New sub board for shed swa advice.

[Jcamerz]

Hi guys new to the forum after bit of advice. My family are installing a new shed in the garden and require a lot of power ie few sockets, lights. I am planning of running a swa fed from 32a mcb from the main board to a sub board.
Have a question-
Shall I install the new 32a mcb in the main board on the RCD side or main switch side?
Thanks

 

[bigbob1]

S##t I just realised my outside light is metal and connected to the MET via the CPC.

Equipotential zone stops 1.5m past the footprint of the property the head is in..
‘Touch’ distance.....still don’t get it, which is sad really.

 

[bigbob1]

Or you’d be bonding your outside tap........

 

[Toneyz]

Oh dear, you are so dead.

And going to jail.

Equipotential zone stops 1.5m past the footprint of the property the head is in..
‘Touch’ distance.....still don’t get it, which is sad really.

You are really getting rude and insulting.
without posting in this manner where does the 1.5m come from?

 

[Richard Burns]

Arm's reach is generally considered to be 2.5m distance from the potentially live part or 1.25m if reaching downward to the part.

 

[johnduffell]

Property includes the garden and outbuildings, so that would be fine.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Or you’d be bonding your outside tap........

Shouldn’t need bonding, it’s connected to the water installation which should already be bonded.
Could use plastic pipes so as to divorce it from the installation earthing.
Oh yes, you appear to have misquoted or misunderstood how far equipotential zones extend.
You should have said that equipotential zones may extend as far as 1.5m from the footprint of the building.

 

[Wes1000]

S##t I just realised my outside light is metal and connected to the MET via the CPC.

Just don’t tell Bigbob1 or he will be reporting you to the police. You might also get lectured about something irrelevant like chem trails or lizards in government.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Just don’t tell Bigbob1 or he will be reporting you to the police. You might also get lectured about something irrelevant like chem trails or lizards in government.

Bloody immigrants.

 

[Pete999]

Bigbob1 can you fill your profile in, as you seem to be spouting all these rules and no regulations at us, and we have no real idea of what you are, understand if you want to remain incognito, but is confusing when answering you numerous rantings, without any real idea of what sort of experience or electrical education you currently hold.

 

[Wilko]

You are really getting rude and insulting.
without posting in this manner where does the 1.5m come from?

Sorry to say it has descended into this a few times . I still see no reason why one supply can't serve more than one building, which seems to be the go to jail trigger. Section 5.6 in GN8 explains how. And it doesn't need any new permissions from DNO, as it's all beyond their service head.
But I do agree that we should convene a working party to examine your outside light .

 

[Pete999]

And going to jail.

You are really getting rude and insulting.
without posting in this manner where does the 1.5m come from?

Agree with AB

 

[bigbob1]

Because you lot only read BS7671 and have no understanding of the massive list of ‘other’ ACOP’s......

which shall consist of an independent earth electrode and RCD protection. The TT earthing system shall be segregated by a minimum of 2m from any PME earthing system. The supply and installation of earthing system and protection is the responsibility of the customer.

Not every answer is in BS7671, as of 18/1/18 it is now 2m not 1.5m....

 

[bigbob1]

#E5

 

[Ian1981]

#E5

So you are pretending to be associated with #E5 now?
They do not spout such utter nonsense

 

[Toneyz]

Sorry to say it has descended into this a few times . I still see no reason why one supply can't serve more than one building, which seems to be the go to jail trigger. Section 5.6 in GN8 explains how. And it doesn't need any new permissions from DNO, as it's all beyond their service head.
But I do agree that we should convene a working party to examine your outside light .

He seems one of those like the vlogs on Youtube that like the sound of their own voice and is arguing (and insulting) just for the sake of enjoyment. Guidance note 8 published by the IET illustrates what is permitted regarding detached building and he seems to try to tell us they are wrong.

 

[Pete999]

So you are pretending to be associated with #E5 now?
They do not spout such utter nonsense

Sorry have to ask, what is#E5?

 

[netblindpaul]

I think that the posts regarding the exporting of a PME earth are clouding the question somewhat.

Why can it not be understood that when an person is at work, HASAWA & if they are involved with electrical systems EAWR applies to them and their work.
Regardless of where this work is done.

Murdoch, why do you consider yourself above the law?
Spinlondon, if you are an IEE member of old, and still are a member, then you are voluntarily bound by the now IET rules of membership, i.e. their code of conduct, and if you are registered with the EngC then you are also bound by their code of conduct.
Diggaboy, I would be interested why you consider yourself above the law also.

Why is everyone so hung up on following an industry code of practice that does not have the same legal standing as an HSE ACoP, and treat it as law.
It's an industry guide, it is riddled with errors, even the new one, typo's, cross referencing errors and others, just like most of the IET books.

How can I explain the situation when the fundamental reasons are being dismissed as not relevant.
I have even extracted and posted the relevant regulations from HASAWA & EAWR that apply, and it seems nobody has read the posts to realise that this does apply to them, how can it not.

The suggestion that these laws do not apply is simply stupidity and a reminder of this has been sent to every NICEIC QS, and has been publicised by all the schemes, and the IET.
Her Majesty's Coroner wrote to them all under Rule 43 following a death of an innocent woman in her home.

Or are you all going to tell me that she didn't die, and that the QS wasn't prosecuted under HASAWA, and that the law didn't apply because you all know better than the Coroner's inquest, the jury, HSE, the expert witnesses, and the judge for the trial of the QS?

You might want to tell her young kids that their mother wasn't unlawfully killed by incompetent electrical work. See if they understand that.

 

[Marvo]

**sigh....not the forums finest hour.

I don't have the stomach to read the whole thread but things are getting a bit personal in the last few pages of replies.

Please play the ball and not the man even if the debate is going around in circles or if people are entrenched in their opinion....Regardless how wrong or mistaken they may be they're entitled to it.

 

[Octopus]

Murdoch, why do you consider yourself above the law?

Simple answer I don't

BUT why are you arguing about a point where you can't quote a BS 7671 reg number ...................... thats what I don't understand.

YOU started this FARCE but stating things that are simply inaccurate.

I will repeat, for the last time

Which BS 7671 (17th edition AMD3) regulation do you quote to back up your "claim" that SWA armour MUST be connected to the earth at the supply end?

 

[netblindpaul]

Someone earlier asked if Rob was around, now, I have seen Rob state on here many times that BS 7671 is not the be all and end all of electrical works.

There have been several posts on this thread where I have posted extracts from the law, and persons have indicated that they disagree, ergo, they are in the belief that it is not applicable and as they have selected this, then I think it is reasonable to believe that they believe that the law does not apply to them.

So, OK, if it can be agreed that the law applies, then BS 7671 is irrelevant. It is the law that must be complied with. NOT BS 7671.
Then we can move this forward.
BS 7671 is irrelevant in this situation.
Once everyone stops trying to beat me down with nonsense about the law not applying, then I can go on and explain, but, first it must be understood that the law of the land does apply here and it has been proven to apply, and a QS went to court for it, and was prosecuted.
The only reason his employer was not prosecuted is that they went into liquidation, and as the QS he was the one legally liable, hence his successful prosecution under HASAWA s7.
The Coroner wrote to the NICEIC under Rule 43 which resulted in them writing to every QS for every NICEIC AC to remind them of their legal duty.
Any of you who are NICEIC QS's should be aware of this.

 

[Ian1981]

Sorry have to ask, what is#E5?

Give them a google pete.

 

[Ian1981]

Someone earlier asked if Rob was around, now, I have seen Rob state on here many times that BS 7671 is not the be all and end all of electrical works.

There have been several posts on this thread where I have posted extracts from the law, and persons have indicated that they disagree, ergo, they are in the belief that it is not applicable and as they have selected this, then I think it is reasonable to believe that they believe that the law does not apply to them.

So, OK, if it can be agreed that the law applies, then BS 7671 is irrelevant. It is the law that must be complied with. NOT BS 7671.
Then we can move this forward.
BS 7671 is irrelevant in this situation.
Once everyone stops trying to beat me down with nonsense about the law not applying, then I can go on and explain, but, first it must be understood that the law of the land does apply here and it has been proven to apply, and a QS went to court for it, and was prosecuted.
The only reason his employer was not prosecuted is that they went into liquidation, and as the QS he was the one legally liable, hence his successful prosecution under HASAWA s7.
The Coroner wrote to the NICEIC under Rule 43 which resulted in them writing to every QS for every NICEIC AC to remind them of their legal duty.
Any of you who are NICEIC QS's should be aware of this.

Out of interest,What was the QS negligent of as I don’t know the details?

 

[Richard Burns]

I think it is easier not to try to apply intent from a post or rating as this then may lead to misinterpretation.
However it appears that because the regulation being discussed is the Electricity at work regulations it is clear that if no one is at work then, at that time, the regulations do not apply, however, they are retrospective to the time when someone was at work. That is during the work the regulations applied and if the work was done within the regulations then danger should not arise after the work is finished; this is the situation I believe is being described.
The regulations apply to the work being done and can be applied, where they are relevant, at all times after that in relation to the work done under the regulations if there has not been a non work change.

 

[Pete999]

Give them a google pete.

I did Ian, get nothing, to be completely honest I have no idea what #5 is, or what they represent.

 

[Toneyz]

I did Ian, get nothing, to be completely honest I have no idea what #5 is, or what they represent.

There's bound to be a fee involved.

 

[Richard Burns]

I did Ian, get nothing, to be completely honest I have no idea what #5 is, or what they represent.

E5 is the engineering council statement of ethical principles;
Accuracy and rigour
Honesty and integrity
Respect for life, law, the environment and the public good
Responsible leadership: listening and informing

This may help

 

[Pete999]

E5 is the engineering council statement of ethical principles;
Accuracy and rigour
Honesty and integrity
Respect for life, law, the environment and the public good
Responsible leadership: listening and informing

This may help

Thank you Richard, never heard of them before today, as you say never to old to learn new things, plus you never stop learning, appreciate your post thanks again.

 

[Toneyz]

Someone earlier asked if Rob was around, now, I have seen Rob state on here many times that BS 7671 is not the be all and end all of electrical works.

There have been several posts on this thread where I have posted extracts from the law, and persons have indicated that they disagree, ergo, they are in the belief that it is not applicable and as they have selected this, then I think it is reasonable to believe that they believe that the law does not apply to them.

So, OK, if it can be agreed that the law applies, then BS 7671 is irrelevant. It is the law that must be complied with. NOT BS 7671.
Then we can move this forward.
BS 7671 is irrelevant in this situation.
Once everyone stops trying to beat me down with nonsense about the law not applying, then I can go on and explain, but, first it must be understood that the law of the land does apply here and it has been proven to apply, and a QS went to court for it, and was prosecuted.
The only reason his employer was not prosecuted is that they went into liquidation, and as the QS he was the one legally liable, hence his successful prosecution under HASAWA s7.
The Coroner wrote to the NICEIC under Rule 43 which resulted in them writing to every QS for every NICEIC AC to remind them of their legal duty.
Any of you who are NICEIC QS's should be aware of this.

I remember this was it not a cable that had been screwed when erecting the metal stud wall? I think it was discussed on here and concluded how was this ever be highlighted when doing an insulation resistance test as the screw was through the live conductor only into the metal stud being an isolated from any earth path.

 

[Toneyz]

Just don't go on London Underground wearing that badge as you'll get people coming up to you asking what platform the next train is from.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Doesn’t mean they’re from Dalston at all.

 

[ipf]

I remember this was it not a cable that had been screwed when erecting the metal stud wall? I think it was discussed on here and concluded how was this ever be highlighted when doing an insulation resistance test as the screw was through the live conductor only into the metal stud being an isolated from any earth path.

If so, what's it got to do with an external supply?
Just bad workmanship, surely, giving someone the opportunity to screw through a cable in such circumstances.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It’s quite amazing really.
We are in an age where a person can access more information, more knowledge than at any other time in the history of humankind, yet ignorance abounds.
Anyways, I would like to suggest that the members who believe we cannot export the installation earth to an outbuilding and any that are unsure, simply google ‘exporting earth to outbuilding’.
Read the articles, watch the videos and even peruse some of the discussions on the forums.
Hopefully that will be the end of this discussion.
Personally, I can no longer be bothered to educate people who are unwilling to learn.

 

[netblindpaul]

So you are pretending to be associated with #E5 now?
They do not spout such utter nonsense

Really Ian, I think that you will find that all of the e5 members will agree with me about the application of law, including all the founder members.
Would you like me to ring one of them?
Oh, and I'm not "pretending" to support e5.
That hashtag has been there for quite a while now.

If you know what e5 is about and where it came from, then you would fully understand my position on this.
In fact, if you were to attend one of the e5 18th edition seminars, you would find that the first few slides are all about the law, and how it applies to electrical work.

 

[netblindpaul]

There's bound to be a fee involved.

No fee, it's a attitude thing, if you know what it is, and you believe in it and understand it, then that is what e5 is about.

 

[netblindpaul]

Out of interest,What was the QS negligent of as I don’t know the details?

Not doing his job properly, he was prosecuted under HASAWA s7, liability for acts and or omissions whilst at work.
The install had been done in a domestic premises by his then employer, he was the QS and signed the job off as safe.
A young lady died a long while after the installation was completed and the property was just her home, no one working there at the time.
However, the prosecutions were under workplace law, because, when the work was done, the people doing the work were at work.
Thus workplace law applies.
This is what it seems is not being understood.
Both HASAWA and EAWR apply at the time of the work, and, if there is an issue later, then this legislation will be used.
The Coroner used Rule 43 to write to the schemes and tell them to remind their duty holders, i.e. PDH & QS of their legal responsibilities, or the Coroner would do something about it themselves.

 

[netblindpaul]

I remember this was it not a cable that had been screwed when erecting the metal stud wall? I think it was discussed on here and concluded how was this ever be highlighted when doing an insulation resistance test as the screw was through the live conductor only into the metal stud being an isolated from any earth path.

It wasn't just hitting the live, it was through the live and cpc.
However, the install was not correctly tested, and the cpc was vaporised when the installation was energized, i.e. the dead testing which should have been done, and wasn't would have found the fault.
Ergo the negligence of the QS signing off the EIC, and the QS allowing inadequately skilled persons to undertake the work under their supervision, thus inadequate supervision of their subordinates also, but I'm not sure of the details of the charge.

 

[Ian1981]

Really Ian, I think that you will find that all of the e5 members will agree with me about the application of law, including all the founder members.
Would you like me to ring one of them?
Oh, and I'm not "pretending" to support e5.
That hashtag has been there for quite a while now.

If you know what e5 is about and where it came from, then you would fully understand my position on this.
In fact, if you were to attend one of the e5 18th edition seminars, you would find that the first few slides are all about the law, and how it applies to electrical work.

I never aimed that response to you if you kindly check, it was in reply to bigbob1 unless you are indeed the same person??
I’m not interested in the debate you are having with other members on here and I’ve not been involved with any comments about this.

 

[netblindpaul]

I never aimed that response to you if you kindly check, it was in reply to bigbob1 unless you are indeed the same person??

I wouldn't have a clue who it was aimed at, but I can assure you I am not bigbob1, because I'm not following all that he has posted, and I believe whilst it may need discussion that this thread is not the place to be discussing exporting PME, because that really is off topic.

So, sorry for mixing that up, but #e5 has been in my signature on here for many, many months now.

 

[Toneyz]

If so, what's it got to do with an external supply?
Just bad workmanship, surely, giving someone the opportunity to screw through a cable in such circumstances.

Replying to posts 217/19

 

[netblindpaul]

Just don't go on London Underground wearing that badge as you'll get people coming up to you asking what platform the next train is from.

No longer as it is not the same as the outline of the TFL badge any longer.