Two isolating transformers in touching distance in bathroom

[JohnW2]

...Although the circuit in question was installed in 2000 and under 16th edition regs no RCD was provided. I didn't see supplementary bonding at the radiator or behind the shaver point but will carry out a lead test between exposed pipework/ radiator and the cpc. At worst I can see it as a C3.

IF there is no SB, as well as no RCD, then that would sound like a C3 to me. I guess that some people might say the same of just the absence of RCD protection, even if SB were present.

Add to that no fan isolators.

As you will be aware, BS7671 does not require them, so that's not an issue.

....The previous tenants installed the cabinet next to the shaver point which has it's own shaver point,lights and demister pad. I believe new legislation next year will force the issue of having inspections carried out.

As already discussed, I don't believe that the two shaver points is an issue.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

but we are thinking about and even typing about it

That's because the OP raised it - we've been telling him that it is not something that one really needs to even think about, but we have to type about it to explain that to him

Kind Regards, John

 

[winston1]

Add to that no fan isolators.

Fan isolators are not a requirement, even though they are sometimes fitted.

 

[JohnW2]

re-written ... A few months ago two improbable events happened a few hours apart. Both had been seen as improbable but possible and therefore plans were in place to deal with them just in case the improbable did happen.

That's a lot clearer. Thanks.

In many, maybe even most, situations, it makes sense give consideration to the possibility that two improbable events might occur simultaneously, or nearly simultaneously. However, when it comes to four (independent) very improbable events happening simultaneously, I think that most people would 'draw a line'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Thank you all for the information. I was trying to get my head around the issue and hadn't thought about it before. I carry out many EICRs yearly and like to look primarily at safety. Although the circuit in question was installed in 2000 and under 16th edition regs no RCD was provided. I didn't see supplementary bonding at the radiator or behind the shaver point but will carry out a lead test between exposed pipework/ radiator and the cpc. At worst I can see it as a C3. Add to that no fan isolators. It's a rental property and there have been no checks carried out over 19yrs as the Landlord feels he can prove it's safe. (I think hes a Jedi knight). The previous tenants installed the cabinet next to the shaver point which has it's own shaver point,lights and demister pad. I believe new legislation next year will force the issue of having inspections carried out.

Can you actually get a RCD on a shaver socket? I would not think so, put the output of a shaver socket to earth and nothing would flow, so there would be no imbalance, so it would not trip a RCD, so it seems rather pointless having a RCD on a shaver socket, and since a shaver socket has an isolation transformer in it, it would not trip any RCD feeding the socket with any of the output connected to earth.

OK would today fit a RCD to protect cables feeding socket, but BS7671 is not retrospective. We still permitted no earth to lights if installed before 1966. As to no fan isolator, well if the fan goes faulty, it could cause the lights to fail, and so being able to switch it off makes sense, then the fault can be corrected at leisure, but that only allows one to switch lights back on, they would still fail, so it would not change safety by fitting one, it would just save landlord cost of hotel until fault fixed.

When I did my 2391 we were taught how to detect a fig of 8 circuit and told it should not be permitted, I never questioned at the time, but since using this forum it has been pointed out it does not actually break any rules, if it is near ends rather than centre it can cause over load, but from centre of a ring final connecting a second ring would not cause an over load, although it could mean testing one thinks there is a ring but in fact it is broken. So one does need to be aware of a fig of 8, but in its self it's not a danger.

Today only EICR is in house, so anything found I don't like I can correct, don't need to convince some one else it needs doing. And because it complied when installed to me does not mean OK today, when Queensferry swing bridge was built knife switches were permitted, that does not mean one can leave them in today with exposed live parts. So it says previous edition, so today that's the 17th, so if allowed in 17th still OK today, but just because allowed in
"Rules and Regulations for the Prevention of Fire Risks
Arising from Electric Lighting'. Issued in 1882."
Does not mean allowed today.
Remember 1992 was when BS 7671 first issued, so complying with THIRTEENTH EDITION Issued in 1955. does not mean it complied with a previous edition of BS 7671 as it did not exist then, so no earth to lighting has never been allowed in BS 7671.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I didn't see supplementary bonding at the radiator or behind the shaver point

Would you expect to find it there?
It could be elsewhere or might not be required.

but will carry out a lead test between exposed pipework/ radiator and the cpc.

Yes, measure the MET to pipes to determine if they are extraneous-conductive-parts and then, even if they are, whether supplementary bonding is required.
The radiator is irrelevant.

 

[JohnW2]

Can you actually get a RCD on a shaver socket? ...

For reasons you go on to explain, there would be absolutely no point - unless you wanted to consider the extremely improbable scenario of the isolation of the transformer failing - and I don't think anyone has suggested that there would ever be such a thing as an 'RCD shaver socket'!

If it's current regulations one is concerned about, there is, of course, a requirement for every circuit supply a bathroom (or even 'passing through' zones thereof) to be RCD-protected.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Chris N]

I know BS7671 are minimum requirements, fitting of fan isolators are normally in the manufacturers literature, or at least in the ones I fit. Think the spirit of my work is to provide easy maintenance, a safe way for local isolation, sadly some diyers may turn off the wrong circuit when trying to fix, that is if the bathroom light had also failed. I'm far from the best spark out there, been working for 20 yrs and learn everyday. Happily never had any fires or electrocutions from my work.....(not yet anyway)

 

[EFLImpudence]

...but EICRs are judged according to the latest BS7671.

You cannot judge the installation by what you think are good ideas.

 

[JohnW2]

I know BS7671 are minimum requirements, fitting of fan isolators are normally in the manufacturers literature, or at least in the ones I fit. Think the spirit of my work is to provide easy maintenance, a safe way for local isolation ...

Fair enough but, as has been said, when it comes to EICRs you have to undertake them in relation to BS 7671 compliance, not a higher-standard, or the spirit of what you like to do (which I'm certainly not knocking).

Kind Regards, John

 

[Chris N]

Totally agree with what you've said, and I do just that concerning EICRs, I was referring to installation works I carry out but didn't make myself clear. My bad.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

...but EICRs are judged according to the latest BS7671.

You cannot judge the installation by what you think are good ideas.

Meh... Winston does.