Bathroom Fan Wiring - is it compliant?

[ban-all-sheds]

don't I what I'm talking about know

I think you're right, there.

The design proposed by the OP would not trip the RCD.

It may not be ideal to have 2 circuits in the light switch, but it does not contravene the Wiring Regulations, nor is it dangerous and unacceptable.

Nor, assuming he doesn't get someone as hard of thinking as you, should he have trouble with Building Control.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

try this View media item 43181

And what does the 3-pole isolator isolate that the FCU does not?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

presumably you're not supposed to put it in the bathroom itself?

You need to read up on bathroom zones, and what may go where.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[JohnW2]

It may not be ideal to have 2 circuits in the light switch, but it does not contravene the Wiring Regulations, nor is it dangerous and unacceptable.

You will have seen my previous comments about that. Certainly not ideal. No worse than what happens in many a grid switch arrangement, but at least one is then more likely to be expecting the possibility. A warning that it requires two points of isolation might well be required to comply with the regs, mightn't it? Also, as I said, using a DP switch's terminals labelled 'N' for L could be argued to be contrary to MIs, couldn't it?

Kindest Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

This one way of incorreclty wiring a bathroom fan.

It's not incorrect, it's a way.

And this is one way of correctly wiring a bathroom fan.

And that's another way, which differs very little from the way that JohnW2 proposed.

And unfortunately his presence is changing this forum from a trustworthy source of accurate electrical knowledge and advice, to one thats about as reliable as the bloke in the wholesalers.

Feel free to wash your hands of the whole thing.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No worse than what happens in many a grid switch arrangement, but at least one is then more likely to be expecting the possibility.

Is one, if it's in a house and has switches for bathroom lighting and fan?

A warning that it requires two points of isolation might well be required to comply with the regs, mightn't it?

It might.

But then so would isolating the circuit to be worked on by turning off the main switch, unless the CU had DP MCBs or RCBOs.

Also, as I said, using a DP switch's terminals labelled 'N' for L could be argued to be contrary to MIs, couldn't it?

IMO?

Only by someone pathetic.

 

[JohnW2]

No worse than what happens in many a grid switch arrangement, but at least one is then more likely to be expecting the possibility.

Is one, if it's in a house and has switches for bathroom lighting and fan?

Yes, I think so. The fact that it's all occurring in one switch might merely reinforce the 'expectation' that bathroom lights and fan are most commonly connected to the same circuit. Indeed, until one too the switch plate off, one probably wouldn't expect the 1-gang switch to be switching two different things. Conversely, many multiple grid switch setups are clearly dealing with different things, so there would probably be a much greater awareness of the possibility of more than one circuit being involved.

Also, as I said, using a DP switch's terminals labelled 'N' for L could be argued to be contrary to MIs, couldn't it?

IMO? Only by someone pathetic.

IMO, too - but people seem to get very literal in their concerns about failing to comply with MIs, even when there is no particularly good engineering (or, sometmes, even common sense) basis. 3-pole isolators for fans is probably as good an example as any - we've seen electricians moaning that they 'have to' fit them 'because of the MIs'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[riveralt]

IMO, too - but people seem to get very literal in their concerns about failing to comply with MIs, even when there is no particularly good engineering (or, sometmes, even common sense) basis. 3-pole isolators for fans is probably as good an example as any - we've seen electricians moaning that they 'have to' fit them 'because of the MIs'.
Kind Regards, John

This is another prime example of the difference between you living in your theoretical engineering world and the rest of the electricians who work in the real world and have direct relationships with their customers.
The frustration, you call it moaning but then you would, is trying to explain to customers why there needs to be this additional equipment and therefore cost in the fan circuit.
The reality is that 134.1.1 is available to all manufactures to minimise their sale of goods act responsibilities so they will use it - and so we must follow.

But your response also re-enforces the view of a number of people on this forum that you believe you are the final arbiter of what makes good engineering and sadly what makes common sense.
The latter of which you don't practice - because you would have taken your own advice and left on the 28th January 2012 as you promised.

The questions raised on this forum are invariably from diyers or amateur electricians who want simple solutions to their problems.
In nearly all cases there is a simple answer - that is until you put your three penneth worth in - after which confused reigns and we're off on some rambling philosophical diversion to satisfy you own needs.

The OP has long since departed, probably jumped of a bridge (FFS I only wanted to know how to wire a fan circuit ) Leaving only your fawning sycophants to post 'Thanks' at every opportunity.

As I have said in the past I come on this forum to try and help diyers with their problems (or tell them they're out of their depth) and at the same time learn from other electricians who have experienced problems that I may come across myself. Its a sad fact that you are slowly destroying this forum by hijacking posts to meet your own ends.... whatever they are.

 

[JohnW2]

This is another prime example of the difference between you living in your theoretical engineering world and the rest of the electricians who work in the real world and have direct relationships with their customers. The frustration, you call it moaning but then you would, is trying to explain to customers why there needs to be this additional equipment and therefore cost in the fan circuit. The reality is that 134.1.1 is available to all manufactures to minimise their sale of goods act responsibilities so they will use it - and so we must follow.

You seem to have missed the point that it was I who was arguing that one of the reasons why having two circuits using the same DP switch could be non-compliant was that it was probably contrary to the MIs (hence 134.1.1), and BAS who introduced a contrary opinion. In the past, I have repeatedly acknowleged that, frustrating though it undoubtedly is, electricians have little option but to comply with MIs (particularly if they belong to schemes which insist on BS7671-compliance), no matter what they think of them.

This The OP has long since departed, probably jumped of a bridge (FFS I only wanted to know how to wire a fan circuit )

"Long since departed"? He posted a response to me just after 8 am today and I suspect has been at work since then (some people do spend most of the day at work ). Let's wait a bit before we decide that he has 'departed'.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

1st attempt, I never said it would.

Isolate the circuits using a relay powered by the light switch?
Not sure how it would trip the RCD, however I would think having a socket circuit running into a light switch would be a bad idea unless the light switch has a warning label on it.

rearrange these words "don't I what I'm talking about know"

2nd attempt, I never said it would.

But is it ok with regs?
Do you think this will get signed off by Building Control's electricians?

No, its dangerous and unacceptable

Well if BC think his design is ok, as you do he won't have a problem.

Untitled

• rcd1976
• 25 Feb 2012
• 1

As I said before "No, its dangerous and unacceptable try this"View media item 43181

In what way is it dangerous?

To whom is it unacceptable, and why?

Bas are you going to apologise for your misleading comments about me.

I haven't tried to mislead anybody.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS you have tried to mislead people and you're doing it again.

Please stop making that false allegation.

I can't quite decide if you're a complete **** who keeps on doing it even though he has no evidence, purely because you don't like your posts to be challenged and have to find some way to hit back, or if you are simply so ******* thick that you don't actually know what "trying to mislead" means.

I think the knowledgeable people in this forum will be having a good laugh at you asking what was dangerous about the ops original intention.

Well - make their day by giving them something else to laugh about - explain what is dangerous about it.

 

[JohnW2]

I think the knowledgeable people in this forum will be having a good laugh at you asking what was dangerous about the ops original intention.

Well - make their day by giving them something else to laugh about - explain what is dangerous about it.

Whilst, as you will understand, we're largely 'on the same side' in this thread, I think yoiu may be digging yourself a bit of a hole there - the SP neutral switch in the OP's original proposal is surely an issue, whatever you view may be of other matters?!

Kind Regards, John.