Comment From: Jason Cromack
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: apprentice electrician
Date posted: 24/08/2008
Comment: In my opinion the 17th has only 1 good point and that is to do away with supplementary bonding.Also the use of RCBO\'s may offer better protection on circuits,they are prone to nuisance tripping which can lead to injury.With this change to the 17th it has made jobs more costly and harder when it comes to fitting a consumer unit as the units don\'t offer much room but i suppose that is down to a design fault with manufacturers.Testing has also become more time consuming as all neutrals must be taken out so as not to damage the RCBO\'s,so you are literally disconnecting half of the conductors in the consumer unit.I feel that a survey should be conducted with profesional electricians on the job to find out there opinions.

Comment From: John Sandison
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: Domestic Electrician
Date posted: Wed Apr 9 21:28:27 UTC+0100 2008
Comment: I note that Supplementary Equipotential Bonding is still in 17th but the rumour is that it is not needed if all circuits are RCD protected at 30ma. Reg 415.2.2 gives us how to test. The Restistance is less than or equal to 50V/Ia means the safe touch voltage of 50 is divided by the 0.03 of the 30ma of the RCD the result of this calculation is 1667 ohms and so if you put the probes of your meter on two metal bits or CPCs in a bathroom and get a resistance less than 1667 ohms Then you do not need supplementary equipotential bonding in the special location and so on the certificate a N/A could be put in the inspections box. However if plastic pipes have been used the reading could be above 1667 Ohms so if the plastic pipe system fails the 415.2.2 test should we install supplementary equipotential bonding or will a new copy of the On Site Guide indicate the no bonding is required on plastic pipe systems?

Comment From: peter mitchell
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: electrician
Date posted: Tue Mar 11 13:44:55 UTC 2008
Comment: Table 41.1 shows maximum disconnection times. Using the table in the range 120V to 230V AC a TN system circuit would need to disconnect in 0.4 of a second. However, a voltage meter at a socket outlet might indicate a voltage of say 235-245 Volts. Does this mean that, referring to table 41.1 once more, an electrician must apply the voltage range of 230 to 400, that to say, apply a disconnection time of 0.2 of a second. Of course, it seems not, as the voltage applicable to the table is the nominal voltage. This might be different from the actual measured voltage. It is worth noting this for the benifit of all?

Comment From: peter Mitchell
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: electrician
Date posted: Tue Mar 11 10:15:27 UTC 2008
Comment: Page 363 shows a sketch of a radial circuit using 4mm cable reduced to 2.5mm in a joint box. This reduction in cable size without the use of a circuit protective device (at that point) in the circuit goes wholly against everything I have been taught over the last 35 years. However, if you look at page 75 regulation 434.2 (position of devices for protection against fault current)and regulation 433.2.2 (page 74)(position of devices for protection against overload) one wonders if this 17th edition new practice of cable reduction without protection might flounder and an amendment/omission might soon be published.

Comment From: rr smith
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: director
Date posted: Tue Mar 11 09:28:37 UTC 2008
Comment: I hold a JIB gold card Approve Electrician 16th edition plus 2391. Because i sat the 16th edition in 1992 i was told by the ECA of which im not a member i will have to take a 3 day course to aquire the 17 edition C&G. i have booked the course to the tune of £700 plus . CHARMING!

Comment From: Chris Kerrigan
Company Type: Please pick a company type
Job title: Lecturer in Electrical Installation
Date posted: Tue Mar 11 08:02:45 UTC 2008
Comment: Compilers of the regulations are obviously led by health & safety and are not too concerned about the practicalities of how we as a profession introduce the new requirements to our customers. When all said and done one has to agree that once all the new requirements are implemented new electrical installations will be far safer than today's standard. Inevitably the price of RCBO's will come down and the ideal of each circuit on an RCBO will be an industry standard but manufacturers need to buck their ideas up because the demand will soon rise exponentially. One point I would like to make is more of a prediction. There is a requirement to reduce the risk of danger through nuisance tripping that causes a danger of falls etc. An example being where the upstairs lighting circuit trips leaving all the rooms in darkness. It is suggested that both lighting and power circuits should share different areas for example the downstairs lighting circuit to supply some of the lights upstairs and vice versa. This would guarantee that not all the lights go out in each locality. In practice this would be an electrician's nightmare. It would make the installation job harder, it would make each circuit length longer and safe isolation would take longer to achieve unless each point was labelled. It would be the next logical step to make it a requirement that where the requirement to share circuits is not complied with then emergency lighting is required adjacent to any change in floor level. There will be many amendments over the coming months and years and it is up to us as a profession to voice our opinions to the right people and make the transition as painless as possible. Regarding the European standard I believe it is better than ours, it's just the standard of workmanship that's poor. But maybe I'm being biased.

Comment From: Paul Meenan
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: Principal Auditor
Date posted: Tue Mar 11 06:12:42 UTC 2008
Comment: What the hell is going on, I read the DPC and thought cowboys charter. Now. low and behold sat my 17th update and everyone including the teacher agreed this new version is going to damage the industry and give more money to the cowboys. Put whatever spin you want on it NIC but that's what will happen in the real world. RCDs!!! Iwill never rely on an RCD I've found more faulty ones than I have working ones. anyway COWBOYS CHARTER is what it should be renamed as. please get rid of this standard, bring back the 16th and please get actually people who have done the job to write the book next time.

Comment From: Terry McManus
Company Type: Specifier of Electrical Products
Job title: Principal Electrical Engineer
Date posted: Fri Feb 8 11:40:52 UTC 2008
Comment: Any comments welcome: Bit of a dilemma regarding some issues that we are having difficulty with concerning the differences and interpretation that appears to exist around the implementation of the 17th Edition Wiring regulations, with particular respect to our latest up and coming partnership contracts.(Decent Homes Programmes) We are all aware of the updated Edition proposals and at Homes for Islington have no problem with the interpretation of the said Regulations and as a responsible (hopefully ) Local Authority will always regard them as a minimum standard that should be adhered to in order to maintain safe electrical installations. Our particular problem arises in the interpretation and finalisation of our revised specifications in response to our Consultants/ Major Contractors request for clarification on dates on Design Programme Changeovers. They are generally all happy to accept our final decision but when of course it comes to the criteria surrounding contracts involving financial declarations ..i.e.. Agreed Maximum Prices-AMPs.etc....questions arise... Quite simply I would prefer that the changeover date of 1st July be sacrosanct and would wish that all of our new installations or major works on or after that date would be fully compliment with the 17th.edition but the glitch arises on Contracts that have been agreed and priced before the said date. Unfortunately we find that we could have say a 48 week multi million pound programme involving the installation of new kitchen and bathrooms (electrical works) that may have been designed to 16th Edition specification and are due to start just before the end of June 2008..... Hence the question? I will also confer and discuss with the other London Boroughs but would be most grateful for contributions...

Comment From: stephen ormerod
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: qualified supervisor installation electrician
Date posted: Sat Jan 19 19:38:57 UTC 2008
Comment: Quite a simple question rely, are there any plans for the issue of a 17th edition ON-SITE GUIDE. Nobody seems to know thanks steve ormerod

Comment From: Stephen Cooke
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: Principal Electrical Design Engineer
Date posted: Tue Jan 15 14:42:55 UTC 2008
Comment: One more thing - ring final circuits and fused plug tops will be the next to go in the watering down of our World leading electrical standards. The IEE/IET seem intent on throwing away everything that makes our system the safest in the World, to harmonise with the rest of Europe - why not get them to come up to our standards?

Comment From: Stephen Cooke
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: Principal Electrical Design Engineer
Date posted: Tue Jan 15 14:39:04 UTC 2008
Comment: I spoke to the IEE/IET the first week in January to purchase a copy of the 17th Edition and was told that it would neot be available until the end of the month. IS this information not correct?

Comment From: DENIS JAMES LAMBERT
Company Type: Wholesaler/Distributor
Job title: Sales Manager
Date posted: Tue Jan 15 14:31:06 UTC 2008
Comment: The statement of £50 for a copy of the 17th Edition is misleading. The price refers to the orginal comment copy and not the new book. This costs £65.00.Your comments please. 2nd time of asking!

Comment From: Patrick O'Brien
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: Managing Director
Date posted: Thu Jan 10 16:52:50 UTC 2008
Comment: The new 17th Edition has a number of 'hidden' issues. 1. It appears that all circuits (except those run entirely on the surface) will now need to be protected by a a 30 milliamp r.c.d. 2. Each installation must have a single isolation facility. 3. The designer must minimise danger and inconvenience caused by the operation of the r.c.d if used as the main device. It appears that the impact of complying with these requirements has not been properly thought through by those who have compilied the new 17th Edition. It seems that we are at present left with the following alternatives. a) Install a consumer unit with an integral 100 amp isolator and install rcbo's on each circuit: very costly b) Install say 2 or 3 separate rcd protected distribution boards each with a mixture of power and lighting circuits The distribution boards to then be connected to the meter via a mains switch/tails block: Expensive, probably untidy using considerable space,possible nuisance problems with neutral earth faults. Surely the answer would be a split board with a 100 milliamp time delay rcd as the main isolator providing protection for lighting circuits and a 30 milliamp rcd or rcbo's to protect power and bathroom circuits. Unfortunately it appears that this solution would not comply with the 17th edition. We need the compilers of the 17th edition to provide us with a economical solution as to how we can install a main electrical distribution board in order to comply with the new wiring regulations

Comment From: David Latimer
Company Type: Please pick a company type
Job title:
Date posted: Tue Jan 8 11:32:37 UTC 2008
Comment: Having read some of the comments on the 17th Rdition, with questions as to its relatainship with ENs and references to IEC documents yet to be incorporated and as to why changes have been made, it is clear that few, if any, have any idea of the international and European standardisation process and the constraints which they place on the IET JPEL 64. Some new requirements (as well as requirement in the 15th and 16th editions) will be ones aginst which the UK fought. But at the end of the day, once a requirment has been incorporated into HD 384, it is all over and the UK must accept it. Sockets in bathrooms is an exapmple. The UK fought that for 30 years. David Latimer

Comment From: Croy Robertson
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: Alarm Engineer
Date posted: Sat Jan 5 14:02:07 UTC 2008
Comment: I think the new regulations will be great. When i was working on new build houses, alarm engineers were no longer allowed to work on DB's and the alarm had to be on its own DB switch. I feel that this illiminates alot of in-competence due to lack of electrical training for alarm engineers, and I hope that electronics engineers are forced to take this qualification for everyones safety.

Comment From: David Wheeler
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: electrician
Date posted: Tue Dec 11 09:59:21 UTC 2007
Comment: I understand that the 17th will require all circuits to be RCD protected, I feel that burglar and in particular fire/smoke alarms should be RCBO protected before the first RCD on the DB, this should mean that they will always be 'on', your observations please, regards David

Comment From: chris berry
Company Type: Manufacturer
Job title:
Date posted: Tue Nov 20 14:37:06 UTC 2007
Comment: if an outlet is raised to waist height (for easier access) by means of a short flex on 13a plug secured with trunking leading to a surface mounted box, does the cable need to be clamped within that s/m box? if so, how? i can't find a s/m box with provision for cable clamping - perhaps there's a good reason for this...

Comment From: Pat Lyne
Company Type: Specifier of Electrical Products
Job title: Senior Electrical En
Date posted: Tue Oct 9 17:58:39 UTC+0100 2007
Comment: The end of the split load consumer units would be good. The price of RCBOs are coming down. Why should three or four healthy circuits be knocked out because of a fault on one circuit? With more people using RCBOs the price will drop further. Thanks Pat Lyne Senior Electrical Engineer.

Comment From: Peter Papp
Company Type: Please pick a company type
Job title: elec. designer
Date posted: 1191915700734
Comment: "Outlets which are to be used by non skilled or non supervised must be RCD protected." Does it mean practically that every outlets have to be RCD protected? Please let me know shortly the connection between BS7671 and the relevant EN codes. Thank you, best regards

Comment From: IAN JOHNSON
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title:
Date posted: Wed Sep 5 22:16:27 UTC+0100 2007
Comment: I CAN APPRECIATE THE RCD CONCEPT IN BATHROOMS INSTEAD OF SUP BONDING (WHICH PLUMBERS/PAINTERS EVEN OWNERS DISCONNECT!!!) BUT MY CONCERN IS REGULAR TESTING OF THE UNITS WHICH IF NOT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME WE ALL KNOW POSSIBLY WONT WORK! HOW USE FULL ARE THEY THEN? IVE BEEN TO PLENTY THAT DONT TRIP WHEN TESTED BUT IF THE CUSTOMER SEES IT THERE THEY THINK THERE SAFE! DONT KNOW THE 100% FAIL SAFE ANSWER! DONT THINK THERE WILL EVER BE ONE?

Comment From: Barry Martin
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: DIRECTOR
Date posted: Sat Jul 14 21:37:44 UTC+0100 2007
Comment: I think a lot of electrical contractors would like to know do we need to train our operatives to the 17th Edition( Like we did from 15th to 16th) An easy question but no one at this moment in time knows the answer. Comment 2:- Why are we calling it the 17th Edition - it now has a BS Number and it's now known as BS7671 ?

Comment From: andrew bellion
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: electrician
Date posted: Sun Apr 29 20:18:33 UTC+0100 2007
Comment: does the implementation of the 17th edition mean that anybody with the 16th qualification will have to retrain

Comment From: Derek Wheeler
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title:
Date posted: Tue Jan 9 07:26:38 UTC 2007
Comment: I agree with Raphael J Magnus certification and payment are both of equal importance, but we could have the following as an inserted paragraph. Testing and certification is completed and available for inspection at the contractors office, release will be dependent upon the following. 1) Agreed Payment being received, 2) Certification remains the property of the installer until payment is complete. 3) Insurance cover for installed works will not be active until certification has been issued. The system if energized is at your risk until such time as the documentation has been handed over. Derek Wheeler

Comment From: Lester B Bell
Company Type: Trade Association/Industry Body
Job title: Field Officer
Date posted: Tue Mar 27 20:17:11 UTC+0100 2007
Comment: To Stephen Parr: If you or anyone finds a "cowboy" whether he is a electrician, plumber, alarm eng. etc or anyone not notifying under Part P let your Governing Body know immediately. They should have in place a proceedure for notifying the ODPM's office on rouge traders. Don't grip about them do something about them.

Comment From: Jason Horrocks
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: Sole Trader
Date posted: Sun Mar 25 11:59:03 UTC+0100 2007
Comment: With the coming of another revised edition of "The Wiring Regs", no doubt it will remain in the traditional format of being totally non user friendly, as difficult as possible to follow, sent off backwards and forwards in the book four or five times to find the required information etc. Each profession has its own publication relevant to itself which usually means nothing to anyone outside of it, this seems to be true with the electrical industry and BS7671 but i don't see the need for the way in which the publication is laid out, especially as now, the only people who are going to use it are in the profession. Maybe it was purposely designed in that way to scare away the layman. If the individuals who compose the publication want to do something useful with it, change the format, make it user friendly and use plain english.

Comment From: Steve Wagner
Company Type: Manufacturer
Job title: Home Improvement Sur
Date posted: Wed Mar 21 14:00:27 UTC 2007
Comment: I find Colin Roses's comments interesting - stating that the French system is better. Very strange given that they do not have a standard colour coding system between the north and the south of the country! Also it seems everyone is getting strung out about the new regs i.e. supplementary bonding. Lets not forget all the regs whether the 14th, 15th 16th & 17th are about minimum requirements. I would always specify supplementary bonding regardless. You cannot be too safe bearing in mind that domestic clients seem to have little regard for health and safety in the home, where as many complain in the workplace!

Comment From: Patrick Lyne
Company Type: Specifier of Electrical Products
Job title: Electrical Engineer
Date posted: Wed Mar 21 09:28:10 UTC 2007
Comment: We should be using RCBOs on all applicable circuits. What about the reg. that says only the effected circuit should be de-energised. Pat.

Comment From: Stephen David Parr
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: Sole Trader
Date posted: Tue Mar 20 21:20:52 UTC 2007
Comment: The implications of no supplementary bonding in bathrooms goes further as on all test sheets and certificates there are boxes to tick etc if these are in place, does this mean that I will have to put n/a or change all my certificates? Suppose thats another couple of hundred quid for a 17th course and another £50 or so for a new set of regs plus I bet all the guidance notes and on site guides will be updated/replaced! So every spark out there working within the scope of part P will be looking to pay out in the region of £3-400. That should stop the cowboys - NOT. ps Hi Lester!

Comment From: Mr Ziggi Janiec
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: Contracts Manager.
Date posted: Tue Mar 20 08:42:05 UTC 2007
Comment: POOL ZONES USED TO BE "A,B OR C" AND BATHROOMS WERE "0,1,2 AND 3" NOW WE ARE TO HAVE POOL ZONES AS NUMBERS. THIS WILL GIVE US TWO MEASUREMENTS FOR ZONE S 1 AND 2 TO CONTEND WITH; HOW BACKWARD THINKING CAN THAT BE, IN AN AGE OF CLEAR ENGLISH!

Comment From: Stuart
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: Proprietor
Date posted: Thu Feb 22 19:59:36 UTC 2007
Comment: On a safety side I feel they have done the correct thing with RCD's on all sockets, that's a bit of a no brainer. The same goes for getting rid of cross bonding if you have RCD protection instead in the bathroom. The amount of customers that complain about bonding cables, wether it's that you have to lift the floor to hide it as they don't want to see it, or make a chase. This will make life easier. I do worry about RCD's tripping and knocking most of the power in the house out in one go. We currently split our boards for safety. I agree with another comment on this site and that would be RCBO's on all circuits, but the price must fall & quickly. Looks like some more exams next year!

Comment From: chris
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: electrician
Date posted: Tue Feb 20 21:54:36 UTC 2007
Comment: briefly scanned the layout will improve. Amazed at we now appear to be lowering standards to accomodate others.Site disconn times etc. Domestic bathrooms. can now install sso under certain conditions eg under bath or 3m away fom zone 1.Reg 701.30.3 i am confused. We had such much pollava about the faraday cage & now a 30ma rcd is sufficient.Although i install rcd protection if necessary it is still only a hopeful mechanical device as anyone with testing exp will know.I have met very few people who quarterly check them.All this along with the way the industry seems to be going, every johnny who pays up can call himself a sparks. I recently met an inspector for building control who informed me he had been on a day course qualifying him to inspect & effectively greenlight non scheme part p herberts. Anyway what am i going to do with all my old regs books?

Comment From: Colin Rawlins
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: MD
Date posted: Tue Feb 20 19:14:53 UTC 2007
Comment: When will the regs be law? This, like CORGI for gas, will solve a lot of problems overnight.

Comment From: J.B. GALLACHER
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: director
Date posted: Tue Feb 20 17:12:50 UTC 2007
Comment: why can`t the changes be added as ammenments which has been done before.

Comment From: I Sutherland
Company Type: Please pick a company type
Job title: Building maintenance
Date posted: Tue Feb 20 2007 07:35:19 GMT+0000 (GMT S
Comment: Once again we are going to have to requalify!Who will pay for this? The customer. Part P increased costs now this will increase costs further making the price higher and then the customer will find a cowboy who is cheaper. After which we will have the Health and Safety telling us that there are hundreds of unsafe electrical installations. Why???

Comment From: Raphael J Magnus
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: MD
Date posted: Wed Feb 14 10:16:28 UTC 2007
Comment: One of the most contentiouse parts of the regulations is the requirment to issue the certfication to the employer who ever he is even if he has not paid you, i know many a contractor who has been forced into issueing the certification and then had to whistle Dixie for another 5-10 months to get paid or even been forced into Bankruptcy, even though the contractor has been paid by the client, this requirment should say something along the lines of certification is to be completed and avalible for inspection at the contractors offices, relese will be dependent upon the contrators being paid, the system cannot be energised until such time as the documentation has been handed over the building is not insured without it; this would focus the contractors into sorting and setteling disputes, which always seem to arise with builders, i know that the regs are there for other resons but there wording directly affects the contractural flow of monies which most major builders and clients exploit to the detrement of the honest contractor

Comment From: Lester B Bell
Company Type: Trade Association/Industry Body
Job title: Field Officer
Date posted: Thu Feb 8 19:24:15 UTC 2007
Comment: To help Colin Rose in his design he should get a copy of Trevor E Marks's guidlines where he will find 100's of working examples to help him with his design problems

Comment From: Peter Balcon
Company Type: Educational Establisment/Student
Job title: Chief Technician
Date posted: Thu Feb 8 10:33:52 UTC 2007
Comment: I teach C&G2381, so I've had a look through the draft document for the 17th over the last week or so. There's obviously been a lot of 'cut-and-paste' going on, with many sections moved about, and there's a lot more illustrations than previously, which is no bad thing. The removal of the need for supplementary bonding will overcome a lot of confusion and argument that has occurred in the last few years, but no doubt they will change their mind again in another 10 years! I am a bit bemused by the removal of the 25V touch-voltage guideline for agricultural and construction installations and the reduced disconnection times, though! There seems to be many references to IEC documentation now, obviously as we move closer to Europe... I have to say, I've been more confused by some of the comments in this BLOG, particularly the first and third entries! To the first gentleman, I would have to say, the Regs aren't a Law, they are used as 'evidential documentation' to indicate compliance with H&S Law, so they are never going to say who can do electrical work. To the third gent, I am sure you must be aware that there are Guidance Notes that deal with the actual process of applying the Regs; much of that kind of detail was taken out of the Regs when it became BS7671, and put in the GNs and the OSG. BS7671 is primarily a legal document to enable compliance with the EAW Regs.

Comment From: bryan tate
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: contracts manager
Date posted: Tue Feb 6 18:19:09 UTC 2007
Comment: once again we see bs 7671 updated but still they have or will not make the regulations mandatary which would solve all the problems within the industry in a single stroke forcing out untrained unregistered diy persons etc i do not see any problem with this route so why not?

Comment From: Tim Bell
Company Type: Please pick a company type
Job title: Retired Power Worker
Date posted: Mon Feb 5 22:00:29 UTC 2007
Comment: ELECTRIC SHOCK AND FIRE I feel I must speak out the regulations don’t go far enough, and there are still some grey areas. It must be applauded that it seems that 30Ma RCD’s are now mandatory for sockets in the 17th Addition, and The Term “Carelessness by the user” is used. Do we have to wait until the 18th or 19th addition for all circuits in the home to be covered? What protections have you, in your home for, you, your wife and kids? Of course you would want the best. The home is a dangerous place and more accidents happen in the home. And I have always thought and advocated that ALL THE CIRCUITS in the home should be protected by a 30mA RCD. I can understand that it would be better if, individual circuits had their own RCD, due to the danger of disconnecting circuits not affected by the fault. The ultimate installation would be one where, every circuit had its own, RCBO. But the cost of RCBO’s needs to come down and be more readily available for 5A/6A lighting circuits at a realistic price or consumer units need to be made more flexible, to accommodate two or more RCD’s, so that one could have a separate 30Ma RCD on the lights, so you are not left in the dark with a fault. Come on manufactures!! Supply us with a 30/40A 30mA RCD and an 80/100A 30mA RCD, one for lights and the other for power combined in one consumer unit with a main switch! (It is a good idea to have 30mA protection on the lights because I know of cases where people have been killed by carelessness and lack of knowledge about 3 plate roses and changing light fittings, and due to water leaks, which leaks out of light fittings.) EARTHING and PME. The Earth provided today by most supply companies is essentially PME. Even direct earth via lead sheath is connected to a network, which is PME. (Earth and neutral interconnected or combined conductors E & N (PEN)) In my view PME should not be allowed where the Mains supply is feed overhead, the danger of the neutral breaking is greatly increased with aerial conductors and cables due to wind and weather and trees etc. RCD ‘s give no protection for a lost neutral and the resultant dangers can be enormous. (I have been out to many properties where the whole earthing, central heating radiators, water taps have been at main potential (230v) due to a broken incoming neutral and the only way to stop it was to remove the main fuse! Or to disconnect the mains supply to the house at the sub station!) Many of these cases are not reported for statistics. If the bonding and the gas and/or the water services were low impedance then the bonding would take all the neutral current and it may not get noticed for years, until perhaps a fire or someone from the services gets a shock! If the bonding and the parallel earth path via the gas or water was as low as the neutral path then the earth conductors would take, continually half the neutral current (i.e. if the load was 100amps the earth conductors would take 50amps of the load) Its now often the case, there is no earth path from the bonding as the water and gas are all-plastic. Even underground supplies can lose their neutrals, there are still in use, many miles of aluminium neutral cables and there are the faults that accrue due to, third party cable damages, the weather and normal faults! Perhaps a TT System is best, being independent of the local supply company without these dangers. The 17th addition mentions protection for loss of incoming supply neutrals on low voltage systems and yet doesn’t cover the points above. It also mentions over-voltage protection and yet there is no over-voltage protection for example for houses against having line voltage of 415volts by accident or fault. One could have a contactor or some means of disconnecting the live conductor if in the event of a lost neutral or a voltage operated trip device but it may be easier just to have a TT system. It should be mandatory to have only plastic water taps or plastic inserts on the taps on the outside of buildings (where connected to water pipes bonded to PME.) And for sockets and portable appliances use out doors, with RCD protection it should in my view be mandatory to have their own electrode or TT system and not connected to PME. (I.E. using sockets and portable equipment outside of the PME cage and bonding). I was surprised that the article about the inappropriate use of RCD’s in Voltimum by NICEIC it was suggested that shower circuits could be connected without an RCD or to a time delay 100mA RCD and that to have all the circuits connected through one 30mA RCD s was miss-use of an RCD, perhaps its better to have one miss- used like this than not having one at all! Especially on a shower unit! Which is more dangerous, not having a 30mA RCD, or very occasionally losing the supply. Protection for electric shock must take precedence against the danger of loss of supply, one could ague that it would be safer to have 30mA protection on all the circuits instead, and the main danger of losing supply in the home would be losing the lights, and yet one would more likely lose the lights by a MCB tripping due to a light bulb blowing. I would agree that it would be better to separate the circuits if possible but sometimes costs come in to the equation and it is very cost effective just to change the main switch for an 30mA RCD. Without having to change the complete consumer unit, it really depends on the customer, if costs didn’t come into it; it would be better to have all RCBO’s (I’ve had a 30mA RCD on all my circuits for about 6 years without any trouble even with heating appliances etc.) perhaps it would make more sense to have an emergency light fitting. My main concern is about safety for existing installations and older houses; I know that out in the real world there are thousands of homes that are electrically unsafe!!! I also know that electricity Supply/distribution Company’s are not very good at testing the integrity of the earth they provide. The periodic test of installations as recommended by the 16th addition is sometimes the only way that these faults are brought to light, and yet with the millions of homes what percentage have their installation tested to the 16th addition? When did you have yours tested? In conclusion It may have been better for the government to have brought out a law that all homes should be fitted with RCBs and give a time scale and money to implement it together with grants to cover the costs for existing and older houses, perhaps instead of the costly Part P. which put up the cost to the consumer, which then makes the consumer less likely to have work done. There should be a better or easier way for electricians to report dangerous occurrences such as broken neutrals and electric shocks wrong polarity, etc for the statistics Hopefully these notes above will get the debate on safety going. And no doubt other will have other ideas on the way I view it. Tim

Comment From: Barry Coath
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: Director
Date posted: Mon Feb 5 09:35:27 UTC 2007
Comment: Very interesting the bit about rcd's for bathroom equipement. Is this a separate rcd for lights,shower,heater? or can they be on the rcd of a split load consumer unit, and what about if the pipes are all plastic?

Comment From: Colin Rose
Company Type: Specifier of Electrical Products
Job title: Senior Partner
Date posted: Sat Feb 03 2007 17:03:06 GMT+0000 (GMT S
Comment: As part of my job (also chief Architect) I have to regularly add to my qualifications and keep upto date. I took C&G 2381 (June 05)and was dismayed at the omissions in part 16 with respect to consumer units and how these could best be arranged. Take a job we have on: a 3ph supply with TT earth. Iph to stable block and 2phs to the large bungalow. Some think these 2 cons units should be metal others that is does not matter as long as the calculations are done with diversity etc. I would like to see a section within selection and erection that uses some worked examples and includes all the likely requirements and some brief illustrations to avoid ambiguities. The French NF C 15-100 is much better and simpler to follow and saves a considerable amount of time. I realize that this makes it possible for unqualified people to easily do the work but we are aiming at safety as the highest priority.

Comment From: Gary Evans
Company Type: Please pick a company type
Job title: Elec Design Engineer
Date posted: Fri Feb 2 18:07:20 UTC 2007
Comment: For bathrooms on new work I read it as no supplymentary bonding required if MEB installed and every circuit is RCD protected. All the fun of PIR's and the codes for defects to come!!!! So if in an existng installation and no supplymentary bonding installed in a bathroom and the MEB is installed then do you install RCD's to comply with the 17th. as at present no supp bonding is a code 1, so for safety it has to be one or the other!!!! RCD protection is replacing local supp bonding

Comment From: Duncan Fairley
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: Boss
Date posted: Fri Feb 2 18:01:00 UTC 2007
Comment: I'm getting fed up with having to do repeated training courses. One of my colleagues found it easier to emmigrate to Canada, than to carry on as an electrician in the UK! I think I'll join him!!

Comment From: Michael Myers
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: MD
Date posted: Fri Feb 2 16:12:39 UTC 2007
Comment: Sirs, I have purchased a draft copy of the 17th BS7671 and have spent some studying it. There are obvious changes to a lot of grass root regs (16th) ie bathroom zones ,circuits in bathrooms, new max loop values etc. There appear to be a lot of new sections that are more applicable to the European section then to our own. Things like making the BS3036 protection obsolete, again have not surfaced. The good old sparkie will again have to spend on new literiture that goes with the regs as his existing books are not compatable,we have part P and the new regs but this still will not do anything to stop the cowboys who don't work to either Regards M. Myers Myers Electrical Installations

Comment From: mike
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title:
Date posted: Fri Feb 02 2007 14:39:04 GMT+0000 (GMT S
Comment: I see that very circuit in a bathroom is to be covered by a rcd and main bonding is to be correct so that no supplementary bonding is required

Comment From: Alisdair Mason
Company Type: Specifier of Electrical Products
Job title: senior Electrical En
Date posted: Fri Feb 2 10:35:55 UTC 2007
Comment: International Standard for Medical Locations CEI IEC 60364-7-710 The IEC document is used throughout all medical location in the UK and therefore needs recognition in the wiring regulations. The document to be incorporated in to the regulation com

Comment From: John Sandison
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: Electrician
Date posted: Fri Feb 2 07:24:56 UTC 2007
Comment: I note that 17th edition will NOT require suplementary equipotential bonding in bathrooms.. WOW .. A pain to retrofit.... So if main bonding is OK do we put N/A on the BS inspection check list when carrying out a periodic inspection OR do we have to

Comment From: Phil Bennett
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: MD
Date posted: Thu Feb 1 22:37:27 UTC 2007
Comment: Will this update mean more courses? When I did my 16th I was told that there will never be a 17th Edition as the regs were now a BS number. Jobs for the boys no doubt.

Comment From: jon Ringwood
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title:
Date posted: Thu Feb 1 19:01:14 UTC 2007
Comment: The point about no supplementary bonding is intresting! Could save a lot of time and money on jobs.

Comment From: Thomas Gray
Company Type: Electrical Contractor
Job title: Installer
Date posted: Thu Feb 01 2007 17:04:56 GMT+0000 (GMT S
Comment: I am just completely in the dark as regards the changes to the wiring regs, I know its coming but don't know anymore. It seems almost like they don't want us to know about it!!