RCD on bathroom lighting

[dingledong]

I am not disagreeing with you happy I am just saying the regs say ,that's
All
And even if they are in the location they are outside the zones

 

[Andy78]

701.411.3.3 should, why should ,
The fittings are outside of the zone
So it the ceiling was 4 metres high you would still think.it's in the zone

I have no idea why you are wittering on about zones any more. Section 701 is perfectly clear to me regarding RCD protection of circuits. Tell me what are confused about and I will try and help you.

 

[Octopus]

I think he's getting his location and zones muddled

 

[Silly Sausage]

The zones dictate what kind of of gear you can use within them.
The location is the bathroom, to which is what the RCD requirement relates to.

They've got differnt regs in the Wild West. :smilielol5:

 

[HappyHippyDad]

I like the way you ask questions though Dingle, it's better than not giving a damn. But I have a feeling that once you've made your mind up its difficult to change it. I think I was like that in my 20's and 30's and then I realised how little I actually knew/know and started really trying to listen to what everyone was saying.

Keep asking your questions chap :smiley2:

 

[Silly Sausage]

I like the way you ask questions though Dingle, ...............

Don't succumb to that horse whispering HHD!

 

[telectrix]

never mind , dingle. one day essex will have the privilege of horseless carriages.

 

[The General]

I think we can always play around with words General to suit our arguments. I suppose we could say that you could have a push light switch on the wall of the bathroom as the actual electrics will be in the wall, not in the bathroom.

I think sometimes you have to just think about what is the right way to do it.... A bathroom is full of steam, we are soaking wet... we need an RCD.

Not disagreeing! I did put an RCD, but I was just reflecting about it afterwards and wanted to sound it out for some other opinions.
thanks for all comments and advice!

 

[telectrix]

you did well, young skywalker.

 

[telectrix]

becoming a good spark you will be.

 

[The General]

becoming a good spark you will be.

Stop it, you must. Struggling to think of witty reply, I am

 

[havo one]

hi guys 1st post, judging by the fact theres old wylex fuses & old voltage trip then id imagine theres no main equipotential bonding. if theres no main equipotntial bonding then there would need to be supplementary bonding connecting circuit cpcs of the location to any exposed extraneous conductive parts. this is what we have to do on a regular basis. reg 701.415.2

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I think that the fact that the Regulation states: 'circuits of the location', that it is pretty clear that the Regulation refers to the circuits of the location.
It may even be argued that circuits which pass through the location are also covered by this Regulation, as they used to be in the 16th edition.
I would have thought that it is fairly clear that the zones do not define the location, as there is a Regulation relating to the placement of socket-outlets outside of the zones.

 

[Richard Burns]

I think that the fact that the Regulation states: 'circuits of the location', that it is pretty clear that the Regulation refers to the circuits of the location.
It may even be argued that circuits which pass through the location are also covered by this Regulation, as they used to be in the 16th edition.
I would have thought that it is fairly clear that the zones do not define the location, as there is a Regulation relating to the placement of socket-outlets outside of the zones.

Good answer, one I could not gather myself to post.

Where did you spring back from?:leaving::smiley2:

 

[dingledong]

Will look today as I keep my book in the van

 

[Doomed]

I thought that one of the changes in the upcoming amendment was to ensure RCD protection on any circuit that passes in or through a bathroom to make sure that lights were now RCD protected, which implies that previously they didn't have to be. (Note: I always RCD protect them, I'm just raising a point, don't lynch me)

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I think Doomed that the original intent was for such circuits to be protected, but it has been misinterpreted. The amendment would be there to redress the misinterpretation.

 

[jaypp]

I thought that one of the changes in the upcoming amendment was to ensure RCD protection on any circuit that passes in or through a bathroom to make sure that lights were now RCD protected, which implies that previously they didn't have to be. (Note: I always RCD protect them, I'm just raising a point, don't lynch me)

I heard this too. Would this mean, for example, if you were to carry out work in a premises where the board was located under a bathroom and circuits (not being related to works carried out) passed through this location, that RCD protection would have to be provided for non-works related circuits also?

 

[Knobhead]

Here we go again, IET speak Vs common sense.

Only the IET could issue a clarification that causes confusion.

 

[Octopus]

Here we go again, IET speak Vs common sense.

Only the IET could issue a clarification that causes confusion.

Said it before, will say it again.

The IET should get the plain english society to review the regs before the update is printed!