Replacing Halogen bulbs with LEDs - best way of doing it?

[JohnW2]

I was not aware that the regs allowed it when I gave that opinion.

Even before we were reminded that that was a regulation which explicitly allowed it, I think that most of us were very happy that there was no regulation which disallowed it.

Several 13 amp sockets on a 20 amp circuit is OK. It's about diversity. But you can't apply diversity to a single sockrt.

It's not really about diversity in the usual sense - since one cannot apply diversity when one hasn't got a clue what loads may be plugged in. What I presume you are saying is that you believe it very unlikely that loads totalling more than 20A would be plugged into the (potentially many) "13A" outlets on a 20A circuit. That's not really different from my believing that it is very unlikely that a load greater than 6A (probably much less) would be plugged in to a poorly accessible, dedicated and labelled 13A socket on a "6A" lighting circuit.

Indeed, if (as is common) the lighting circuit were wired in 1.5mm cable and if one believes that OPDs exist to protect the cable, then one could say that it's the choice of OPD rating that is resulting in your problem. If it were a 16A OPD (which would be compliant with regs), you presumably would have to withdraw your objection to a 13A socket on the circuit?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Does anyone know why there are specific regulations for lighting circuits?

Is there a definition of a lighting circuit to which they apply; I know there isn't; so what does it mean?
Is a separate circuit for a boiler with 6A MCB actually a lighting circuit?




Plus, of course, here - I have identical circuits some which have sockets and one of which has lights.

 

[flameport]

Is a separate circuit for a boiler with 6A MCB actually a lighting circuit?

The 18th DPC has a new Note 4 for the infamous table 52.3:

 

[JohnW2]

The 18th DPC has a new Note 4 for the infamous table 52.3: ....

I suppose that's a (very) small step in the right direction but, quite apart from anything else, as far as I can make out the DPC still leaves 'lighting circuit' (part of the new Note), per se, undefined. I suppose the implication will now be that circuit must only supply lighting and 'small loads' (which is essentially what we have all always 'assumed') - but regs obviously should not rely on implications.

I also imagine that some of you lads are involved with 'lighting circuits' (in the everyday sense) with a load which is greater is the case with many a domestic or commercial 'power' circuit! The more I think about it, the less can I understand why there needs to be a distinction.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Astra99]

Right. Back on topic! The first pictures the OP put up showing the current (i.e. present) "transformers" show the secondary to be 11.5V AC 10 to "something" watts (although quite difficult to read). It is therefore suggested a power supply with a DC output is obtained. Even on fleabay a suitable unit could be obtained for under a tenner! I even noticed a 12V 30W unit for only £5-odd! 0.75mm² input flex (2-core) and up to 1.5mm² ELV output flex. Replace the contentious 13A socket (isolate and check for dead first!!!) with a flex outlet plate and even Winston will be happy.

 

[JohnW2]

... 0.75mm² input flex (2-core) and up to 1.5mm² ELV output flex. Replace the contentious 13A socket (isolate and check for dead first!!!) with a flex outlet plate and even Winston will be happy.

Indeed - once one moves away from walwarts, the possibilities open up - he would, I imagine, even be happy with 2A or 5A plugs/sockets!

Kind Regards, John

 

[winston1]

Not forgetting the amount of times you have slagged off people for using an FCU on lighting circuits
https://www.diynot.com/diy/search/14047338/?q=lighting+fcu&o=relevance&c[user][0]=134775

Well that is stupid as well. They are not used or required on lighting circuits and will give no discrimination even with a 3 amp fuse.

But slagged off is not the correct term. Explained would be more appropriate.

 

[securespark]

I was not aware that the regs allowed it when I gave that opinion.

Was it presented as your opinion or was it presented as 'you can't do that'??

EFLI
A lighting circuit doesn't have a definition but you can say it isn't a power circuit if wired in < 1.5, whatever the heck that is......!

 

[EFLImpudence]

EFLI
A lighting circuit doesn't have a definition but you can say it isn't a power circuit if wired in < 1.5, whatever the heck that is......!

Not for long.

As Flameport has shown, they will soon also be small power circuits.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

you can say it isn't a power circuit if wired in < 1.5, whatever the heck that is......!

A power circuit is one which supplies power to something which uses it.

 

[securespark]

Just having a dig at the regs...

I have looked back through all my regs, as far back as the 13th Ed., and none have a definition of "power".

 

[securespark]

I suppose that's a (very) small step in the right direction

But the DPC is still using "power" to describe circuits distinct from lighting. As Ban says, all circuits are power circuits!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So if Table 52.3 is going to end up saying that you may use small cables for small loads, but you have to use larger cables for larger loads, its point is what, exactly?

 

[JohnW2]

So if Table 52.3 is going to end up saying that you may use small cables for small loads, but you have to use larger cables for larger loads, its point is what, exactly?

Would it not still require a (clear) definition of a 'power circuit'?

In the absence of such a definition, I would expect that many people would probably feel that a circuit supplying, say, a string of BS1363 sockets was a 'power circuit'. However, even if that circuit were designed/intended to supply only tiny loads, if it were regarded as a 'power circuit' then it would have to use cable of a minimum of 1.5mm², wouldn't it?

I think we are probably all agreed that it appears to make no sense to try to subdivide circuits in this essentially arbitrary fashion.

What about a dedicated circuit supplying just, say, a (very low power) alarm or router? Will we be allowed to call it a 'lighting circuit' (daft!) and hence use 1mm² cable, or will we have to use 1.5mm²?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It made a lot more sense when it was 52C in the 16th.

Still not perfect sense, as it said that bare conductors were OK for power circuits but not lighting ones (maybe a recognition that IRL relamping does happen with the circuit powered up?).

And it didn't define "power circuit", but forgetting bare conductors and equipment flexes, it grouped "lighting and power" and "signalling and control", with 1mm² (copper) minimum for the former, and 0.1mm² for the latter.

I can't help thinking that a simple (using its own definitions) "cables and insulated conductors for low voltage applications shall have a minimum csa of 1mm²" is all that's really needed.