerous. _You_ know it's there, so you avoid it. Doubt I can remember all the cable runs in this house - even although they were all installed by myself. But where pipes etc go under floorboards, they're clearly marked. It's the poor bugger who buys the house in a few years time who gets caught. Especially if they want stripped floorboards. ;-) -- *Not all men are annoying. Some are dead. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 13 Oct 2004 "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
Richard Porter wrote: Kit car and classic car insurance is relatively cheap because people who put a lot of effort into building, restoring and maintaining their own cars tend to drive them more carefully and don't have more claims because their vehicles are unroadworthy. In fact they're more likely to spot problems before they become serious. Hmm. More likely because of the restricted mileage. True, but strangely I have one car on an unlimited mileage policy which is cheaper than another one on a limited (7,500) mileage policy. Both cars are similar in most respects, though different marques. And that they usually have to be *not* the main car. The insurers do ask if I have another car, to which the answer is of course "yes". They don't ask which is the main car or stipulate that the insured car isn't it. In any case how do you define "main car"? I might do more mileage in my kit car on one or two continental trips than I would do commuting or shopping in the hypothetical Mondeo. They do like you to belong to a recognised owners club, but that's mainly to distinguish between "classic cars" and "old bangers". And secured when parked. Most premiums are reduced if the vehicle is kept in a locked garage. -- Richard Porter Mail to username ricp at domain minijem.plus.com "You can't have Windows without pains." |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
My first taste of "work experience" was labouring for a week with a
couple of electricians on a barn conversion in Derbyshire (admittedly in the 1970's). My jobs included chasing out the walls for the sockets in as straight a line as I could from one corner of the wall to the diagonally opposite one, and mixing the plaster for the 'professionals' to plaster straight over them when they'd wired the sockets up. Don't know why they did it that way, but one has to wonder why someone doing a barn conversion in the Peak District would employ electricians from over fifty miles away at a time of high unemployment, unless they were exceedingly cheap. Probably they were cheap. Though as it happens my first experience of electrical work was as a teenage apprentice to a couple of electricians, in Derbyshire, in the 1970s; they paid me 20p per hour which even at the time I thought somewhat, well, economical. Learnt a lot though, not least an abhorrence of bodging. I still remember the old lady in Kettleshulme (actually I think that's over the border in Cheshire) whose cottage we were wiring up for the first time ever. She was surprised to know that we had to put cables in: "Oh I thought you just screwed the sockets onto the wall and the electricity came out of them dear!". |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
In message , G&M
writes "Brian Sharrock" wrote in message news  "EricP" wrote in message ... snip Sadly, I think we are no longer in a commom sense time. Todays Idiocy was being told that the local primary can no longer display school photos on the internal notice board in the school hall. Every parent is required to agree to their childs image being included in any photo. Half a dozen always refuse, so the school photo is ended. Don't know the veracity of this ... told it by a man that knew a man ... Schools have a requirement to have a photograph of each child on its file Certain religions don't allow the taking of photographs so I assume this overrides this requirement. I don't think there is any legal requirement here, lots (probably most by now) like to take photos of the kids as described - they are kept in the school records, used on ID cards (lots of schools have multipurpose library, dinner etc. cards). If a parent did not want photo taken they could refuse permission. On the subject of photos and public places, I had a minor victory for common sense last week. Took 3 year old daughter swimming, we go to a members only gym/pool. They have a policy - as is common now of not allowing photos in the pool etc. I don't particularly agree with the policy, but I understand why they do it. anyway, we got 'told off' a while back for taking photos - we'd done it before with no problems, (maybe they had changed the policy). This week there was just us and another couple with their new baby, they ahd a camera and were happily taking photos, no member of staff in the room, but eventually they noticed and someone came over, I new what was coming... 'Not allowed to take photos in here etc.' The couple both appeared to be deaf, and so there had to be a few repetitions before they started to realise what she was on about. I intervened and said that since we were the only other people in the room and we were happy for them to continue, what as the problem. After a few repeats of the 'it's the policy' - 'Well I don't mind and anyway it's a silly policy' exchanges she decided to see the manager. To my surprise, he comes in says 'You're OK with that? ' - ' Yes' and that as that..... -- Chris French, Leeds |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
In message , StealthUK
writes It's the first I've heard about burying cables 50mm. How many builders or electricians do you think have complied with these regulations? You'd be chasing half the brick wall out and that's not going to be easy without some heavy duty machinery and surely would compromise strength in the wall? As has been said, under most situations you don't need to have cables that deep. Running cables in compliant way is not that difficult. -- Chris French, Leeds |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 13 Oct 2004 08:24:31 -0700, StealthUK wrote:
Cable is so cheap I doubt anyone would want to penny pinch to that degree, surely? Probably not on the (competent) DIY side but a sparks contracted to wire a housing estate of say 100 homes in a week and a cable ends up short by a few inches but can be connected by going diagonally... Time is money, he's not going to pull out that cable and re-run another one he'll just connect it up. What's he to do with the bit he pulled out, beggering about with off cuts is slow you pull straight of the drum feeding as you go. It's pretty obvious from recent postings here that unprotected cables in areas of wall where they shouldn't be is *very* common. -- Cheers Dave. pam is missing e-mail |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
In message , StealthUK
writes Again, what has burying cables 50mm got to do with diagonally running cables? Because if you want to run a cable diagonally you have to have it 50mm deep (or suitably protected in metal conduit etc.) I'm not spouting regs. I've already admitted that I wasn't aware of the regulations regarding 50mm depth. I certainly know cables should not be run diagonally You can run them diagonally, with the above provisos. Cable is so cheap I doubt anyone would want to penny pinch to that degree, surely? Why do you think here is so much crap housing about... When you are wiring up 1000 houses... More likely that someone would run a diagonal just to save work on chasing the wall But this is the time they would then need to chase it.. Be easier to just run them in the regs compliant way vertically or horizontally. -- Chris French, Leeds |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
Grunff wrote: I think the only solution is to require all cables to be enclosed in 1.5mm wall galvanised conduit. You wait, it'll come. To a large extent this is a requirement in the US. Their reason is fire proofing, but the flexible conduit is cheap and readily available. Regards Capitol |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob wrote: So is everyone buying up reels of T&E in the old colours so we can avoid paying a "professional" electrician for the next few years at least? You don't need to, the new colours are available now, as the cable is not dated, it was obviously purchased yesterday- 2004! Regards Capitol |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:42:33 +0100, Richard Porter wrote:
We need to do something about maintaining driving standards and updating people on the latest techniques, changes to the law, etc. Hear, hear. Bring in a 5 yearly restest, written for any new/changed legislation and a short practical(*). Fee? How about =A350, is =A310/yea= r to much to have the freedom to drive? I think not. How many drivers have even bothered to get the 2004 edition of the Highway Code? How many even know it was revised this year? Nope and nope... How many have looked at any edition since passing their basic driving tests? Passed my test 1977. But I have looked at the Highway Code since, mainly to find out that when joining a main road from slip road you do not have right of way. Which is how most people seem to join... instead of matching speed and giving way if necessary. That and giving way to traffic going uphill which I'm sure used to be there but I can't find now. (*) Maybe in a simulator. -- Cheers Dave. pam is missing e-mail |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message ... It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Dave Plowman (News)" saying something like: Only a fool would run cables diagonally across a wall. I've seen it done several times, from the cooker switch to the final emerging point of the cooker cable to the cooker. Feckin' potentially lethal, and that was done by sparks. Anybody see the Grand Designs tonight near the end where the "electrician" has sketched out where his wiring is to go in blue paint. Hardly a straight line in sight !!!! |
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tony Bryer wrote: Last night's London Evening Standard said the same. It also said that people had been getting small shocks from this rack well before the accident, but unfortunately for the victim her leg was touching the dishwasher when she touched the rack. Unfortunately, getting small shocks off double insulated domestic appliances like TV's and some videos is a common occurrence. The power supplies send small leakage currents out via the aerial leads, which feel like a shock and people get used to small amounts of electricity being the norm. You also get the static effects from having carpeted floors, so people tend to ignore the warning signs that something more serious is wrong. I've spent many wasted hours trying to find out if the electric shocks are "real" (dangerous) and earthing everything in reach to get rid of the effects. I don't see a foolproof viable solution to the occasional fatal accident. Regards Capitol |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Bizarre CH/HW wiring - any ideas? | UK diy | |||
| Dodgy bathroom light wiring | UK diy | |||
| telephone wiring question | Home Repair | |||
| peculiar wiring in residential switch box? | Home Repair | |||
| connecting aluminum to copper wiring | Home Repair | |||
Linear Mode
