Should I earth my wooden wall lights?

[JohnW2]

As an aside, they look like they had (or could have) a pullswitch fitted. There's a hole in the wood for a cord to pass through and a bracket where a pullswitch body might be mounted.

Maybe - but, as I said, I would think that at least two of the holes (one top and one bottom) are probably for attaching to some sort of wall bracket.

Kind Regards, John

 

[DIYNotIan]

I've no idea if the brackets are the originals, but if they are I can confirm that only the top hole is for attachment to the bracket. The bottom hole seems unused so maybe a pull cord is a good guess...

 

[JohnW2]

I've no idea if the brackets are the originals, but if they are I can confirm that only the top hole is for attachment to the bracket. The bottom hole seems unused so maybe a pull cord is a good guess...

Fair enough. If you wanted to satisfy the ultra-cautious around here, I suppose that you could fill any 'unused' holes (i.e. those without screws etc in them) with wood filler or somesuch - and, as has been said, there's certainly no harm to be done by earthing that little bit of metal inside.

Kind Regards, John

 

[blup]

Point taken about "no harm to be done", but what is "good practice" from an electrician's point of view, or is the connection of an uneccessary earth conductor wholly a matter of individual professional discretion?

I say that because there must surely be a potential risk if the earth conductor is energised from elsewhere within the circuit.

Blup

 

[EFLImpudence]

Point taken about "no harm to be done", but what is "good practice" from an electrician's point of view, or is the connection of an uneccessary earth conductor wholly a matter of individual professional discretion?

I don't think either good practice or individual professional discretion come into it.

As far as we can tell, earthing this part or not just doesn't matter.

I think the bracket is confusing things. If it weren't there we would be discussing earthing the metal tube and nut which (presumably) joins two pieces of wood together. If it is not an Exposed-conductive-part because it is not exposed and no one can touch it then it does not require earthing.

I say that because there must surely be a potential risk if the earth conductor is energised from elsewhere within the circuit.

That is an argument for NOT earthing it - but, again, as no one can touch it, it doesn't matter.

 

[DIYNotIan]

I must apologise for having caused all this disagreement, as fun as it is to read I naively thought it would be a yes/no simple question.

That being said, I do appreciate everyone's input so big thanks to all.

 

[crystal ball]

Its never that simple on here, healthy debate I call it

 

[JohnW2]

Point taken about "no harm to be done", but what is "good practice" from an electrician's point of view, or is the connection of an uneccessary earth conductor wholly a matter of individual professional discretion?

Regulation-wise, whilst there are obviously some situations in which earthing of metal items is required, there are no regulations which forbid earthing when it is 'unnecessarey'.

In an ideal world, "professional discretion" would result in "good practice". Any thinking electrician ought to understand that introducing any 'unnecessarily earthed' touchable items into an environment introduces an additional (very small) unnecessary risk of electric shock - see below.

If, as in this case, the metal in question is essentially not touchable then, as has been said, it really does not matter at all (in relation to risk of electric shock) whether it is earthed or not.

I say that because there must surely be a potential risk if the earth conductor is energised from elsewhere within the circuit.

Whilst, as above, unnecessary earthing of touchable parts results in a (tiny) increase in risk of electric shock, as you have been told it's not for the reason you give. The whole point of earthing is that should the earth conductors become live, some protective device (MCB, RCBO or fuse) will be triggered to de-energise the circuit involved.

The actual reason for the (tiny) increase in risk is simply the fact that one can only get a significant electrical shock if one simultaneously touches something at high voltage (e.g. 230V) and something at much lower voltage (e.g. earth). It therefore follows that the less earthed things there are to touch there are in an environment, the lower the risk of shock - whilst not usually attainable in practice, the 'safest' house (in this respect) would be one in which there was nothing earthed that one could touch at all.

Kind Regards, John