SWA, sockets, and freedom from RCDs

[ColJack]

special consideration should be given

to any room containing skirting boards.

to any room containing built in cupboards or shelving.

to any room containing a cornice.

to any room where someone may desire to fix a corner table or cupboard.

all of which are true, but doing things like that require some form of common sense and DIY know how..
the wife banging in a nail to hang the latest in a long line of frufi pictures requires ( and often demonstrates ) no such common sense..

 

[NoHounds]

also RCDs on lighting circuits are more dangerous than non-RCD protected lighting circuits

 

[RF Lighting]

How exactly?

 

[Lectrician]

I am not particularly a fan of RCD's and lighting circuits, although the hassle of B6 and blows blowing is far more inconvenient (or 'dangerous').

Fitting a few lighting circuits to a property rather than just one up r down has been agreed as the way to tackle these issues. The un-written rule to adopt is having the sockets down left on a different RCD than sockets down right, with the lights visa-versa.

 

[NoHounds]

How exactly?

because(or from what i heard anyway)

1)lighting on RCDs can cause early lighting failure in a fire, and has resulted in death due to failure to escape.

2)lighting on RCD can also cause lighting failures which can result in stair falls, which claim many lives every year.

3)lighting results in 0 deaths by electrocution per year, so addition of RCD to lighting is not of value.

 

[RF Lighting]

because(or from what i heard anyway)

Who did you hear this from?

1)lighting on RCDs can cause early lighting failure in a fire, and has resulted in death due to failure to escape.

The only way fire would cause an RCD to trip would be a short circuit fault caused by heat / smoke damage to wiring / accessories. This would trip an MCB / blow a fuse anyway.

Can you cite a single example of someone loosing there life in these circumstances?

2)lighting on RCD can also cause lighting failures which can result in stair falls, which claim many lives every year.

Why do you think a healthy RCD protected lighting circuit is more prone to failure than an MCB protected one?


Can you cite a single example of someone loosing there life in these circumstances?

3)lighting results in 0 deaths by electrocution per year, so addition of RCD to lighting is not of value.

So no one has been electrocuted by a lighting circuit ever?

What do you do when faced with installing lights on a TT installation?

 

[NoHounds]

i heard it from a other website about rewiring advice

 

[RF Lighting]

Oh it must be true then.

Can you provide a link to this website?

 

[NoHounds]

Oh it must be true then.

Can you provide a link to this website?

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Category:Electrical

 

[Taylortwocities]

I have had a quick look at just one thing on that site as a quick test.

Here is their description of "low voltage"

Category:Low Voltage
From DIYWiki

The place for all things of well below mains voltage.

The term 'low voltage' has different usage by different groups of people, and significant variation exists in the usage of the term.

This is complete hokum. Low Voltage is defined exactly in BS7671 as follows.
For a.c. it means more than 50V but not exceeding 1000V beween conductors or 600V between conductors and earth.

I suggest you don't look in that site any more!

 

[BS3036]

With all due respects, Taylortwocities... Go into B&Q and look around and you will find 'low voltage' being used in a different way. It is probably a service to the public to point out that a coterie of electricians have been trained to use a secret language which is not in general public use.

It is a similar situation where mains plugs etc are labelled L (for live) but electricians must call it 'phase', or now 'line'. This is not a situation designed to be helpful to the public, is it?

Have you ever seen a warning notice saying: 'Danger. Low Voltage!'

 

[Paul_C]

Low Voltage is defined exactly in BS7671 as follows.
For a.c. it means more than 50V but not exceeding 1000V beween conductors or 600V between conductors and earth.

But before that, and for many years, the official IEE definition of low voltage (for A.C.) was exceeding 50V between conductors or 30V between any conductor and earth, but not exceeding 250V (between conductors or to earth).

Three-phase 415V and single-phase 3-wire 480V systems always used to be classed as medium voltage, but are considered low voltage under today's definition.

In fact given that the previous definition of medium voltage limited it to 650V, you could have a system which is classified as low voltage under today's definition but which was classed as high voltage before.

 

[Taylortwocities]

With all due respects, BS3036, I don't give a monkey's what it WAS

In 1965 you could drive in Sweden on the left hand side of the road. If you did that today you'd be dead.

My gripe is that there is a DIY advice forum, live, today, in 2009's Interwebtechnology whotsit that goes around giving out incorrect information. I just picked a page at random.

NoHounds is already off down the wrong track because of other incorrect info on that site.

I wouldn't trust B&Q to tell me what their own opening hours are.

 

[GaryMo]

I wouldn't trust B&Q to tell me what their own opening hours are.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

With all due respects, Taylortwocities... Go into B&Q and look around and you will find 'low voltage' being used in a different way. It is probably a service to the public to point out that a coterie of electricians have been trained to use a secret language which is not in general public use.

Whether the public understand what the terms mean or not they are not exempt from the legislation which uses the terms in the IEE/IEC way, and as the old saying goes "ignorance is no excuse".

Particularly not if you take your guidance from the ignorant fools who contributed to that website when all the official documentation and all the professionally produced guides to the wiring regulations give you the correct information.