Wiring in plaster

[No Sparks]

I wish to make a channel in plaster and put in some wiring for a new light. Please could someone point me to requirements re conduit/covering.

[spuorgelgoog]

There are none, provided the wiring runs in the permitted zones horizontally/vertically from a visible accessory and is RCD protected.

Owain

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Provided the cable run conforms to the regs, it cam simply be plastered over.

[John Rumm]

There are no specific requirements. So long as the circuit has RCD protection (assuming the cable is closer than 50mm to the surface), and the cable run is inline with the accessory, its fine just plastered in directly.

(capping is frequently used on first fix electrical work to protect it when the whole room is going to be plastered. Conduit / trunking can be used when there is a requirement for later cable replacement or additions - but again its not a requirement)

[Tim Watts]

The RCD is not necessary if merely adding to a circuit compliant with an older version of the regs.

It would be if this was a new circuit from the CU.

[Brian Gaff]

And providing like somebody did in this house you don't run it just in the plaster at the height you want to put a nail in for a picture, disconnect the lights but leave the wire live with just a fuse at the cu that is. Still I survived due to being stood on a table at the time of the spark and bang...Many years ago now. :-) Brian

[Nick Odell]

....and provided you don't compensate for having short lengths of cable by joining two together with a terminal block and burying that, bare and uninsulated in the plaster.

I had a guttering problem of which I was (at that stage) unaware and the plaster the other side of the solid wall got damp. When it got wet enough to conduct electricity between the line and neutral, it did. With a bang! It went bang! a couple of times a day and I just couldn't locate the problem because it was just an instantaneous sound and no smell (the problem was inside the plaster, after all.) By the time I eventually found it and dug it out of the wall, it had melted right through the copper and I no longer had a ring circuit but two meandering spurs. As you've probably guessed, this ring main was of the old-fashioned, fused variety as I'm sure anything else would have tripped long before this stage.

Nick

[The Natural Philosopher]

While I built my last house I was renting a crappy cottage thing. I decided to paint the kitchen.

That tripped the electrics.

There was a rawlplug in the wall, with no screw that had covered a hole drilled right into a mains cable. Paint go into rawlplug and BANG. Lethal

Landlord blamed ME for painting it!

[ARW]

Actually the RCD protection is compulsory reg wise. You just have to know when to ignore the regs.

[Tim Watts]

I bow to your superior knowledge - I assumed this was not a retrospective requirement for minor works.

[ARW]

One that can be ignored (DIY) or classed as a deviation from the regs when you see fit to do so and you can provide evidence as to why you should do so.

[John Rumm]

Do I recall some slight relaxation for extensions to existing circuits some while back?

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , ARW escribió:

Who would ask for this evidence?

[Roger Hayter]

Coroner.

[Roger Hayter]

Wouldn't you then have to follow previous practice about protecting buried cables in some way?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Be interesting to know how he'd find proof of when they were fitted and by whom?

[John Rumm]

There was no previous requirement for protection that I am aware of.

(although there was a time when fitting conduit in walls was quite common though - these days capping is quite often fitted mainly for ease of plastering)

There was also a time where the concept of "safe zones" was introduced.

The requirement for cable protection really only came into effect when the need for RCD protection on "all" cables was introduced. (i.e. a choice of use a RCD, or, bury more than 50mm from surface, or, use earthed metallic protection.

(My comment about a relaxation was based on a vague memory of reading something along the lines of "in certain low risk situations one might be able extend a non RCD protected socket circuit without adding RCD protection". However I can't find a reference to that at the mo, so its probably safer to assume its not the case).

[Andrew]

Not if you kept a stash of red and black 2.5 t&e.

[John Rumm]

Not sure what that is really supposed to achieve?

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , John Rumm escribió:

Plausible denial for [Part Pee] inspectors. "it was done years ago guv, it must have been, you can't get the cable in the old colours any more"