On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:44:31 GMT someone who may be "ARWadsworth" wrote this:-
Also in a "typical" two floor house with the bathroom upstairs the upstairs lighting circuit is likely to be easily accessible, unlike the upstairs power circuits which are likely to be under the upstairs floor.
I suspect the cost of the RCD fused spur will be offset by not having to supply earth clamps and the time saved laying the 4mm earth cable for the supplemetary bonding.
The other reason is that if the RCD fused spur trips due to moisure ingress any call outs are not urgent as the customers TV is still working.
Adam
In my case the CH combi boiler is in a cupboard (old airing cupboard) in the bathroom. Does that mean the supply to this would need to be RCD protected.
What will it cost over the next 20 years? With a 40 year mean installation life, 30 million houses and 1 extra rcbo (dropped to a mean =A315 price) thats
0=2E5x 30 mill x =A315 =3D =A3225 million.And how many lives will it save: judging by the last 20 years about
2=2E =A3112 milion per life saved.Compare this to the numerous other ways to save lives in quantity at a fraction of the cost... hard to see how it can be a sensibly analysed policy, though I'm open to education.
NT
I was doing that mental calculation yesterday.
It's sad that something that has been very well respected worldwide (as in the UK Wiring Regs) looks like it's selling out to commercial interests rather than remaining objective based on risk analysis.
Fitting an RCD fused spur off the lighting circuit and supplying the b/room lights and fans, etc, would this preclude equipotential bonding in a bathroom?
It would if there was an RCD or not.
If it is in a cupboard, no, as far as I believe.
AFAIK the 17th edition not require supplemetary bonding in bathrooms but all electrical circuits in the bathroom will need to be 30mA RCD protected.
Adam
..and the 17th has not been ratified yet!!!
I have the impression they want RCBOs to be the norm as they are Germany in new builds or re-wires.
Not if the bathroom lighting is wired from a FCU fed by a socket circuit, which would be the cheapest way of meeting the requirement since the socket circuit will already have the pre-requisite RCD protection.
He didn't say that. He mentioned the lighting circuit. Having an FCU/RCD off the lighting circuit to supply all of the power in bathroom (light and fan), which is normal, will only need one RCD off the lighting circuit.
What you are proposing is have all the bathroom power off an RCD socket circuit via a fused spur to conform to the 17th and do away with equipotential bonding. It will work, but you have a lighting circuit not on the lighting circuit, which confuses.
When is the 17th coming in?
If the lighting in a bathroom is all 12v, do you need equipotential bonding in the 16th? In the 17th having 12v lighting, does it need to be RCD protected?
Indeed, and I agreed that it was an elegant solution.
see above... do try and keep up.
I have read that the 17th will allow 3-pin mains voltage sockets in bathrooms, as long as it is RCD protected. Is that so? If so, then a socket off the ring main can be just run in. Probably have to be away from the sink with minimum distance, etc..
It is pretty clear they are forcing everyone to use RCBOs. Rather than a bank of circuits being switched out by an RCD, each individual circuit only need switching out by its own RCBO.
Yes, at least in the draft edition. Reg.701.512.3 refers.
=> 3 m horizontally beyond zone 1. IOW sockets will only be allowed in big bathrooms.
Don't think so...
RCBOs are not well suited to protecting lighting circuits anyway for obvious reasons.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required