Interesting Regulation of Yesteryear

Is this an early rule involving both control and isolation

Isolation is a different matter now separate to control of lighting
 
Not sure. The next edition was introduced in 1966.

I'll have a look through it, but it might not be easy to find. They completely changed the layout of the 14th.
 
I think that trend came well after 1955.



Point, in wiring.
Any termination of the fixed wiring intended for the attachment of a lighting fitting or of a device for connecting to the supply a current-using appliance.
A point of utilisation.
There a socket (twin a single was one point).
A lampholder (or a lamp = luminaire ) with any number of lamphoders on one unit) = one point.
Is what we were taught.

some thought a twin socket was two points but we were taught no it was one point.
I suppose a silly example could be two single sockets in a dual backbox was two points whilst a twin socket being almost identical in looks and usage was still only one point.
Two single boxes almost butted together with one single socket in each was still two points.
OK you can silly examples of same/difference in alsorts of definitions if you tries to.

But I like the example of a switch of some kind for a plug that was not readily accesable to withdraw the plug .
How you define that one? but it does align with my instinct of having switch above kitchen worktop for sockets under worktops or sockets behind heavy appliances as a quickly identified means of isolation or switching off in an urgency like a leaky washer or an appliance smoking.
Every little helps.

I sleeps easier (a little bit)

PS - Although (to my shame perhaps) before RCDs started to become popular as "The new kids on the block" so to speak, apart from a TT installation (or a temporary measure if earth might be dodgy on a TN system) I was completely happy to not even consider the benefits of an RCD (previously known as an Earth Leakage Circuit Breaker - which had the choice of voltage operated or current operated at the wholesalers).
Once they did just start to be considered that might be a good idea then it was always optional and on pricing estimates I offered one as an optional extra because the price was considered high, some might have a plug in adaptor type for the old "Lawn Mower Flex Syndrome" so the possible benefits was starting to be appreciated by some folks but in the main they declined the option due to cost.

I never lost sleep of all the installtions I had completed with a plain consumer unit and rewireable fuses, no MCBs and no RCDs and I never noticed piles of dead bodies in the streets.

I was considered slightly unusual amongst my peers that, if asked to explain this optional extra, I would remark "If you have a pet dog and it might save your dog`s life you would think that the extra cost was worthwhile! While it might just save a person`s life equally!
It seemed to strike a cord more with dog owners in preference over a family with two adults and 2.4 children, strange world? LOL.

But yes not a great deal of worry was considered about RCDs both by the public or the trade really.
Hard to imagine nowadays but that was the mindset - Norms change.

Nowadays I suppose you`d have more chance of folk wondering if an SPD might give some reduction of risk of reducing your access to the internet in the event of a nuclear explosion in a town 10 miles away.
paying a thousand £ or more to enable you to become a "Smartphone Zombie" nowadays is far more important that RCDs ever were in the past ;)
 
Last edited:
"Every point shall be controlled by a switch..."

"Point.. termination of the fixed wiring for the attachment of a lighting fitting..."

That seems to imply every light should have a switch, but I'm sure the regulations didn't intend that.

It implies nothing of the sort - there is no valid interpretation which means each switch only controls one point.


In a commercial or industrial install, you'd have several fittings off one switch.

Even in a domestic install you may have two...

In fact, if you want to be really precise, look up the difference between "every" and "each",

Did they mean "Every point shall be controlled by a switch...", or did they really mean ""Each point shall be controlled by a switch..."?
 
My Ma was an English teacher, my Pa was a lecturer at Manchester University and did a PhD. They both taught EFL overseas.
Some of that rubbed off on me.

Regardless of what you think the differences are between "each" and "every", it is not going to change the whole meaning of 116a in the manner you suggest.

You said:
Did they mean "Every point shall be controlled by a switch..."
They must have, because that is what they wrote.
 
Would that not be true for any socket outlet, withdrawing the plug switches it off, I know at one time we had sockets which you turned the plug to turn it on, and pressed a button to turn it off, think it was a Reyrolle, used by GEC Large Steam Turbines, but the English is open to miss interpretation.
Withdrawing the plug disconnects the supply
but it does not switch off the supply to the socket outlet.

See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Australian_Socket-Outlet,_Auto_Switched.jpg
"Removing the plug opens the contacts in the socket to provide the same level of safety as a conventional switched socket when switched off.

Automatically switched socket outlets are most commonly used to supply power to refrigerators, some computers and other accessories that normally should not be switched off.
The absence of an external switch prevents the accidental switching off of such devices. "
 
They must have, because that is what they wrote.

Then they did not mean that one switch could only control one point.

A single switch controlling every point in the installation would comply with that reg.


PS

Regardless of what you think the differences are between "each" and "every",

It's not a question of what I think the difference is.
 
Then they did not mean that one switch could only control one point.
I wish you'd explain what you think they did mean.
A single switch controlling every point in the installation would comply with that reg.
Or switches.
PS



It's not a question of what I think the difference is.
As per my first point...please do explain the difference.

You may not believe it a question of what you think the difference is, but you are advocating very strongly for it, so please unravel it for me.
 
It means every point in an installation must be capable of being switched off

Except for sockets that are readily accessible
 
it might save your dog`s life
I had forgotten about that, little dash hound, did not like the vacuum cleaner, returned home to find the power cord, still plugged in and live, and in about 100 bits, dog it seems bit it, and it bit back, so dog really attacked it, how it survived I don't know, it was an electricians house (my father-in-law) so no RCDs in that house.

Had an interesting discussion with him over a TT or rather lack of TT to his caravan, he has a sign on his desk, these people who think they know it all, are specially annoying to those of us that do. Don't think I ever won a discussion. He said the electric meter and gas meter were within arms length of the caravan, and they were connected to the PME, so it would be dangerous to connect caravan to a TT supply.

He also said light bulbs don't give out light, they suck in the dark, this is why they have black bits on them when they fail, I just was not good enough to even win that one.
 

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Back
Top