Connecting series of bulkhead lights with conduit... waterproof too

[JohnW2]

There is a reg that prohibits through wiring of luminaries isn't there?

Is there?? That would seem rather odd, and, if true, would presumably make an awful lot of the currently-fashionable 'multiple lights' setups non-compliant, wouldn't it (depending, I suppose, on how you choose to define 'a luminaire')??

Kind Regards, John

 

[Lectrician]

I think the reg says the fitting must be designed for through wiring. It was always taught at college not to, including things like sockets etc. always a conduit box adjacent or behind, hence the 600mm centres of the besa fixings on fluorescent fittings. Nothing worse than going to swap out a fitting and find wiring passing through the fitting in tact, making removal an ass.

 

[JohnW2]

I think the reg says the fitting must be designed for through wiring. It was always taught at college not to, including things like sockets etc. always a conduit box adjacent or behind, hence the 600mm centres of the besa fixings on fluorescent fittings. Nothing worse than going to swap out a fitting and find wiring passing through the fitting in tact, making removal an ass.

Maybe I misunderstood. I didn't think (and can't imagine why) the OP was contemplating running unbroken cables through any of the luminaires (which, as you say, could be a pain) - but, rather, assumed that the cables would be 'broken' and terminated at each of the fittings in the 'chain'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[333rocky333]

559.6.2, i think its more regarding heat damage to wires from lamps/chokes, possibly the reason many fittings are marked where to run the wires if wiring in and out from 2 entries.
personally I would still class it as through wiring even if terminated at each light fitting

 

[JohnW2]

559.6.2, i think its more regarding heat damage to wires from lamps/chokes, possibly the reason many fittings are marked where to run the wires if wiring in and out from 2 entries.

Ah, I see. As you say, that does not prohibit cables running through luminaires - rather it requires protection against heat and UV for any cables within a luminaire (even if not 'passing through').

personally I would still class it as through wiring even if terminated at each light fitting

Fair enough - but if all the cables within the luminaire are terminated there, the problem of removing the fitting (if an unbroken cable literally 'passes through) which Lectrician raised presumably would not exist.

Kind Regards, John

 

[333rocky333]

To be honest I was confused with the OPs earlier post that hinted on the fitting being hard to change.
If as suspected the cables are terminated in each fitting and plastic conduit used, I would have fault fitting replacement (which is unlikeley) would be relatively easy, sometimes wisely choosing male or female pipe adapters can assist further

 

[flameport]

I think the reg says the fitting must be designed for through wiring

It does, and it's 559.5.3.1

341.1(i) is also applicable, and 132.12

 

[JohnW2]

To be honest I was confused with the OPs earlier post that hinted on the fitting being hard to change. If as suspected the cables are terminated in each fitting and plastic conduit used, I would have fault fitting replacement (which is unlikeley) would be relatively easy, sometimes wisely choosing male or female pipe adapters can assist further

I agree with all that. However, my understanding was that the problem Lectrician was alluding to is that which exists if an unbroken cable goes 'through' a luminaire (or any other box/enclosure) - i.e. going through two holes in it. One would then have to either cut that cable or, if possible, find one end and disconnect it in order to be able to remove the luminaire (or whatever).

Kind Regards, John

 

[Lectrician]

I didn't allude to anything.

I said I thought there was a reg, with a question mark. I made a suggestion as to perhaps why, one of maybe many reasons. It's another reg that is not clear or detailed.

 

[JohnW2]

I didn't allude to anything. I said I thought there was a reg, with a question mark. I made a suggestion as to perhaps why, one of maybe many reasons. It's another reg that is not clear or detailed.

It was that 'one possible reason' that I meant you were alluding to - and it certainly is a very valid reason (albeit probably more relevant to 341.1(i) and 132.12, to which flameport has just referred, than to 559.5.3.1 itself).

I suppose in the context of this thread, the question would be as to whether a bulkhead light fitting actually qualifies as "a luminaire" (again, the definition in Part 2 is pretty vague) - but if it's just a lampholder inside an enclosure, I'm not too convinced that it does qualify.

Kind Regards, John

 

[333rocky333]

It does, and it's 559.5.3.1

I only have red book, what they added now

 

[JohnW2]

It does, and it's 559.5.3.1

I only have red book, what they added now

Ah, that's a bit of a problem As you will be aware 559.5 stops at 559.5.1 in the BRB!

Kind Regards, John