Re: [OT] DIY electrical work

Richard Goodman

"Ian Smith" <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrncrjcqg.a2a.ian@acheron.smithnet...
>> But, according to the law,
>> you must at least use a CORGI registered person to connect the supply
>> pipe,
>> the flue and the boiler together.
>
> No, that's according to Rich. According to the law, you need to be
> competent to do so.

Sheesh, doesn't anyone bother to read my follow up postings... I already
admitted I was wrong. No need to rub it in!

Anyway, one could argue the law does define 'competence' - if you're doing
it as an employed person. So there The problem is taking it to mean a
general condition of competence for all persons, ie other than employees,
which the legislation doesn't actually do - but which gas fitters will be
fond of telling you it does.

Rich

Ian Smith

On Fri, 10 Dec, Richard Goodman <rsk@NOSPAM.homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Sheesh, doesn't anyone bother to read my follow up postings... I already
> admitted I was wrong. No need to rub it in!

Depending how they are threaded and propogated, no, I don't guarantee
to read everthing you've posted before writing a response to any
particular thing. Does anyone?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Richard Goodman

>Ian Smith" <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:slrncrjte7.12q.ian@phlegethon.smithnet...
> On Fri, 10 Dec, Richard Goodman <rsk@NOSPAM.homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Sheesh, doesn't anyone bother to read my follow up postings... I already
>> admitted I was wrong. No need to rub it in!
>
> Depending how they are threaded and propogated, no, I don't guarantee
> to read everthing you've posted before writing a response to any
> particular thing. Does anyone?
>

What, read everything I've posted ? Judging by the responses, or usual
lack thereof, I doubt it. They don't know what they're missing .

Rich

David Hansen

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:27:57 -0000 someone who may be "Richard
Goodman" <rsk@NOSPAM.homechoice.co.uk> wrote this:-

>I have even heard of gas-fitters saying you can't even
>turn on your own pilot light or connect a cooker to the supply with a
>bayonnet fitting. It's in their interests to say it, although whether they
>say it out of ignorance or self-interest is perhaps debatable.

I suspect a mixture of both.

Bayonet fittings (the last time I looked at one) come with
compression joints for connecting to the gas pipe. If one is capable
of making such a joint keep in mains pressure water then one is
capable of making it keep in gas, which is at a lower pressure. Then
all one needs to do is test the pipework for soundness and the job
is done. Well within the skills of a competent DIY person. However,
the other comments about over-estimating one's competence are very
valid.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

JLB

David Hansen wrote:

> Bayonet fittings (the last time I looked at one) come with
> compression joints for connecting to the gas pipe. If one is capable
> of making such a joint keep in mains pressure water then one is
> capable of making it keep in gas, which is at a lower pressure.

That only follows if that seal is not pressure-energised. Such seals are
made effective by the differential pressure across the seal. In that
arrangement, a seal that is completely effective at high pressure can
perform poorly at low pressure. This gives some examples, but there are
others, including common uses of O-rings:

http://www.machinedesign.com/BDE/FL...3/bdefp3_2.html


--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Danny Colyer

Richard Goodman wrote:
>> Sheesh, doesn't anyone bother to read my follow up postings... I already
>> admitted I was wrong. No need to rub it in!

to which Ian Smith responded:
> Depending how they are threaded and propogated, no, I don't guarantee
> to read everthing you've posted before writing a response to any
> particular thing. Does anyone?

I thought that was pretty standard netiquette. I never post to a thread
without first having read everything in that thread that has reached my
news server. In fact, before replying to a point raised by a specific
person I will often go back and reread all of that person's posts in the
thread. That seems like common courtesy to me.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Ian Smith

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Danny Colyer <danny@speedy5.freeserve.giggle> wrote:
> Richard Goodman wrote:
> >> Sheesh, doesn't anyone bother to read my follow up postings... I already
> >> admitted I was wrong. No need to rub it in!
>
> to which Ian Smith responded:
> > Depending how they are threaded and propogated, no, I don't guarantee
> > to read everthing you've posted before writing a response to any
> > particular thing. Does anyone?
>
> I thought that was pretty standard netiquette. I never post to a thread
> without first having read everything in that thread that has reached my
> news server. In fact, before replying to a point raised by a specific
> person I will often go back and reread all of that person's posts in the
> thread. That seems like common courtesy to me.

Yes, but that doesn't guarantee that you'll have read everything a
poster has posted at a particular instant. It is also affected by how
your reader chooses to thread.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Peter B

"Danny Colyer" <danny@speedy5.freeserve.giggle> wrote in message
news:cpd486$909$2@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Richard Goodman wrote:
> >> Sheesh, doesn't anyone bother to read my follow up postings... I
already
> >> admitted I was wrong. No need to rub it in!
>
> to which Ian Smith responded:
> > Depending how they are threaded and propogated, no, I don't guarantee
> > to read everthing you've posted before writing a response to any
> > particular thing. Does anyone?
>
> I thought that was pretty standard netiquette. I never post to a thread
> without first having read everything in that thread that has reached my
> news server. In fact, before replying to a point raised by a specific
> person I will often go back and reread all of that person's posts in the
> thread. That seems like common courtesy to me.

To me it depends on the length of the thread. If it's fairly short and to my
interest I'll read all the replies and only add my opinion if it's
different to those already expressed or occasionally to add weight to one
already expressed.
On long meandering threads I often don't read all the replies but may still
feel compelled to post a reply at risk of duplication, but equally no-one
*has* to read my reply.
And then of course several of us could post replies in a short period of
time before each others has appeared.

Pete

David Hansen

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:09:39 +0000 someone who may be JLB
<JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-

>In that
>arrangement, a seal that is completely effective at high pressure can
>perform poorly at low pressure.

To repeat what I typed, "Then all one needs to do is test the
pipework for soundness and the job is done."


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.