RCD protection for bathroom lights

[EFLImpudence]

Fair enough. I imagine that the wording of 701.411.3.3 is such that there will probably be debate as to whether extensions to an existing circuit (e.g. an additional light) invoke a requirement for the whole circuit to be RCD protected, or whether RCD protection of just 'the new bits;' would be acceptable.

Just specifically the new bit I would say, like a new socket.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Thanks, that does clear it up for me. Unfortunately the ceiling is 2.2m from the floor!

Oh ok.

 

[Ianm]

I'd change for ip65 mains LED and add the RCBO personally.

(Both just my opinion)

Wouldn't this need to be done by a qualified electrician? I'm sure I could do it, but don't know if that leads to a bigger problem. Isn't that an alteration to the circuit? If I don't actually need to add RCD protection to stay within regs how compelling is the safety argument?

 

[winston1]

Nothing needs to be done by a qualified electrician provided all the testing and notifications are done.

 

[nitro23456]

Its your house, your decision.

I hadn't suggested you should do any of it yourself. Personally I wouldnt want it unprotected.

 

[JohnW2]

Just specifically the new bit I would say, like a new socket.

Sockets are more straightforward, since the requirement (per 411.3.3) is explicitly for sockets to be RCD protected.

701.411.3.3 is rather different, since it imposes a requirement for RCD protection of any circuit "serving the location" (and, indeed, even a circuit not serving the location" if it happens to 'pass through' zones 1 and/or 2) - hence my feeling that there is perhaps much more scope for debate about interpretation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I would say that ≥99% of the population probably have - as far as they are concerned 'mains voltage' is potentially very dangerous (and the numerically-inclined amongst them might understand it to be >200V), whereas low voltage is nearly always 'harmless' (commonly 12V, and certainly never over 50V).

In my opinion, it is the other ≤1% who need to do some 'sorting out'.

And how would you address the fact that officially "Low Voltage" refers to voltages which that 99% would not consider "low", and that official definition is used in international product standards which apply to things they buy and in laws which they must obey?

 

[JohnW2]

And how would you address the fact that officially "Low Voltage" refers to voltages which that 99% would not consider "low", and that official definition is used in international product standards which apply to things they buy and in laws which they must obey?

Goodness knows - now that the situation has arisen, rectifying it is not straightforward.
However, if, as I believe, an extremely high proportion of the population (whether ≥99% or whatever) have one understanding of the terminology, and the remainder (≤1% or whatever) have a different 'official' use of the terminology [which could represent a danger if the remainder (≥99% or whatever) were exposed to it], then one might make suggestions about 'which would be simpler to change'.
As I said before, thankfully I have never seen (and hope I never see) any consumer product intended for use with 'mains' electricity which is described as "low voltage" - and so long as that remains the case, no real harm comes of the ~99% and ~1% speaking their own different languages. However, if practices/laws ever altered such that that did not remain the case, then there would, in my opinion, be such a potentially dangerous situation that I think something would 'have to be done'.

 

[winston1]

and that official definition is used in international product standards which apply to things they buy and in laws which they must obey?

Is that actually true? I thought the US had different definitions.

 

[JohnW2]

Is that actually true? I thought the US had different definitions.

I think everyone is right, in one sense or another.

As I understand it ... (sticking just with AC) The "international" (IEC) definition of "low voltage" is <1000V. BS7671 defines "low voltage" as 50V-1000V (between conductors). As with so many things, the US chooses not to adopt the international definition and, at least for some purposes, defines (NEC) "low voltage" as <50V.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Is that actually true? I thought the US had different definitions.

It looks as though this may come as a surprise to you, but there are more countries in the world than just the UK and the USA, so when someone talks about "international standards" they don't have to mean "standards which apply in every country".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Goodness knows - now that the situation has arisen, rectifying it is not straightforward.
However, if, as I believe, an extremely high proportion of the population (whether ≥99% or whatever) have one understanding of the terminology, and the remainder (≤1% or whatever) have a different 'official' use of the terminology [which could represent a danger if the remainder (≥99% or whatever) were exposed to it], then one might make suggestions about 'which would be simpler to change'.

The 99%. By many orders of magnitude.

As I said before, thankfully I have never seen (and hope I never see) any consumer product intended for use with 'mains' electricity which is described as "low voltage"

I am sure I have seen "complies with the Low Voltage Directive" on instructions for consumer products, but I can't find any proof.

However, if practices/laws ever altered such that that did not remain the case, then there would, in my opinion, be such a potentially dangerous situation that I think something would 'have to be done'.

 

[JohnW2]

The 99%. By many orders of magnitude.

Quite so.

I am sure I have seen "complies with the Low Voltage Directive" on instructions for consumer products, but I can't find any proof.

Although I can't say that I've noticed that, you may well have done (and a CE mark obviously implies that). However, I doubt that many people would notice, or understand what such a statement means, and, if it does happen, I would suggest that it would be far less worrying (and far less potentially confusing) than would be the case if something were described as a "Low Voltage toaster", "Low Voltage oven", "Low voltage lamp", "Low Voltage toy" or whatever.
I don't think that Part P is particularly relevant. It is probably inevitable that it be written in terms of the 'official' definitions, and anyone who needs to read it will hopefully understand what those definitions are.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

I am sure I have seen "complies with the Low Voltage Directive" on instructions for consumer products, but I can't find any proof.

The usual place to find this is on CE Certificates of Compliance. (I think that's what they are called). They tend to list the regulations which are being met by the product in question, the CE mark being just a catch-all. Some companies publish these on their websites. Some include them in the product paperwork. I was forced to write one recently.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I think my conclusion from what you are saying, whether or not there are items so marked, is that even the ones that are, i.e. lamps, should not be described as 'low voltage' either.

After all a 'low voltage toaster' could be any voltage in the range and so can the lamps.

People assume they are 12V, so are we to accept that 'low voltage' only means 12V - not 6V, not 24V, not 49V?