Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Grammar Nazi required in aisle 1 please.


Recommended Posts

"...except for single dwellings, where the total value of the installation and equipment therein, does not justify such protection"

is this statement.

1, An instruction to determine a requirement?

 

2, A statement that a determination has been made?

 

3, Impossible to say as it is so piss poorly constructed.

 

Ta.

 

Edit, the context is a regulation in BS7671 setting out the requirements for SPDs, surge protection devices. 

There is a long list of places they have to be fitted followed by the above statement.

Edited by GBDamo
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, GBDamo said:

"...except for single dwellings, where the total value of the installation and equipment therein, does not justify such protection"

is this statement.

1, An instruction to determine a requirement?

 

2, A statement that a determination has been made?

 

3, Impossible to say as it is so piss poorly constructed.

 

Ta.

 

Edit, the context is a regulation in BS7671 setting out the requirements for SPDs, surge protection devices. 

There is a long list of places they have to be fitted followed by the above statement.

Easy, 1, 2 and 3.:ph34r:

(2 can do the dishes)

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry poor joke :P

what causes a power surge nowadays apart from lightning? I have an amateur interest in leccy seeing as I rewired my house myself and some people think I'm a daft bastard xD

I recall somebody once explaining to me that leccy doesn't 'jump out of the wall and attack you', you actually need to 'drag it out' to electrocute yourself.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

All these IEEE/IET regs make me laugh for domestic leccy. The codification has turned what used to be a trade into unfathomable verbiage. The debates on some of the forums are endless, and some even accuse the training companies of having it wrong. A simple example of making things complicated is the maximum area of a ring final circuit is given to be 100m2, but this used to be 1000sq.ft in old money, and has just been metricated, and clearly the 1000sq.ft was arbitrary in the first place, and plan area isn't really and indication of cable length or load. Yet, go over by 1m2 and you have failed to comply and all life on earth will end.

In response to your question, Instruction and Determination must be defined somewhere, 'cos they are being used in a specific way, bit like how sociologists appropriate everyday words to mean something unrelated to the profane use of the word.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Syd Germs said:

None.

It's not a statement. It's qualifying a statement.

IMHO.

Sorry, I'm being thick.

Some read it as,

'You don't have to fit them in single dwellings as it has been determined that the value of those dwellings doesn't warrant the cost'

Some say it means,

'You don't have to fit them in single dwellings if you can demonstrate that the value of those dwellings does not warrant the cost'

Are you saying there is another potential meaning?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, GBDamo said:

Sorry, I'm being thick.

Some read it as,

'You don't have to fit them in single dwellings as it has been determined that the value of those dwellings doesn't warrant the cost'

Some say it means,

'You don't have to fit them in single dwellings if you can demonstrate that the value of those dwellings does not warrant the cost'

Are you saying there is another potential meaning?

Isn't it valuation of the equipment you're trying to surge protect, not the dwellings.? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

#2 is #3 if it is meant to say "2, A statement that a determination has to be made?".  Presumably there is a definition of "value", for example monetary value, and a value is set, and a method of justification is set, otherwise the statement is mostly worthless as the determinations are subjective, potentially variable and inconsistent, and at an individual level. That's the problem with regulation, very hard to do right.  Often then left to individual fascists to decide whether compliance has been achieved or not.  Clapham Omnibus!

Edited by Harley
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Harley said:

#2 is #3 if it is meant to say "2, A statement that a determination has to be made?".  Presumably there is a definition of "value", for example monetary value and a value is also set otherwise the statement is mostly worthless as the determination is subjective and at an individual level. 

I know my gamma is shit, that's why I don't  write British Standards for a living, maybe I should.:D

No there is no indication of how this valuation should be conducted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was written as to say "excluding single dwellings"..  and then just provides a justification as to why.

I would say,  if you could stand up in court and present that statement,  would it be a valid justification for not having installed it ?

If the dwelling is entirely unexceptional,  then I would say definitely yes,   but it's not my industry and I'm not a legal expert.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Libspero said:

I think it was written as to say "excluding single dwellings"..  and then just provides a justification as to why.

I would say,  if you could stand up in court and present that statement,  would it be a valid justification for not having installed it ?

If the dwelling is entirely unexceptional,  then I would say definitely yes,   but it's not my industry and I'm not a legal expert.

It would be worded differently for that case but hard to word differently if it means to undertake a cost benefit type assessment.  It is, in the absence of any further direction, down to the professional to determine and a court to potentially question.  Hence BS, as originally suggested.  If the good and great wish to wade in then they should do a proper but hard job or just eff off.

There's one for insulation too.  You have to ask Building Control if you want the cert.  It's how the rich get off by hiring expensive experts to fill in the gaps to their client's advantage.  It's also why we have case law and despite the semantics, unelected judges do make "law".

Edited by Harley
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Nippy said:

All these IEEE/IET regs make me laugh for domestic leccy. The codification has turned what used to be a trade into unfathomable verbiage. The debates on some of the forums are endless, and some even accuse the training companies of having it wrong. A simple example of making things complicated is the maximum area of a ring final circuit is given to be 100m2, but this used to be 1000sq.ft in old money, and has just been metricated, and clearly the 1000sq.ft was arbitrary in the first place, and plan area isn't really and indication of cable length or load. Yet, go over by 1m2 and you have failed to comply and all life on earth will end.

In response to your question, Instruction and Determination must be defined somewhere, 'cos they are being used in a specific way, bit like how sociologists appropriate everyday words to mean something unrelated to the profane use of the word.

 

Sadly its no different to a lot of other industries. The regulations I am convinced are at least designed to create jobs. Productive work takes less time with the tools so the "lost time" needs to be invested into the paperwork so no overall "work" is lost. Never underestimate our ability to create work where there is none.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Harley said:

It would be worded differently for that case but hard to word differently if it means to undertake a cost benefit type assessment.  It is, in the absence of any further direction, down to the professional to determine and a court to potentially question.  Hence BS, as originally suggested.  If the good and great wish to wade in then they should do a proper but hard job or just eff off.


I think it’s in the commas.

If there was one comma,  it would suggest an appraisal is required,  but with two,  it reads much more like a statement and a justification.  IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Libspero said:

I think it was written as to say "excluding single dwellings"..  and then just provides a justification as to why.

I would say,  if you could stand up in court and present that statement,  would it be a valid justification for not having installed it ?

If the dwelling is entirely unexceptional,  then I would say definitely yes,   but it's not my industry and I'm not a legal expert.

I read it the same way, as do many others, there are those that vehemently disagree.

That is why I'm asking the great minds of dosbods as they have no dog in the fight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GBDamo said:

Sorry, I'm being thick.

Some read it as,

'You don't have to fit them in single dwellings as it has been determined that the value of those dwellings doesn't warrant the cost'

Some say it means,

'You don't have to fit them in single dwellings if you can demonstrate that the value of those dwellings does not warrant the cost'

Are you saying there is another potential meaning?

It is an exclusion for single dwellings only that can be applied. If you determine that the value of the installation - electronic devices and equipment attached to the installation     that may be susceptible to a surge does not justify thae cost of fitting the surge equipment then you can use that as a waiver for not fitting one.  That's my reading of it and shouldn't be a second comma.

Err. take out both commas and it becomes a statement that all single dwellings are exempt from requiring SPD's. Which looking at here seems to be the intent.

https://www.lewelectrical.co.uk/2018/08/29/18th-edition-surge-protection/ 

 

Edited by onlyme
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, onlyme said:

It is an exclusion for single dwellings only that can be applied. If you determine that the value of the installation - electronic devices and equipment attached to the installation     that may be susceptible to a surge does not justify thae cost of fitting the surge equipment then you can use that as a waiver for not fitting one.  That's my reading of it and shouldn't be a second comma.

Err. take out both commas and it becomes a statement that all single dwellings are exempt from requiring SPD's. Which looking at here seems to be the intent.

https://www.lewelectrical.co.uk/2018/08/29/18th-edition-surge-protection/ 

 

But reading that, a surge can cause damage to equipment shocks, injury and loss of life.  How could you justify not instaling SPDs no matter how small and poor the single dwelling. 

(I thought SPDs just stopped you losing your hard drive in your computer and could understand not installing it if it cost too much.) 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GBDamo said:

"...except for single dwellings, where the total value of the installation and equipment therein, does not justify such protection"

is this statement.

1, An instruction to determine a requirement?

 

2, A statement that a determination has been made?

 

3, Impossible to say as it is so piss poorly constructed.

 

Ta.

 

Edit, the context is a regulation in BS7671 setting out the requirements for SPDs, surge protection devices. 

There is a long list of places they have to be fitted followed by the above statement.

I'd have thought that it requires you or someone to have determined that the value of the dwelling or it's contained equipment is insufficient to require SPD protection.

Is that your Number 1?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Great Guy said:

I understand that when a sentence had two commas you should be able to take out the words between the commas and sentence should still make sense.

And that's the rub 'cause you can't so bad grammar: "....except for single dwellings does not justify..."!

Misplaced commas at least.  And what's a single dwelling?  Where a single person lives, a detached house, a lone house on a moor, tent, a dog kennel,....?!

Such docs, like other legal ones, should have a comprehensive and well written definitions section upfront.  This is where you get out of stuff.

Edited by Harley
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...