Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Central Heating controls

Options
1…89111314

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »
    I was debating the awareness of one responsibility for a safe installation, are you referring back to the disagreement you have with restricted works?
    You seem lost there.


  • Options
    #303
    Sir Arthur Daley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭Sir Arthur Daley


    Bruthal wrote: »
    You seem lost there.

    What are you trying to say or what point are you getting at? I was simply stating you took up the cer reply incorrect.


  • Options
    #304
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »
    What are you trying to say or what point are you getting at? I was simply stating you took up the cer reply incorrect.

    Cer say a competent person can wire as many items as they like in after a spur in heating circuit. And they give reason as being it's safe due to protective devices.

    Yet the same person can't wire in more than one socket. Yet it too has protective devices.

    So, is it all case that anything wired after a spur is immune from testing, and is minor works? I don't doubt you have that answer, since you don't seem to see any possibility the cer might not be infallible.


  • Options
    #305
    mikeyjames9
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 700 ✭✭✭mikeyjames9


    Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »
    You have missed the point also, in the email the CER reply said "If a circuit leaks or becomes overloaded downstream of the spur then the associated protective devices should activate appropriately".
    I have the word "should" in bold because its up to who ever installs and energises the circuit to make sure its electrically safe and compliant.
    Do you think for one minute if a case in court found a person who did an oil boiler heating system install and made a fatal error which results in a fatality that he could stand up in court and say oh the CER said the protective devices up to spur render any wiring and devices installed later, as now safe.

    they also said there is no mandatory requirement to test or certify the work

    maybe you missed that bit


    are you saying the safety of the work should be determined by unconventional means?

    what do you have in mind assuming the non-rec doesn't have calibrated test meters


  • Options
    #306
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    mikeyjames9 wrote: »

    what do you have in mind assuming the non-rec doesn't have calibrated test meters

    He believes no tests needed because the cer say so. And who are we to question the cer.

    Although I'm not reading too good these days. So I could be wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    mikeyjames9
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 700 ✭✭✭mikeyjames9


    Bruthal wrote: »
    He believes no tests needed because the cer say so. And who are we to question the cer.

    I have trouble understanding anything he says or what point he's trying to make most of the time

    and I was a RECI member for 15 years so I do have an idea what im talking about


  • Options
    #308
    Sir Arthur Daley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭Sir Arthur Daley


    Bruthal wrote: »
    Cer say a competent person can wire as many items as they like in after a spur in heating circuit. And they give reason as being it's safe due to protective devices.

    I cannot see where it was said it was safe, i can see where i quoted earlier "If a circuit leaks or becomes overloaded downstream of the spur then the associated protective devices should activate appropriately".
    Yet the same person can't wire in more than one socket. Yet it too has protective devices

    What number would make you happy?
    So, is it all case that anything wired after a spur is immune from testing, and is minor works? I don't doubt you have that answer, since you don't seem to see any possibility the cer might not be infallible.

    It is for an non rec.


  • Options
    #309
    Sir Arthur Daley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭Sir Arthur Daley


    mikeyjames9 wrote: »
    they also said there is no mandatory requirement to test or certify the work

    maybe you missed that bit


    are you saying the safety of the work should be determined by unconventional means?

    what do you have in mind assuming the non-rec doesn't have calibrated test meters

    You have taken my post up all wrong, read it again.


  • Options
    #310
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    mikeyjames9 wrote: »
    I have trouble understanding anything he says or what point he's trying to make most of the time

    and I was a RECI member for 15 years so I do have an idea what im talking about

    Look at last reply just there. World of confusion. Either pretending to miss the points, or more likely clueless.


  • Options
    #311
    Sir Arthur Daley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭Sir Arthur Daley


    Bruthal wrote: »
    Look at last reply just there. World of confusion. Either pretending to miss the points, or more likely clueless.

    Im answering your points, where did the cer say in the email that it's safe due to protective devices? why cannot you just debate the posts ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »
    You have taken my post up all wrong, read it again.

    But clearly you either pretend to not see points being made, or you just don't have a clue.


  • Options
    #313
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »
    Im answering your points, where did the cer say in the email that it's safe due to protective devices? why cannot you just debate the posts ?

    Why were restricted works introduced?

    Again though, you pretend to miss points. They say circuits added after spur in heating setup will operate safety devices in the event of problems. Therefore such wiring practice is safe.


  • Options
    #314
    mikeyjames9
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 700 ✭✭✭mikeyjames9


    I'm still lolling at Sir Daleys claim that there should be a maximum of 1 isolating switch on a heating circuit

    the ETCI really needs to know this

    there's another ET101 amendment coming up soon


  • Options
    #315
    Sir Arthur Daley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭Sir Arthur Daley


    Bruthal wrote: »
    But clearly you either pretend to not see points being made, or you just don't have a clue.

    Ok we Start again, in post by you #195 you said the cer says state the protective devices up to spur render any wiring and devices installed later, as now safe.
    I cannot see where they said that. Can you point out where in the 2 emails they said that?


  • Options
    #316
    Sir Arthur Daley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭Sir Arthur Daley


    mikeyjames9 wrote: »
    I'm still lolling at Sir Daleys claim that there should be a maximum of 1 isolating switch on a heating circuit

    the ETCI really needs to know this

    there's another ET101 amendment coming up soon

    Ill admit I caused confusion there. what i would like to see is the isolater beside the boiler be as the way a gas install is done. In a gas installation the isolater beside the boiler isolates everything. I apologise for that confusion.


  • Options
    #317
    Sir Arthur Daley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭Sir Arthur Daley


    Bruthal wrote: »
    Again though, you pretend to miss points. They say circuits added after spur in heating setup will operate safety devices in the event of problems. Therefore such wiring practice is safe.

    They didnt say that, you did.


  • Options
    #318
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »
    Ok we Start again, in post by you #195 you said the cer says state the protective devices up to spur render any wiring and devices installed later, as now safe.
    I cannot see where they said that. Can you point out where in the 2 emails they said that?
    CER are of the opinion that once the correct overload protection and cable size is installed the circuit will operate to a safe manner. If a circuit leaks or becomes overloaded downstream of the spur then the associated protective devices should activate appropriately.

    That seems to say their opinion is protective devices will ensure the circuit operates in a safe manner.

    No doubt that still won't satisfy your confusion. Perhaps I need to have identical wording before you can rest easy.


  • Options
    #319
    Sir Arthur Daley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭Sir Arthur Daley


    Bruthal wrote: »
    That seems to say their opinion is protective devices will ensure the circuit operates in a safe manner.

    I agree with you here.
    No doubt that still won't satisfy your confusion. Perhaps I need to have identical wording before you can rest easy.

    Can you address the point where the cer said associated protective devices should activate appropriately. What is your take on that?


  • Options
    #320
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »
    They didnt say that, you did.

    You really are taking the piss now.


  • Options
    #321
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »
    I agree with you here.



    Can you address the point where the cer said associated protective devices should activate appropriately. What is your take on that?

    None. I haven't a clue either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    mikeyjames9
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 700 ✭✭✭mikeyjames9


    Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »
    Ill admit I caused confusion there. what i would like to see is the isolater beside the boiler be as the way a gas install is done. In a gas installation the isolater beside the boiler isolates everything. I apologise for that confusion.

    ...assuming MVs are adjacent to gas boiler so they can be isolated locally too

    otherwise more than 1 will be needed to comply with wiring rules


  • Options
    #323
    Sir Arthur Daley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭Sir Arthur Daley


    Bruthal wrote: »
    None. I haven't a clue either.

    Speak for yourself, you made an opinion on half of ones statement, failed to address saying you haven't a clue. Sums it up really.


  • Options
    #324
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »
    Speak for yourself, you made an opinion on half of ones statement, failed to address saying you haven't a clue. Sums it up really.
    So now you see where the cer did in fact state protective devices make a circuit safe? Yes? Or are you still confused? Or does my posts have to match word for word?

    And now the boiler isolator thing? Now you apologise for causing confusion. In reality you were the one confused.

    Thanks for the laugh though. It's clearly pointless discussing this, because you don't see the overall point even though at least 2 posters point it out. And that is, how is it minor works to wire an entire heating system, but major works to add in 2 sockets.

    Your answer in true clueless style was, how many do I want. In reality for you, it's because the cer say so.

    Have a good day, don't spend it all on here arguing:)


  • Options
    #325
    Sir Arthur Daley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭Sir Arthur Daley


    Bruthal wrote: »

    Have a good day, don't spend it all on here arguing:)

    I sure will, let me know when your finished editing.


  • Options
    #326
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »
    I sure will, let me know when your finished editing.

    Let me know when you get your results.


  • Options
    #327
    Sir Arthur Daley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭Sir Arthur Daley


    Bruthal wrote: »
    Let me know when you get your results.

    Lots of stuff in life don't make since, don't be letting it get the better of you.


  • Options
    #328
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »
    Lots of stuff in life don't make since,
    Yes, so I see.
    don't be letting it get the better of you.
    :D


  • Options
    #329
    Dtp1979
    Registered Users Posts: 12,784 ✭✭✭✭Dtp1979


    I've seen women who were less bitchy :)


  • Options
    #330
    Sir Arthur Daley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭Sir Arthur Daley


    When someone interpreted a statement written in simple english and gets it wrong and refuses to say so is it any wonder.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »
    When someone interpreted a statement written in simple english and gets it wrong and refuses to say so is it any wonder.

    Did the cer say heating wiring is made safe by protective devices?


Advertisement