Which it is, and also why the regs were updated decades ago to prohibit it.
Do you have any evidence to back that claim up?
(and if you answer includes any mention of fatalities, I will laugh at you)
There are many examples of practices and guidance introduced and then removed in later editions / amendments.
Its not just the light socket, but also any metal lamp fittings and switchgear.
You can, but its difficult to make a connection for any duration in that case (unlike the barrel of the fitting where you could conceivably grasp you hand around it).
That's why we call him Dennis the Dunce.
I was asking you, since you seem to count any incidence of injuries similar to these as being in some way not relevant.
There are some reasonably well broken down figures in some of these docs:
(based on surveys and extrapolation rather than collected stats though)
Not sure I would want to count US practice with electrical systems as being indicative of much other than how not to do it. (from memory, they have tens of thousands of electrical deaths per year)
Those are *YOUR* words (you added them to the main voltage wiki article)
- where did you get them from?
(I seem to recall the doc in question being dissected here in the past. Probably a ESC/ESF publication)
But we are discussing your proposed alterations of BS7671, so keep on topic.
You had better tell the rodent!
Funny how damaged outer insulation can result in different readings then...
Note also that insulation degrades with age, and the environment will have an effect (temperature, humidity, chemical exposure as well as physical abrasion etc). One of the purposes of the outer sheath of the cable to to protect the internal conductors and their sheaths from some of this degradation.
You suggested you could use bell wire in some parts of the installation. Even if adequately protected by the circuit protective device, you still have a problem with testing if the whole circuit is not wired with the same CSA conductors all round.
One such room would of course be fine by itself. But my point was that you have not given any idea of future use beyond LEDs in place of incandescent. You have claimed savings from thinner cable while ignoring the extra costs (cable, MCB, CU, installation, periodic testing) of any additional circuits which are then needed.
I remember when people put a 3-way adapter in the ceiling lamp holder so they could have a 40W bulb on to see to do the ironing while watching the tele.
Well if you weren't so stupid you would realise that it would require another circuit so the idea of using bell wire would require additional circuits and hence cost a lot more.
So why not have proper sockets with small holes and shutters for light fittings? Apart from compatibility with existing equipment; but there has been plenty of time for old stock to be replaced.
You can get such things (Klick do a range of them), but they have not really caught on for domestic work. Probably because a traditional pendant style fitting is "good enough", and there is not enough perceived benefit for the extra cost. Note however that some of the modern designs don't actually make the contacts live until a lamp is properly inserted. Perhaps of more relevance for ES fittings than BC though.
I have fitted Klik ceiling roses in rooms that have high ceilings. Makes maintenance a lot easier. If another rose fails, I plan to use Klik again.
Indeed. I have the type which are quite bulky, but there is a positive 'switch' action when you rotate the BC bulb into place. The contacts are dead until that is done. For example, MK 1150WHI.
yes, but RCDs are a lot less reliable in their RCDing than other means of shock protection. But a) they're only exra protection, not essential b) that's not a big deal in lighting circuits that don't kill anyone in practice.
NT
Fatalities are the issue, and the reliable evidence whether you like it or not. The data I recall were total deaths of 0 from BC light fittings, 1 fro m ES fittings. And that's over decades, not per year. Unfortunately I don't recall where that came from - maybe someone else does.
NT
Yup, and some not.
NT
several documents and hundreds of pages. Feel free to give a specific reference!
that is not the point, the point was that it's normal to for requirements to be removed.
Having just read the mains voltage article I see no such material.
I am
I don't see new builds full of mousable holes. Victorian places yes.
the whole point of red/black/brown/blue insulation is that it is more than sufficient for the job.
Degradation is caused by
- sun exposure, which does not happen to buried wiring, and takes numerous decades
- abrasion, which normally occurs with cables exposed to the means to move them. Buried house wiring is not a prime candidate there.
- rubber insulation, which is not being proposed
Why would you put 1mm2 in a 1.5A circuit? If you did, the circuit would still pass its resistance requirement.
Why would you put 1A wire in a 6A circuit? Dennis might, not the rest of us. This would be no more permitted than 1mm2 feeding a cooker.
NT
hould be interesting.
Let's settle on 1.5A circuits, permitting upto 360W of lighting. There are plenty of flats where 2 such lighting circuits are more than enough. These would replace the current 2x 6A circuits. There is no extra cost there, jus t savings.
Naturally there are layouts where 6A or 10A circuits work better, just as t oday we sometimes put 10A circuits in. I think it's fair to presume that el ectricians have some sense of financial efficiency. If they don't that's th eir business failure. The installs I've seen so far indicate that IRL they normally do.
NT
Obviously it does not, it just requires the one circuit to be suitably rated. 1800W at 240v is 7.5A (marginally more at 230) so a 10A circuit would be used or 2x 6A circuits. Why any of this is not obvious to Dennis I've no idea.
NT
Halogen lamps did that. But the BC base rules because people choose it, and it continues to be permitted due to the lack of light fitting deaths. Yes, the writers of the 18th edition consider bare live bits in bulbholders saf e. And counterintuitively they're right. John insists that while the connec tions may be bare & live and that's ok, the lampholder absolutely must be e arthed. There are plenty of lethal scenarios we can imagine - some happen r epeatedly IRL, and some just don't.
NT
It was very similar to those. I remember seeing a picture of the proposed object in a magazine. It was by MK but I suppose all the manufacturers would have made them. All these EUSSR interventions in electrical safety have been disastrous.
No, it's perfectly true.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.