AFDD in 18th 2nd Amendment

[John-SJW]

You never got my point. RCDs were not required, but were fitted wholescale way before being mandatory, because they were recommended.

 

[nicebutdim]

You never got my point. RCDs were not required, but were fitted wholescale way before being mandatory, because they were recommended.

There was exceptionally strong reasoning behind the move to RCD protection, whereas the argument in favour of arc fault protection is less compelling. Furthermore, early use of earth leakage protection involved a single device, which involved significantly less relative cost for the end user.

While I'm not convinced of the need for arc fault protection in many circumstances, I'm certainly not opposed to it and simply wish to present an alternative position. One which I feel is not far from reality.

 

[John-SJW]

I am with you. But it seems AFDDs will be on all circuits in the near future, going the way of RCDs. Which is back to 1940/50s wiring. AFDDs, don't detect a fault on line to line on rings because it's at the same potential. AFDDs only protect against screw-in faults, line to neutral or faults with appliances plugged in.

AFDDs being made mandatory in some installations has highlighted an overlooked advantage of a final ring. If there is an arc, the arc creates a resistance, so the current will go around the ring from the other direction, reducing any dangerous arcing, an arc which would say cause a fire in a radial. That is before AFDDs are fitted, so a level of safety is an integrated part of the final ring's design.

 

[John-SJW]

As I stated; no suggestion of requirement.

A recommendation is just that and until they become more affordable, it's likely that their adoption will mostly be limited to installations where regs tell us they shall be fitted. Language matters.

I have not looked at page 18 yet. But in normal English shall is not must. Need to get this clear.

 

[nicebutdim]

I have not looked at page 18 yet. But in normal English shall is not must. Need to get this clear.

I'm sorry, but there is no ambiguity where the meaning of shall is concerned

It is a statement 'You shall do this', rather than a question 'shall we do this? '.

The wording clearly states what is to be done and doesn't ask for opinion.

 

[loz2754]

Page 18, in part:

Verbal forms used in BS7671

Implication​	Verbal form​	Typical context​
Requirement	Shall	Normative element
Recommendation	Should	Informative element

 

[nicebutdim]

Page 18, in part:

Verbal forms used in BS7671

Implication​	Verbal form​	Typical context​
Requirement	Shall	Normative element
Recommendation	Should	Informative element

It's not as though discussion should be necessary. A quick glance in any dictionary makes clear the meaning of this word.

 

[mainline]

It's not as though discussion should be necessary. A quick glance in any dictionary makes clear the meaning of this word.

Yes, like when a judge sentences someone and says “You shall go to prison for 10 years”

I don't think the defendant is allowed to walk away

 

[John-SJW]

I'm sorry, but there is no ambiguity where the meaning of shall is concerned

It is a statement 'You shall do this', rather than a question 'shall we do this? '.

The wording clearly states what is to be done and doesn't ask for opinion.

Definition of shall:
"Shall" is a modal verb used to indicate future action. It is most commonly used in sentences with "I" or "we," and is often found in suggestions, such as "Shall we go?" "Shall" is also frequently used in promises or voluntary actions.

There is a difference between shall and must. If they want to change the definitions of words from dictionaries then they have to state what their words mean. Page 18? If there is an absence of them not supplying a definition for their changed meanings of words, the dictionary meanings are what we go by. Must is well .... must. We all know what that means. No ambiguity. Anything else besides must, does not have to be done.

421.1.7 says: "AFDD"..."shall be provided".

Shall is clearly not must. In short, with must you have to do it. Maybe page 18 clears the air. People need to know if they have to or it is optional.

 

[loz2754]

Cambridge Dictionary:​

shall modal verb (CERTAINLY WILL)​

formal or old-fashioned
used to say that something certainly will or must happen, or that you are determined that something will happen:
Don't worry, I shall be there to meet the train.
The school rules state that no child shall be allowed out of the school during the day, unless accompanied by an adult.
You shall go to the ball, Cinderella.

 

[John-SJW]

It's not as though discussion should be necessary. A quick glance in any dictionary makes clear the meaning of this word.

Thanks. Getting clearer. But still some grey here....

Definition of normative:

1 : of, relating to, or determining norms or standards normative tests.
2 : conforming to or based on norms normative behaviour normative judgments.

Note it says: behaviour.
Like it was normal behaviour for electricians to fit RCDs before they were mandatory. So, if it is normal for everyone to fit RCDs you follow on. It does not mean you must fit an RCD.
I know people who do not conform to normal behaviour, but it is not illegal to do so. And no one stops them.

 

[mainline]

Definition of shall:
"Shall" is a modal verb used to indicate future action. It is most commonly used in sentences with "I" or "we," and is often found in suggestions, such as "Shall we go?" "Shall" is also frequently used in promises or voluntary actions.

There is a difference between shall and must. If they want to change the definitions of words from dictionaries then they have to state what their words mean. Page 18? If there is an absence of them not supplying a definition for their changed meanings of words, the dictionary meanings are what we go by. Must is well .... must. We all know what that means. No ambiguity. Anything else besides must, does not have to be done.

421.1.7 says: "AFDD"..."shall be provided".

Shall is clearly not must. In short, with must you have to do it. Maybe page 18 clears the air. People need to know if they have to or it is optional.

When used as an auxiliary verb, shall, according to Webster's Online Dictionary, “denotes a requirement that is mandatory whenever the criterion for conformance with the specification requires that there be no deviation” (2). This word implies obligation and is traditionally used by laws and regulations.

 

[davesparks]

Definition of shall:
"Shall" is a modal verb used to indicate future action. It is most commonly used in sentences with "I" or "we," and is often found in suggestions, such as "Shall we go?" "Shall" is also frequently used in promises or voluntary actions.

There is a difference between shall and must. If they want to change the definitions of words from dictionaries then they have to state what their words mean. Page 18? If there is an absence of them not supplying a definition for their changed meanings of words, the dictionary meanings are what we go by. Must is well .... must. We all know what that means. No ambiguity. Anything else besides must, does not have to be done.

421.1.7 says: "AFDD"..."shall be provided".

Shall is clearly not must. In short, with must you have to do it. Maybe page 18 clears the air. People need to know if they have to or it is optional.

They are not changing the definitions of words, you are using the wrong definition for the context. Words have more than one meaning and which one applies is based on context.
In the context of an official document, such as a British standard you apply the legal definition:

"Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive. This contrasts with the word “may,” which is generally used to indicate a permissive provision, ordinarily implying some degree of discretion."

The language used in BS7671 is in accordance with the rules set out by BSI for all British standards.

And as for your point about providing a definition, they have, on page 18, someone has even copied the relevant part and posted it on here for you!

 

[loz2754]

Anyways, regardless of common usages of words, BS7671 contains explicit meanings behind the forms of verbal expression it employs, and it is these meanings that we must, shall, adhere to.

 

[davesparks]

You shall go to the ball, Cinderella.

And that clearly wasn't optional, otherwise the audience would be feeling really short changed when the pantomime doesn't even last until the end of act 1!