Wired in new Ceiling light but circuit tripping

[ColJack]

You mean you've never come across any unknown unknowns that you didn't expect, BAS?

I wouldn't start changing the brakes on my car without at least looking in a haynes manual first..
nor would I try and perform an apendectomy without some basic anatomy knowledge..
neither would I try to bake a cake without a recepie..
so why is it ok to rip down a light without some basic understanding of simple wiring? or the common sense to take a photo or make a sketch of what goes where BEFORE you disconnect it?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You mean you've never come across any unknown unknowns that you didn't expect, BAS?

Not because I have embarked on something KNOWING that I don't have a clue how it all works.

The guy just got a couple of wires mixed up when replacing a light fitting - it happens, especially when you have yellow wires and unsheathed earths, and light fittings whose terminals are laid out to look nothing like the original rose.

He doesn't even recognise the term "switched live".

He connected things up based on assumptions about what various conductors were for.

He doesn't think that creating a L/N or L/E fault is unsafe.

He didn't "just" get a couple of wires mixed up.

Oh - and if you know how a ceiling rose works then anything with 4 terminals looks just like one, and anything without 4 terminals is immediately and obviously not a direct replacement for one.

Or have you never made a mistake?

Yes, but not the one of thinking that it would be OK to fiddle with things when I know full well that I have no idea how they work.

 

[mfarrow]

Not because I have embarked on something KNOWING that I don't have a clue how it all works.

The light fitting would have come with a diagram of some sort. So the guy KNEW what a live conductor should look like. The guy KNEW what a neutral conductor should look like; and he THOUGHT HE KNEW what an earth conductor should look like. That's what most people expect to find when replacing a light fitting unfortunately, taking the information given to them in the instructions. As we all know, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

He doesn't even recognise the term "switched live".

He connected things up based on assumptions about what various conductors were for.

But he thought the yellow wire had a green stripe on it until he looked again. If he hadn't have noticed that it didn't then he might have been on here sooner - or would we have thought of him the same?

He doesn't think that creating a L/N or L/E fault is unsafe.

When did he say that?

He didn't "just" get a couple of wires mixed up.

What else did he do then?

Oh - and if you know how a ceiling rose works then anything with 4 terminals looks just like one, and anything without 4 terminals is immediately and obviously not a direct replacement for one.

Or 4 terminals but all in a different order.

Or have you never made a mistake?

Yes, but not the one of thinking that it would be OK to fiddle with things when I know full well that I have no idea how they work.

You wouldn't have made them then if you knew exactly what you were doing each time. But unfortunately the instructions which accompany these fittings give misguided encouragement that the installation is simple. The same would be true if car brake components came with as simplified and dangerous instructions/diagrams as these; Mr Haynes would be bankrupt in a fortnight, and we'd see a lot more cars with brake failure.

I have to say that coming from a series of automotive forums, I do notice a difference in attitude towards the OP. Many people ask about the torque settings of bolts, or the assembly order of stripped components, and most people are obligingly helped, being it accepted that to the untrained and forgetful eye, the order of things can become muddled.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The light fitting would have come with a diagram of some sort. So the guy KNEW what a live conductor should look like. The guy KNEW what a neutral conductor should look like; and he THOUGHT HE KNEW what an earth conductor should look like. That's what most people expect to find when replacing a light fitting unfortunately, taking the information given to them in the instructions. As we all know, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

If you had asked him to draw diagrams explaining how his lighting circuit worked, what all the conductors were at the rose, what the switch did, and how it was connected up, do you think he could have done it?

He doesn't think that creating a L/N or L/E fault is unsafe.

When did he say that?

when I turn the electric back on it trips the circuit

there was no safety issue

What else did he do then?

Made assumptions.

Didn't learn before doing.

Want to take a bet on him having the right tools?

Or 4 terminals but all in a different order.

Irrelevant - you aren't seriously going to claim that someone who knows how a ceiling rose works couldn't replace it with any of these:

?

The same would be true if car brake components came with as simplified and dangerous instructions/diagrams as these; Mr Haynes would be bankrupt in a fortnight, and we'd see a lot more cars with brake failure.

But you can get electrical manuals of the quality of Haynes manuals.

I have to say that coming from a series of automotive forums, I do notice a difference in attitude towards the OP. Many people ask about the torque settings of bolts, or the assembly order of stripped components, and most people are obligingly helped, being it accepted that to the untrained and forgetful eye, the order of things can become muddled.

So if someone posts after they have b******d up their brakes and crashed the car, what reaction do they get?

If they post after they've distorted their cylinder head by tightening the bolts too much, or in the wrong order, what reaction do they get?

And I would remind you I did not start having a go at the OP:

This is a genuine question, motivated by curiosity, not a disguised dig at you:

 

[mfarrow]

If you had asked him to draw diagrams explaining how his lighting circuit worked, what all the conductors were at the rose, what the switch did, and how it was connected up, do you think he could have done it?

No, but he had a go at a like-for-like according to what he saw (as a lot of people would do), but made the mistake of not writing it all down.

I don't know what all the wires going from my computers PSU into the motherboard are for, but that wouldn't stop me having a go replacing it.

He doesn't think that creating a L/N or L/E fault is unsafe.

When did he say that?

when I turn the electric back on it trips the circuit

there was no safety issue

He was talking about safety when working on the light fitting. Those two quotes have been taken out of context.

Made assumptions.

We all do.

Didn't learn before doing.

What is there to learn? Diagram shows 3 wires, all colour coded... but as I said, a little knowledge... but at least he owned up to it.

Have you ever test driven a car without reading the manual fully first?

Want to take a bet on him having the right tools?

No, but a stanley knife and hacksaw are considered useful (if not better?) alternatives when stripping SWA, and their not the right tool either.

What tools does anyone need for a replacement of a light fitting, other than a screwdriver? Testing afterwards is an electricians game, rarely practised by the public.

The same would be true if car brake components came with as simplified and dangerous instructions/diagrams as these; Mr Haynes would be bankrupt in a fortnight, and we'd see a lot more cars with brake failure.

But you can get electrical manuals of the quality of Haynes manuals.

Why buy one if the A5 leaflet in the box seems to come with all you need? Like I say, if you simplify anything you increase the risk of things going wrong. That's why the automotive industry doesn't do it.

So if someone posts after they have b******d up their brakes and crashed the car, what reaction do they get?

If they post after they've distorted their cylinder head by tightening the bolts too much, or in the wrong order, what reaction do they get?

The get told to seek professional advice or a Haynes manual. But they don't get asked why they started the job in the first place, as most mechanics will themselves confess to damaging someone's pride and joy at one time or another owing to either stupidity, ignorance, forgetfulness, laziness, complacency, or a combination of the above.

And I would remind you I did not start having a go at the OP:

This is a genuine question, motivated by curiosity, not a disguised dig at you:

But then why raise the question? If it wasn't a disguised dig set up to embarrass the OP then what answer were you hoping to get?

The guy soon realised he was out of his depth and was on here quick smart to get some answers. He could have spent all night swapping wires, leaving some out and creating 6 shorts in the process to get to a solution that worked.

 

[Johnmelad502]

Hells Bells - A cut and paste war has started

 

[JBPElectrics]

Well I think its great that people try......£35/hour and it usually takes an hour and a half to work out what wires go where (after all sleaving removed, switches messed up etc!) replace light fitting,resleave conductors, rewire switches and test circuit, check earths and issue minor works certificate!

Carry on OPs, just use a wooden broom handle to turn the mains back on!

BAS, I probably do 2 or 3 of these a week, easy money!!!

 

[securespark]

Yawn...can somebody wake me up when it's all over?

 

[Johnmelad502]

Well I think its great that people try......£35/hour and it usually takes an hour and a half to work out what wires go where (after all sleaving removed, switches messed up etc!) replace light fitting,resleave conductors, rewire switches and test circuit, check earths and issue minor works certificate!

Carry on OPs, just use a wooden broom handle to turn the mains back on!

BAS, I probably do 2 or 3 of these a week, easy money!!!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But then why raise the question? If it wasn't a disguised dig set up to embarrass the OP then what answer were you hoping to get?

Try reading the question again, only this time just read the words, and only the words, that are there, and take it at face value without imbuing it with hidden meanings which are the product of your febrile imagination.

 

[mfarrow]

What made you think it was OK for you to fiddle with your wiring when you must realise that you don't know anything about how lighting circuits work?

There's only two possible answers to that question:

1) Because I thought it would be easier than it was. I mean, I remember my Dad fitting a new kitchen light back in 1986, and he made it look easy then. Plus I have a leaflet in front of me. How hard can it be?
2) Because I'm an idiot who'll throw himself into anything he doesn't know about without considering the consequences of his actions.

Which one of these were you expecting?

I apologise if it genuinely was a question motivated by curiosity, but when one like that is asked on a open internet forum people will still read it as loaded unless it's abvious how it will help you or the OP.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Which one of these were you expecting?

I wasn't expecting any particular answer.

I apologise if it genuinely was a question motivated by curiosity,

Apology accepted.

but when one like that is asked on a open internet forum people will still read it as loaded unless it's abvious how it will help you or the OP.

Then these people should do something about the fact that their reading is flawed. I made it perfectly clear why I asked it:

This is a genuine question, motivated by curiosity