IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: EMMA SHAW CASE
Topic Summary: Result of the Court case
Created On: 31 March 2014 04:35 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - John Peckham - 31 March 2014 04:35 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - John Peckham - 31 March 2014 05:19 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 31 March 2014 05:23 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 31 March 2014 05:26 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - John Peckham - 31 March 2014 05:30 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - impvan - 31 March 2014 05:31 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - rocknroll - 31 March 2014 05:46 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - perspicacious - 31 March 2014 06:02 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - jcm256 - 31 March 2014 06:03 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - aligarjon - 31 March 2014 08:21 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - jcm256 - 31 March 2014 08:53 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - aligarjon - 31 March 2014 10:26 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - sparkingchip - 31 March 2014 11:54 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - antric2 - 01 April 2014 12:40 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Zoro - 01 April 2014 09:23 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - davezawadi - 01 April 2014 10:57 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 01 April 2014 11:17 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - mapj1 - 01 April 2014 12:41 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - antric2 - 01 April 2014 12:46 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - aligarjon - 01 April 2014 08:07 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 01 April 2014 09:15 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - weirdbeard - 01 April 2014 03:27 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 01 April 2014 11:15 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 01 April 2014 11:36 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 01 April 2014 12:23 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 01 April 2014 01:14 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 01 April 2014 01:43 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 01 April 2014 01:22 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - davezawadi - 01 April 2014 02:14 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - ennel - 01 April 2014 07:07 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Zoro - 02 April 2014 10:20 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - weirdbeard - 01 April 2014 03:21 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 01 April 2014 03:28 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 01 April 2014 03:15 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 01 April 2014 03:27 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - John Peckham - 01 April 2014 03:36 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 02 April 2014 09:05 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 02 April 2014 09:10 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 02 April 2014 10:16 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - sparkingchip - 02 April 2014 12:00 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 02 April 2014 06:57 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 02 April 2014 09:15 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 02 April 2014 09:21 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 02 April 2014 09:38 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - mapj1 - 02 April 2014 10:26 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 02 April 2014 12:06 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 02 April 2014 12:14 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - mapj1 - 02 April 2014 01:20 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 02 April 2014 01:50 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 02 April 2014 03:04 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 02 April 2014 04:13 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - GeoffBlackwell - 02 April 2014 04:22 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - rocknroll - 02 April 2014 04:26 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 02 April 2014 05:50 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 02 April 2014 06:36 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Zuiko - 02 April 2014 07:02 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - geoffsd - 02 April 2014 07:33 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 02 April 2014 08:24 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 02 April 2014 11:38 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - mawry - 03 April 2014 02:39 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - briandoherty - 06 April 2014 06:09 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Zs - 07 April 2014 07:27 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - mawry - 08 April 2014 11:13 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - mikejumper - 08 April 2014 07:46 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - napitprofessional - 09 April 2014 12:06 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Zoro - 09 April 2014 10:50 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - napitprofessional - 09 April 2014 02:01 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 02 April 2014 08:23 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Parsley - 02 April 2014 10:30 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - electricman - 02 April 2014 11:06 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - ericmark - 03 April 2014 02:37 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Zoro - 04 April 2014 09:20 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - John Peckham - 06 April 2014 03:53 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - electricman - 08 April 2014 11:19 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 08 April 2014 11:23 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - mikejumper - 09 April 2014 04:42 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 09 April 2014 05:14 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - psychicwarrior - 10 April 2014 08:56 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - napitprofessional - 11 April 2014 05:54 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - davezawadi - 12 April 2014 11:46 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - sparkingchip - 12 April 2014 12:33 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - John Peckham - 12 April 2014 01:21 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - weirdbeard - 12 April 2014 06:28 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - sparkingchip - 12 April 2014 06:51 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - weirdbeard - 12 April 2014 08:11 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - sparkingchip - 12 April 2014 10:57 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 12 April 2014 04:02 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Grobbyman - 12 April 2014 05:44 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Zoro - 12 April 2014 06:11 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Fm - 12 April 2014 11:26 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - sparkingchip - 12 April 2014 11:37 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Fm - 12 April 2014 11:40 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - sparkingchip - 13 April 2014 12:04 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 13 April 2014 09:25 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 14 April 2014 10:13 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - potential - 14 April 2014 10:32 AM  
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 02 April 2014 07:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



geoffsd

Posts: 2342
Joined: 15 June 2010

Phantom - the water pipe would have been earthed by its connection to boiler and immersion.
In this case the bonding made no difference.


A few years ago an MP's daughter was killed because of another screw into a line conductor with no contact to the cpc..
This screw was attaching a metal kitchen hook to the wall.
The lady was killed when she touched the wall hook at the same time as her leg was touching the washing machine.

So, in this case it would have been better had the wall hook been earthed and the washing machine not earthed.
I think you will agree that no one would advocate that for every household.

Unfortunately, accidents happen and there is always an odd solution where it would not have happened.
 02 April 2014 08:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OMS

Posts: 22864
Joined: 23 March 2004

I understand the need for earthing.

Good

All circuits are earthed and the main earthing conductor completes the earthing of the circuits. The part where I disagree is bringing extraneous-conductive-parts in to the electrical system by placing bonding conductors on them.

Think about that again - if they are extraneous, they already have a potential (usually earth potential) - if you touch a metal item with an earth fault and that extraneous conductive part at earth potential you experience a touch voltage - it's what we used to call an indirect contact shock.

If I bond that conductor to the MET the fault causing the aplliance case to rise in voltage also pulls up that extraneous part and the voltage between the parts (ie the touch voltage experienced by the person is reduced


It is pure theory is it not that this earthing system comprising of earth, main bonding and supplementary bonding makes parts that would not otherwise be part of the electrical system safer if they do inadvertently acquire a voltage through a fault.

It most certainly is not theory - it a physical fact - ohms law dictates it

It is a well known fact that CURRENT causes death not VOLTAGE.

LoL - you'll be telling me next that "it's the volts that jolt but the mills that kill" - it is incredibly difficult to seperate the amps from the volts when you have a resonably fixed impedance like a human body
OK - if you want to be a pedant, if I apply a voltage to an impedance, then we will have current - the value of current being dictated by the voltage and the impedance combination. As the human body impedance is broadly fixed, then less or more voltage means less or more current - ohms law again.

A voltage can be present on something but current will only flow if a circuit can be made.

Indeed, the human body has impedance so the circuit is always made if only by capacitive coupling - why do you think we have limits on systems like Medical IT arrangements that are protecting from micro shock - in those kind of cases we are taking about perhaps a few milliamps in a suppressed patient being fatal

50mA of current is sufficient to kill.

It's a lot less than that actually - depends on the person and where we apply it - a few mills will do the job once we are through the skin - don't forget the human body is just a resonably tough bag containing lots of conductive fluids

Merely touching a live part if no current can flow will not kill you but you will get a painful shock if the voltage is big enough.

You would need to be very highly insulated for no current to flow - and that's not practicable in reality. I suspect Emma Shaw was already experiencing some current flow before she touched earthy metalwork



Seriously, you need to research and understand the touch voltage concept - because if you let your current thinking drive your design approach regarding bonding of extraneous conductive parts (or not in your case) then that is truly dangerous.

Do not let a little knowledge cause you a problem- take the time to understand the basic science behind the reasons for earthing and bonding - trust me, they are rooted in good science

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Let the wind blow you, across a big floor.
 02 April 2014 11:38 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



phantom9

Posts: 1757
Joined: 16 December 2002

Originally posted by: OMS



Seriously, you need to research and understand the touch voltage concept - because if you let your current thinking drive your design approach regarding bonding of extraneous conductive parts (or not in your case) then that is truly dangerous.

Do not let a little knowledge cause you a problem- take the time to understand the basic science behind the reasons for earthing and bonding - trust me, they are rooted in good science

Regards

OMS


Just to reassure you I do carry out main equipotential bonding! My debate is about trying to justify it. I have GN8 but not GN5. I will add that to my list.
 03 April 2014 02:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mawry

Posts: 334
Joined: 26 April 2004

There's a book by BD Jenkins. Electrical installation calculations which has a nice bit on the Touch Voltage Concept in one of the appendices. You can get the latest version from Amazon for 20 odd quid.

Someone also posted on here a few years back a very nice spreadsheet that was very good at indicating the relationships between V, I and R1, R2 etc.
 06 April 2014 06:09 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



briandoherty

Posts: 313
Joined: 08 May 2004

Originally posted by: mawry
There's a book by BD Jenkins. Electrical installation calculations which has a nice bit on the Touch Voltage Concept in one of the appendices. You can get the latest version from Amazon for 20 odd quid.
Someone also posted on here a few years back a very nice spreadsheet that was very good at indicating the relationships between V, I and R1, R2 etc.

I guess there's a chance that the spreadsheet referred to is the one I spent rather more of my employer's time on than I ought to have done when there was money to be earned elsewhere....brian's fault current / touch voltage spreadsheet

-------------------------
Regards,

Brian
 07 April 2014 07:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zs

Posts: 3877
Joined: 20 July 2006

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...fined-just-1-000.html

Daily Mail article for your information.

Zs
 08 April 2014 11:13 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mawry

Posts: 334
Joined: 26 April 2004

That's the one Brian, nice work!
 08 April 2014 07:46 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mikejumper

Posts: 2810
Joined: 14 December 2006

If testing had been carried out properly would it have picked up this fault?

If the screw just clipped the live conductor on it's way into the metal studwork, thereby connecting the two together, how would any of the insulation tests we usually do show this?
 09 April 2014 12:06 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



napitprofessional

Posts: 452
Joined: 08 March 2008

Originally posted by: mikejumper

If testing had been carried out properly would it have picked up this fault?



If the screw just clipped the live conductor on it's way into the metal studwork, thereby connecting the two together, how would any of the insulation tests we usually do show this?



In this case, insulation testing would have found the fault instantly. It was self-evident, therefore, that the testing had not been done - even though the (apparently) "industry standard" value of 200 meg was entered onto the forms, albeit in the wrong column.

Clearly, Anchor Building and Electrical (in line with so many others) subscribed to the ongoing notion that lack of measured test results should not stand in the way of producing a completed certificate ....

I wonder when the next "one-off" will occur?

-------------------------
B. Eng (Hons) MIET
 09 April 2014 10:50 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zoro

Posts: 300
Joined: 31 July 2011

Nobody should take comfort at the thought of not testing, in the case of Emma Shaw, that maybe the fault may not have been found by testing to BS7671.

By forensic examination and evidence given in court, the screw was touching both live and cpc, which IR tests before energisation would have found.

After the incident the IR tests carried out, gave a reading of 0.2M ohm, even when the screw threads had been blown away by the fault current.

No dead test were carried out, and test results were made up, and entered onto the certificate by the Non competent, Unqualified Certifier.

The QS certified that he had checked the NICEIC certificate, but it had multiple errors. The QS has a personal responsibility to supervise but he did not, he has a personal responsibility to check the certificate he did not.

Part P Schemes are based on the flawed NICEIC QS system, they do not require individual Competence I believe this was a contributing factor.

The fact that the NICEIC are fighting to retain this system on the basis that it would be to expensive is disgusting, especially when they are owned by the Electrical Safety Council, or whatever they are calling themselves this week.

It was good that the Select Committee rejected this propaganda and told the Schemes to comply with having individual Competence. The only expense would be to contractors that charge for an Electrician and don't supply one.

.
 09 April 2014 02:01 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



napitprofessional

Posts: 452
Joined: 08 March 2008

How will the public react to being charged more for what they already think they are paying for and getting .....

-------------------------
B. Eng (Hons) MIET
Statistics

New here?

  • To participate in discussions, please log in and introduce yourself.

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2022 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.

 
..