Search results

Clearly it's NOT the same - England has Approved Documents, and parts A-? whereas Scotland has Technical Handbooks, and a different set of statutory building regulations, and a different legal system.

None of Ireland is in GB as GB refers to the big island consisting of most of England, Scotland and Wales and not Ireland (north or any other part) or any of the smaller islands within the UK.

"We publish technical handbooks which explain how to achieve the requirements set out in the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004" Seems pretty clear to me.

The technical handbooks in Scotland provide detailed information on how to comply with the (statutory) building regs. As such they carry at least as much weight as the non statutory BS7671 Wiring Regulations. In practical terms this means if you don't put in your accessible switches for a job...

Switches are required for new installations in Scotland, The Scottish Building Regs Technical Handbook states: "Where socket outlets are concealed, such as to the rear of white goods in a kitchen , separate switching should be provided in an accessible position, to allow appliances to be isolated."

I've yet to see any twin and earth outside that had broken down in the sun to such an extent that the sheath perished

what mixer? you can get ones that run directly from 12v dc

I mean in terms of BS7671. BS 7288 is mentioned in the OSG, section 11.4. It seems awfully strange RCD sockets comply with the requirements for additional protection of sockets yet they're apparently not allowed

So your interpretation is that RCD sockets are not suitable for the additional protection of sockets by RCD?

So what's your interpretation of 531.3.6?

531.3.6 exists regardless of the hearsay or contents of BS 7288. If you read the iet forum link above there is a suggestion that 'additional protection' in this sense (2nd part of 531.3.6) means for buried cables, also ppl saying it's badly written or ill informed

I meant an error in BS 7671 531.3.6 in that it doesn't explicitly allow BS 7288, perhaps? And what about BS 4293 RCD's, are they non-compliant now (or incorporated into EN61009) There's a previous discussion on the same thing here i came across...

BS7288 is mentioned in OSG, so an error in the regs perhaps? or it's only suitable for fault protection, not additional protection, which seems rather unlikely

If "the cables are becoming a bit stiff to unwind" as per the OP then maybe the 0.75mm is undersized already and the copper is becoming brittle. In any case 1.5mm will have more mechanical strength. I've not had a problem replacing cords with 1.5mm H07 myself. I don't think pvc (arctic or...

H07RN-F (tough rubber) is what you want https://www.cef.co.uk/catalogue/categories/cables-and-accessories-ho7rn-f-rubber-flexible-cable i suggest using 1.5mm

what's an IEC - BS13613 cable? there's 10a "kettle leads" here: https://cpc.farnell.com/pro-elec/pe01063/lead-uk-plug-to-iec-c13-skt-10a/dp/PL13310 fitted with a 13A fuse though so you'd have to get some 10a ones!

If you want the same light output as your 120w halogen you'll need more than a 10w LED. Even the 20w LAP (I agree LAP are rubbish) isn't as bright as a typical 120w linear halogen bulb.

posted in wrong thread by mistake..

Provided the sockets are protected by RCD (which they should be) the earth loop impedance is not an issue. Assuming a correctly designed 32A socket circuit the fuse in the plug will deal with short circuit conditions for fairly long lengths of extension cable.

You'll struggle to replicate the intensity of halide lamps using LED. The 30w fitting above will be woeful compared to a 70w halide. It's not rated twice as bright at all (LED flood in the link = 1800 lumen, typical 70w halide bulb = 6200 lumen)...