IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: C1, C2 and C3
Topic Summary: Flawed
Created On: 21 November 2016 11:37 AM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 21 November 2016 11:37 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



phantom9

Posts: 1757
Joined: 16 December 2002

Here is one for you to consider.

If a report attracts a C1, C2 or FI in the observations, it is directed by the regulators that the installation be deemed UNSATISFACTORY.

C1 and C2 are effectively the same outcome, unsatisfactory. The FI is further investigation needed so I don't agree with the unsatisfactory associated with it (guilty unless proved innocent).

C1 immediate danger, C2 potentially dangerous. Neither here, nor there IMHO. Both are serious. Effectively one and the same. I say drop 'immediately dangerous' from the coding description altogether and keep 'potentially dangerous'.

Result, C1 dangerous or potentially dangerous, C2 requires improvement, FI needs further investigation.

This would remove the ever present argument between what constitutes a C1 and C2, they both incur the same outcome anyway, and rationalises the coding of observations. My argument against the description of a C1 has always been, if its really that serious then it should be dealt with straight away and not left long enough for it to ever appear on a report. And something that consistently gets differing opinions is clearly unsuitable. It should generate consistency not diversity. Arguing over a C1 and a C2 is pointless because ultimately both produce the same outcome; unsatisfactory.

There is a dire need to redirect the focus of EICRs away from lists of spurious observations and refocus it on the condition of the wiring and accessories. The emphasis needed is on the CONDITION aspects. It is a condition report. Condition being that which exists NOW not what might happen to it IN THE FUTURE. Conjecture as to what might happen is not conducive to a condition report. Health and safety concerns surrounding what might or could happen belong in a different set of rules outside of an EICR. An EICR should only focus on the present, not the future, nor the past for that matter, should only focus on the wiring and associated accessories and it needs to be emphasised that only the CONDITION should be inspected. It is really simple. You look for damage, signs of overheating, burning, loose mountings, exposed basic insulation, exposed conductors, presence of cpc's and earth conductors, that sort of thing. NOT missing diffusers off a light fitting. If the light fitting is undamaged it is safe. That is the purpose of a condition report.

Lets get the basics right shall we!!
 21 November 2016 11:45 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



phantom9

Posts: 1757
Joined: 16 December 2002

Edited by P9

Edited: 21 November 2016 at 02:38 PM by phantom9
 21 November 2016 12:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



justinneedham

Posts: 86
Joined: 21 January 2005

Well for my part, I find customers are unable to comprehend EICR's in the way they are written. The structure is necessary for the electrician to cover his/her back I think, but does very little for the Customer (AKA the "Person who ordered the report").
This is I think, intended, - but always seems to be lacking as a "service".
My customers generally glaze over at the sight of an EICR, and just ask "So is it safe?..". - They also only want to know exactly just what is needed to make it thus, and are rather surprised, having having spent so much to get it done, that a written statement of works needed is explicitly excluded.
I end writing a separate letter in plain English just to let the above know what's really happening. The EICR will get filed and probably not looked at again - at least by the customer.
 21 November 2016 12:41 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 9974
Joined: 18 January 2003

I agree the system is flawed and needs sorting out.

We as installation electricians should install two levels of protection against electric shock, so with insulated and sheathed single cable used as meter tails a section of bare copper conductor is a code one as both levels of protection is missing, whereas if the outer sheath is over stripped exposing the inner insulation it is a code two as one of the two levels of protection is missing.

I explain it to the customers as if you may die if you touch it it is code one, if something else has to happen first such as the insulation being damaged then it is a code two.

Now the problem in in all that is if both the inner insulation and the outer sheath could be severed in one foul swoop by a piece of steel being swung around in a fabrication shop, then because of the engineering environment additional supplementary protection is required by enclosing the tails to protect them, okay so the tails are enclosed in steel trunking, but that length of steel could smash through the meter itself, so it's still not safe is it. The answer is to build a substantial cupboard around the whole of the intake, tails and meters to provide the supplementary protection required, rather than just focusing on the bit of wire.

We have to consider the full installation, not just bits of it.

Andy
 21 November 2016 02:56 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



phantom9

Posts: 1757
Joined: 16 December 2002

Thank you both for constructive comments. Taking the point about how customers receive an EICR that is absolutely valid. The IET would have us all believe Joe Public and Company Managers alike understand schedules of test results and understand lists of inspection schedules that quite frankly couldn't be further from the truth. I would ask the question is it really that important to have a schedule of test results in an EICR? Your comment that the customer asks at the end "Is it safe?" gives credence to my point. So does the structure of an EICR lend itself to proper reporting to a customer? I would say not. It resembles too closely an Electrical Installation Certificate. Initial verification of an electrical installation requires all of the tests that are listed and scheduled. An EICR absolutely does not.

The coding system is flawed, really flawed, in that it creates divisions in reporting. What good is a reporting system that creates so much difference of opinion and what good is a coding system that uses the word dangerous and potentially dangerous in separate scenarios. It really is appalling that an institution as important as the IET can get it so wrong.

The bottom line when it comes to reporting on the condition of an electrical installation is to answer the purpose and intention, "is it safe"?. The present regime only lends itself to making electricians lots of money by avoiding the question entirely and just finding lots of things to upgrade and the safety aspect is ignored. Their ethos presumably being that if you work on the installation then you are making it safe. It doesn't really deal with the aspect of checking whether it actually is.

I will keep mentioning the missing diffuser on a light fitting as the level of depth that seems to be prevalent in an inspection instead of tightening up a terminal in an accessory which will have far more benefit than a spurious comment about a light fitting. Loose connections cause the most amount of problems yet that is woefully underestimated in the current regime. Few are ever checked. I know this from experience. Will the IET do anything about it? Are they too proud to admit they have got it hopelessly wrong? Testing should take secondary importance to checking and inspecting. Initial verification, testing priority, existing safety check, testing secondary.

Edited: 21 November 2016 at 03:03 PM by phantom9
 21 November 2016 03:53 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 15855
Joined: 13 August 2003

My argument against the description of a C1 has always been, if its really that serious then it should be dealt with straight away and not left long enough for it to ever appear on a report.

Ideally I'd agree - however in practice there are many situations where the customer wouldn't want you to fix/alter/disconnect things immediately - anything from medial situations where disconnection (or even in some case switching off for long enough to work on) would cause far more danger than the original fault. Or "political" situations - e.g. where there's a dispute with the original installer and they want evidence, but no excuses that someone else has messed about in the meantime. In these cases I think there is value in being able to convey, officially, that some things are more dangerous and need immediate attention of some kind (which might not be electrical - it might be just putting the room off limits) - otherwise there's the risk of everything just being put on the same to-do list and C1 situations being dealt with as if they were C2.

I will keep mentioning the missing diffuser on a light fitting

Are you sure you haven't got the wrong end of the stick on that one? If you're thinking of the flimsy diffusers that get attached to standard batten fluorescents - that's not what the other thread was about (at least to my reading). It was you that mentioned the lack of "diffusers" - not the OP. The OP simply mentioned fittings with bare tubes - unenclosed fittings in other words. In an industrial situation where fittings were positioned where impact was likely (if that indeed was the situation) I'd expect fittings with a suitable IK rating (impact resistant - e.g. like these http://www.thornlighting.com/e...ghting/ImpactForce_II) - just like if they were out of doors and exposed to the weather I'd expect them to have a suitable IP rating.

The bottom line when it comes to reporting on the condition of an electrical installation is to answer the purpose and intention, "is it safe"?. The present regime only lends itself to making electricians lots of money by avoiding the question entirely and just finding lots of things to upgrade and the safety aspect is ignored.

I agree that sometimes EICRs have been used by the dishonest simply as a vehicle to make money - both by over-egging the risks and indeed by taking the money to do a full inspection and then not looking thoroughly enough (one Zs test in the hall socket kind of thing). Done properly, an EICR should be more than just a y/n answer to 'is it safe' - it should also be a means of communicating to whoever is appointed to undertake the repairs exactly what the problems are. While a small householder might just get his local trusted sparks in to do the inspection and 'make it safe' - many commercial operations (and smarter householders) will deliberately get an inspection done by someone independent - specifically to avoid the 'over egging' problems. Ideally should also provide a picture of the state of installation so that changes over time (e.g. reducing insulation resistance values) can be monitored (although I admit that's unlikely to happen in practice at the cheaper end of the market).

Condition being that which exists NOW not what might happen to it IN THE FUTURE. Conjecture as to what might happen is not conducive to a condition report. Health and safety concerns surrounding what might or could happen belong in a different set of rules outside of an EICR. An EICR should only focus on the present, not the future, nor the past for that matter, should only focus on the wiring and associated accessories and it needs to be emphasised that only the CONDITION should be inspected. It is really simple. You look for damage, signs of overheating, burning, loose mountings, exposed basic insulation, exposed conductors, presence of cpc's and earth conductors, that sort of thing.

I'm not sure I follow - are you suggesting you won't code a non-IP rated fitting outdoors if it wasn't raining at the time of the inspection? Or the lack of fire-resistant cable supports if the building wasn't in flames while you where there? Or a flex buried direct 6" down in a flowerbed if one-one had put a garden fork through it yet?

- Andy.
 21 November 2016 04:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OMS

Posts: 22359
Joined: 23 March 2004

Will the IET do anything about it? Are they too proud to admit they have got it hopelessly wrong? Testing should take secondary importance to checking and inspecting. Initial verification, testing priority, existing safety check, testing secondary.


Have you actually read 621.2

It seems to me that is exactly what BS 7671 requires ?

OMS

-------------------------
Let the wind blow you, across a big floor.
 21 November 2016 09:03 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 9974
Joined: 18 January 2003

I've been caught out tonight.

A callout after a bath overflow resulting in water coming through the kitchen ceiling and fluorescent light fitting.

I removed the light fitting and the wires were terminated in push fit connectors inside the fitting enclosure upfront of the actual fitting terminations. So I spread the wires out and dried them with a paper towel, fitted a temporary pendant set and did a live to neutral 500 volt insulation test, all good so I turned the power back on.

Then I made the mistake of wrapping the conductors back tight together resulting in a flash and a bang, I had missed seeing that the inner insulation had been damaged when the sheath had been stripped.

Unfortunately there were five people watching me, who didn't look too impressed when it went bang, anyway I cut the ends of the cables off and had a fresh start allowing me to show them the cause of the problem.

Testing will not always pick up what inspection missed.

Andy
 21 November 2016 09:09 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



psychicwarrior

Posts: 550
Joined: 18 October 2010

I don't think it is that bad P9. Certainly not flawed. The codings are OK and the difference between a c1 and c2 is useful. The FI is appropriate too I would say. The content of the report is of interest and value from a number of perspectives so its content seems OK to me - it may benefit from better structure or splitting up etc but it would never be perfect for everyone. I'm not convinced that reinventing the report is the correct approach to tackling what I take from your points which seem to and perhaps fairly, question the ability and integrity of some involved in compiling them. Its not the report's fault it gets misused and abused. I hate any paper work full stop...that's why I don't like it. :-)
 21 November 2016 10:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jonny705

Posts: 153
Joined: 26 September 2015

I only work on domestic property's, but can honestly say 95% of the customers haven't a clue what the report means, don't read the 'notes ' that try and explain, and as someone says - just want to know is it safe?
And probably more concerned with how much it will cost to rectify it.

IMO if the report was totally re-written with every detail and eventuality on it, is still comes down to the experience of the person , and more importantly I think, the integrity to do a good thorough job.

Take sampling on a ring main , you can get away with a couple ,or do everyone that is accessible, (I do) it takes about 30-45 seconds to get a zs test, it's not that hard to check every one.

Also know for a fact that I have re-wired kitchens, no earth on lighting circuits, supplied with fancy steel switches, told customer they cannot have them, go back at a later date, and they are fitted.

I see new showers fitted all the time by themselves or some mate, it's not hard to change one, but most modern ones overload cable - do they care?
Sometimes yes , until they find out the cost of running 10 or 16mm and wreaking their decor , don't often hear from them again.

I always write in the notes , and often a covering letter to explain the faults , such as above, in basic terms, so they can hopefully understand - but for me personally to cover myself.

If the people have changed the switches back to class 1, because they don't like the plastic ones I have fitted, and their child got electrocuted, I would probably be up in court, I also take photos now of any dodgy stuff and file it on my pc with report and notes.

When I file a EICR online, or anything suspect on any certificate (I am with stroma) I will type it in the 'Notes' section -at least it is time stamped, and would potentially cover me .

I know a an Estate Agent that gets EICR done for mortgage purposes for £50 , it surely doesn't matter how perfect they could be, or could me made , there will always be people that will do dodgy underhand stuff - it happens in every walk of life, and will never change.
 22 November 2016 08:47 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



phantom9

Posts: 1757
Joined: 16 December 2002

There really is no need nor benefit in distinguishing between a C1 and a C2 as is the current practice. It could quite easily be grouped and made C1 is dangerous or potentially dangerous. The point here is too many inconsistencies exist. Electricians will always argue whether something should be a C1 or a C2 and that situations just not acceptable. We NEED consistency and certainty. It doesn't really matter whether something is dangerous or potentially dangerous in the summing up of a problem found in the installation. It would be blatantly obvious if something was very dangerous and needed sorting out urgently (at least I hope it would) but that would not change the outcome under the present system.

Which brings me to another point. Why should an entire installation be deemed unsatisfactory if there are only one or two dangerous or potentially dangerous faults identified? Surely the CIRCUIT affected should only be deemed unsatisfactory and not the entire installation?

Thirdly, and this theme underlies many comments throughout the forum, threat of court action should something be found lacking in your inspection. Fear of prosecution should not concern you if you do a reasonable and conscientious job. Quite frankly if you fear that then please don't get involved in the first place. When you are checking for faults and damage on an installation you cannot reasonably be expected to find every single possible problem that may be present. That in itself shows clear misunderstanding of the task in hand.

Personally I am tired of seeing all the differences of opinion as to what constitutes a C1, C2 or C3 in the present system. If opinion is really that divided then it is flawed, as I stated in my opening post.

Why do we need a schedule of test results that is exactly the same as the one in an EIC? The initial verification of an installation is completely different to an assessment of the condition of an existing one. I am not going to try to say how it should be changed but there really is a need to do so.

There are certain people on this forum who will never agree to anything I say. Those people know who they are and I do too. Lets just leave it there.
 22 November 2016 08:58 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dustydazzler

Posts: 1362
Joined: 19 January 2016

P9 , I think you raise value points and the current testing and inspection of old installations leaves the door open for too much difference of opinion. Conjecture sir , conjecture I tell thee
 22 November 2016 09:49 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OMS

Posts: 22359
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: phantom9

There really is no need nor benefit in distinguishing between a C1 and a C2 as is the current practice.

Why not - if you think in terms of the concept of single fault and double fault to danger, it makes perfect sense to most people


It could quite easily be grouped and made C1 is dangerous or potentially dangerous.

Surely as an ex CDM guy, you realise that there is a hierarchy of risk - not all hazards are as easily realised


The point here is too many inconsistencies exist. Electricians will always argue whether something should be a C1 or a C2 and that situations just not acceptable. We NEED consistency and certainty. It doesn't really matter whether something is dangerous or potentially dangerous in the summing up of a problem found in the installation.

So you want a tick box and everyone else realises that it needs skill and judgement exercised by competent people in a particular situation ?


It would be blatantly obvious if something was very dangerous and needed sorting out urgently (at least I hope it would) but that would not change the outcome under the present system.

Well, it would be a C1 rather than a C2, and the appropriate action taken - the outcome is still unsatisfactory in either case - which is as it should be - if it's rectified, then it's no longer a C1 (or C2)


Which brings me to another point. Why should an entire installation be deemed unsatisfactory if there are only one or two dangerous or potentially dangerous faults identified? Surely the CIRCUIT affected should only be deemed unsatisfactory and not the entire installation?

Well, only if that fault can be dealt with in isolation surely - a N-E fault on one circuit could easily disable earth leakage protection for example - or an uncleared L-E fault on another circuit raise the potential of the MET and thus the whole installation - lack of bonding affects all circuits

Thirdly, and this theme underlies many comments throughout the forum, threat of court action should something be found lacking in your inspection.

Don't be so naive - insures sell the risk to clients, clients sell it to anyone willing to take it - like everyone, electricians are subject to the law and operate under a common law duty of care as ordinary competent persons

Fear of prosecution should not concern you if you do a reasonable and conscientious job. Quite frankly if you fear that then please don't get involved in the first place. When you are checking for faults and damage on an installation you cannot reasonably be expected to find every single possible problem that may be present. That in itself shows clear misunderstanding of the task in hand.

An awareness of obligation rather than fear of prosecution is perfectly reasonable - as I said, the duty of an ordinary competent person - if the activity or action is examined, could someone reach a decision that the actions were those of a reasonable person

Personally I am tired of seeing all the differences of opinion as to what constitutes a C1, C2 or C3 in the present system. If opinion is really that divided then it is flawed, as I stated in my opening post.

Again, it's always going to be subjective - that's how it should be - and why we employ competent people to examine the installation in context. You seem to be suggesting that the analysis of risk is identical in every installation - clearly it isn't

Why do we need a schedule of test results that is exactly the same as the one in an EIC?

To examine against the original criteria to identify deterioration, degradation, unknown changes ?

The initial verification of an installation is completely different to an assessment of the condition of an existing one. I am not going to try to say how it should be changed but there really is a need to do so.

Of course it is - they serve different purposes

There are certain people on this forum who will never agree to anything I say. Those people know who they are and I do too. Lets just leave it there.

Sometimes, they really are out to get you, you mean




I don't understand what you are actually suggesting we move towards based on your clear dislike of various basic forms in the back of BS 7671 - to me, the form isn't perfect for all situations, but it's just a model form and can easily be "tailored to suit" - elementary I would have thought, Watson

OMS

-------------------------
Let the wind blow you, across a big floor.
 22 November 2016 09:51 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OMS

Posts: 22359
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: dustydazzler

P9 , I think you raise value points and the current testing and inspection of old installations leaves the door open for too much difference of opinion. Conjecture sir , conjecture I tell thee


So you want a "go - no go" tick box for numpties ?

What happened to "competent persons, with above average knowledge of the installation type under consideration"

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Let the wind blow you, across a big floor.
 22 November 2016 10:01 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



psychicwarrior

Posts: 550
Joined: 18 October 2010

Aww P9 - it's a difference of opinion, not a disagreement ;-)

I have thought the same about the whole installation as opposed to that of the circuit (depending) on occasion - but if a number of issues crop up at some point it may be the whole installation. Would having the option further complicate the document!

Of course one could simplify it to just Dangerous (C1 & C2) or Improvement Req. (C3) and giving the former would result in unsatisfactory just as a C1 & C2 do anyway as you acknowledge ? So I do not think the general outcome is altered other than the technical argument of what constitutes a C1 or a C2.

At the risk of inviting a difference of opinion :-) ....re: C1 and C2 - a C1 is *immediately* dangerous (e.g. touch it and yer doomed) and needs fixing (or temp. fix) straight away - C2 is a situation where it is potentially dangerous as in it probably needs something else to happen for it to kill yer (or burn yer down etc). FI would be as it says, where one was not able to make a concrete assessment but suspect the investigation may lead to an outcome of a C1 (or a C2) . That's how I would apply the thinking. It's just a small level of distinction with C1, C2 and not hard to fathom in my mind.

Having a the Schedule is perhaps useful as an EIC might not contain a full list (mind you neither might an EICR if limitations apply) - and I think they should be retained to help show any changes over time (if the EICR has been carried out and recorded well of course). There may only ever be the one EIC (or none! ooerr) . Again, as most comment on here - it is quite common to fins a complete absence of paper work anyway....so why bother at all!

As I say, the EICR is meant to provide info to a number of vested interests.

Best wishes for today all.

Edited: 22 November 2016 at 10:09 AM by psychicwarrior
 22 November 2016 03:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



phantom9

Posts: 1757
Joined: 16 December 2002

My closing comment was not aimed at any of the posters on this thread.

I just don't know where the ideas come from that launch the requirements that end up as a burden in the Regulations. In some respects I feel that the people who write them have little or no experience actually doing the job else they would not write some of the rules as written.

It is odd that every challenge to the Regulations invites some forum members (not you) to just object object object, mainly because, I suspect, they can't deal with the notion that someone might actually have a better idea than they. I am after all quite intelligent and can delve in to subjects with clear thought processes. The main problem faced with trying to point out errors or clumsy Regulations is the unwillingness to accept they could be wrong and the never ending objection with never ending self supporting opinion to back up the objection. It would be really nice, sometimes, if somebody actually said, you know what, your right, lets see if we can get it sorted. Hah, that would be a response to behold.

And, btw, thank you.
 22 November 2016 04:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OMS

Posts: 22359
Joined: 23 March 2004

Why don't you approach JPEL, P9 - they are always willing to have people who are quite intelligent and can delve in to subjects with clear thought processes - particularly if you can give guidance with trying to point out errors or clumsy Regulations

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Let the wind blow you, across a big floor.
 22 November 2016 05:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



phantom9

Posts: 1757
Joined: 16 December 2002

Originally posted by: OMS

Why don't you approach JPEL, P9 - they are always willing to have people who are quite intelligent and can delve in to subjects with clear thought processes - particularly if you can give guidance with trying to point out errors or clumsy Regulations

Regards

OMS


OMS. Can I ask you to use that function on the forum dashboard and ignore me please. I will do the same for you. Thank you.
 22 November 2016 05:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OMS

Posts: 22359
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: phantom9

Originally posted by: OMS

Why don't you approach JPEL, P9 - they are always willing to have people who are quite intelligent and can delve in to subjects with clear thought processes - particularly if you can give guidance with trying to point out errors or clumsy Regulations

Regards

OMS


OMS. Can I ask you to use that function on the forum dashboard and ignore me please. I will do the same for you. Thank you.



Awwww - but you're such good fun, P9 - and besides, you wouldn't want to be excluding anyone from the debate, surely

OMS

-------------------------
Let the wind blow you, across a big floor.
 22 November 2016 06:03 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



leckie

Posts: 4329
Joined: 21 November 2008

Blimey, don't start doing exclusions! All we are doing is trying to arrive at some sensible conclusions/solutions.

Now that is, as we all know, difficult in the world of EICR's. One reason is that the installations that we inspect are various types, sizes and complexities. Also different ages, carried out to different editions of the regulations, etc. We also have to inspect installations as we find them at that point in time, and give consideration to how they are being used at that time, etc. So it's not easy to have a one size fits all solution.

We have various guidance for trade organisations, guidance notes, etc. There are books specific to periodic inspections as well as general inspections. They all give you things to think about. I would like to read a book dedicated to the inspection process of an EICR that address various scenarios and discusses the associated risk for different situations. So it might consider why the same non compliance might be a C2 or a C3 depending on circumstances. But as there is no book like that, we can discuss it on here instead. We don't have to fall out, just talk it through.

Regarding model forms; well Lyle has posted several times saying he has designed his own. That inspired me to do likewise. Now if I decide I want bits of information that are on the NICEIC model forms, I include that. If I don't , then I omit it so that it is more in line with the IET form. The model test result sheet is used to cover initial verification and EICR's. That doesn't mean you have to use that form. Mine have what I want on them; and I change them to suit the circumstances. Dead easy, only took me about 100 hours to put them together!

Must go and turn my oven off before my cottage pie I have made burns the cheese on the top!
IET » Wiring and the regulations » C1, C2 and C3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

New here?


See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2017 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.

..