Electric Shower CCT

[festa]

Equitum.....Its all about removing the load from the source and a DP switch will do this.

Keep in mind though that an MCB only dissconects the line conductor,leaving the neutral still connected.

 

[equitum]

Equitum.....Its all about removing the load from the source and a DP switch will do this.

Keep in mind though that an MCB only dissconects the line conductor,leaving the neutral still connected.

Oh, thanks for clearing that up for me !

 

[garethg]

If a pull cord dual pole isolator can be installed in the same room, but out of reach of the person using the shower, this is the best solution.

Why does the cord have to be out of reach?

I guess that Spark123 is correct, however, my first reading and assumption was that the cord should be out of reach, so that if someone were being electrocuted in the shower, and for some reason the RCD did not trip (and a pig flew past the window, because at some stage something should give up) that the cord could be reached by a third party without putting themselves in danger.

However, I suspect that the shortening of the rules and regs that I have read, used out of reach as easier than explaining what each zone would be and where an isolating switch would be safe to use. Being out of reach would put the switch around 1.5m away, which on the ceiling, would be out of the splash zone.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS - I see no difference in a shower or cooker in terms of isolation.

Neither do I - both require effective means, suitably placed for ready operation.

A cooker may be argued to give rise to a hazard under normal operation,

So could a shower. So could any appliance, in fact.

And because a distance of "2M is generally accepted" that doesn't make it a regulation. I seem to recall you going to great lengths on a recent post to argue what people think or generally do does not alter what is a regulation or what isn't.

Indeed. Which is why I've already said to ignore the 2m issue, and just concentrate on the basic "should there be an isolator" one.

2m comes about because the regulations require effective means, suitably placed for ready operation, and it is generally agreed that 2m is the limit for "suitably placed for ready operation". But that's irrelevant, as you are arguing against the very existence of an isolating switch, not how far away it should be. You are arguing that one is not needed at all, and that a CU, which may well be, in fact is very often (most often??) not a 3 second walk away in an adjacent room or cupboard but tucked away under the stairs on a different floor, is "effective means, suitably placed for ready operation".

I disagree with that opinion.

 

[equitum]

A cooker may be argued to give rise to a hazard under normal operation,

So could a shower. So could any appliance, in fact.

I disagree. TV, under normal operation, is harmless. A cooker, under normal operation involves areas of high temperatures with risk to burns and flame with risks of both burns and fire, and therefore gives rise to hazard under normal operation. Any machine with accessible moving parts would also give rise to a hazard under normal conditions.

You are arguing that one is not needed at all...

I am not arguing that. I am arguing that the main switch or RCD incomer , in a consumer unit dedicated for the shower may perform both the function of an isolation switch for the shower along with other functions. The main switch in a consumer unit serving other circuits would not be suitable as all the other circuits would be unnecessarily affected.

.....and that a CU, which may well be, in fact is very often (most often??) not a 3 second walk away in an adjacent room or cupboard but tucked away under the stairs on a different floor, is "effective means, suitably placed for ready operation".

I disagree with that opinion.

Again, I think that you and others are confused between emergency switching and isolation. To isolate and therefore remove danger from a faulty ceiling rose in say a shower room and to fully isolate from all live conductors would require switching off at the main switch...but you would not normally expect to install a DP switch within easy reach of the luminaire.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I disagree. TV, under normal operation, is harmless. A cooker, under normal operation involves areas of high temperatures with risk to burns and flame with risks of both burns and fire, and therefore gives rise to hazard under normal operation. Any machine with accessible moving parts would also give rise to a hazard under normal conditions.

So in all the years of normal operation of electric showers there has never been one where a fault serious enough to give rise to sudden and unexpected danger has arisen?

Interesting.

I am not arguing that. I am arguing that the main switch or RCD incomer , in a consumer unit dedicated for the shower may perform both the function of an isolation switch for the shower along with other functions. The main switch in a consumer unit serving other circuits would not be suitable as all the other circuits would be unnecessarily affected.

As I said - you are arguing that a local ceiling mounted pull-cord or wall-mounted isolation switch is not needed.

Again, I think that you and others are confused between emergency switching and isolation.

Why would I do that when a local ceiling mounted pull-cord or wall-mounted isolation switch does not meet the requirements for an emergency switching device?

To isolate and therefore remove danger from a faulty ceiling rose in say a shower room and to fully isolate from all live conductors would require switching off at the main switch...but you would not normally expect to install a DP switch within easy reach of the luminaire.

No, but:

a) I would not normally expect a faulty ceiling rose to represent as serious a risk as a faulty shower.

b) There will be a light switch suitably placed for ready operation, and there is 460-01-04....