![]() |
IET | ![]() |
|
search :
help :
home
|
||
|
Latest News:
|
|
|


|
Topic Title: downlighters wired in flex Topic Summary: rewire? Created On: 21 February 2013 08:06 PM Status: Post and Reply |
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch |
|
Search Topic |
Topic Tools
|
|
|
|
|
As I see it. the circuit would be wired in twin and earth.There would be a joint somewhere and the downlights would be tapped from that (Assuming they are all on the same switch)
Again, assuming they are class 2 fittings, what is the difference between this arrangement and a class 2 chandelier type fitting with multiple lamp holders? I'm not saying that's how I'd wire it, but if I found that in a situation, I wouldn't sweat it too much. I'd be more concerned about looking for floating, taped up connector blocks ;-) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not much wrong with that either Richard if in the fitting enclosure, in fact quite difficult to do it any other way with some fittings!
Dave. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not much wrong with that either Richard if in the fitting enclosure, in fact quite difficult to do it any other way with some fittings! Dave. I was talking about external connections, that are usual with this type of installation. I just priced a relamping job, but included remaking all the connections in boxes. Apparently, I'm just too difficult to employ :-( |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would agree that points of utilisation should be earthed, to allow for future changes. But I would also consider the absence of this earth to be a minor non-compliance IF class 2 fittings are used. I would still say code 3, non compliant but not actually dangerous. Just like an old lighting circuit with no CPC, but all plastic fittings. But if they are class 2 are they not double insulated in which case you must not introduce an earth to the fitting? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How would that work? Capacitive coupling producing >10mA? Is it any more dangerous than the 'floating' strapper in a 2-way switching system when both switches are in the same position? .. or a switch wire with the lamp removed? - Andy. I'd say that the major difference in your two scenarios is they could be reasonably expected to be live. Almost everyone would assume that a bit of unconnected GY to be dead, and that may be the case here. I don't necessarily agree with the wording for coding but that's anothe debate, it's wrong, i bet its 3regs wrong if I looked, it indicates to me a serious failing in the installers knowledge and ability, it's likely the tip of the iceberg. ------------------------- Regards Martyn. Only a mediocre person is always at their best www.electrical contractors uk.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martyn,
although I do not agree with your coding I do agree with everything else you say about it. It`s wrong (code 3 at least). It`s sloppy. I gives a good indication of the person who installed it - what else have they done wrong? Even "Electricians" do it sometimes. We (should) always check it though (induction, capacitance and poor ins res can always liven it up a bit) ------------------------- Regards, Ebee (M I S P N) Knotted cables cause Lumpy Lektrik |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"code 3 at least"
It's got to be a 5 or even a 5C at least MrP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regards the original post:
"ive just inspected some downlighters in a flat wired in flex and earths etc cut out as usual. couldnt test zs what code should i give this?" Is that couldn't or didn't test Zs? This whole topic seems to be based on assumptions due to the inadequate inspectors report provided in the OP. The OP coud be describing a very neat and tidy installation carried out to professional standards, who knows? The report given needs clarification. Andy |
|
|
|
|
IET
» Wiring and the regulations
»
downlighters wired in flex
|
Topic Tools |
FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2013 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.





Search Topic


