Seventeenth edition
Andy Wade
"the wiring regulations and Part P." The speaker was John Ware (senior
engineer in the IET standards and compliance department). The
interesting part was the introduction given to the forthcoming "17th
Edition."
Here's a summary:
- BS 7671:2008 will be published on 1st January 2008 and will come into
effect on 1st June. It will have a red cover.
- the subtitle will be "*IEE* Wiring Regulations 17th Edition" - not the
"IET Wiring Regs" :~o
- a draft for public comment will be published by the end of this year,
with three months allowed for comments; (these drafts are usually
available as free downloads, but will this one be?)
- the familiar concepts of [protection against] electric shock by direct
contact and indirect contact will disappear and be replaced by new
terminology "basic [shock] protection" and "fault [shock] protection";
- the numbering system appears to change from its present hyphenated
form to a decimal one (closer harmonisation with IEC 60364 here). The
600s and 700s will change round, so 600.x.x regulatations will be
inspection and testing and 700.x.x will be the special locations;
- there will be several new sections in the 700s, including requirements
for small-scale embedded generators (i.e. micro-CHP, wind, solar PV,
etc.), exhibition stands, underfloor & ceiling heating systems, marinas,
fairgrounds(!) and possibly others I can't remember. The scope of the
construction sites section will extend to include demolition activities.
The present Section 607 (high protective conductor currents) will be
absorbed into the main earthing rules (54.x.x);
- there will be a new section on luminaires and lighting under the
selection and erection heading;
- *all* socket-outlets rated at 20 A or less (i.e. 13 A sockets) and
intended for _general_use_ will require 30 mA RCD protection.
Exceptions will be allowed (a) for labelled sockets for specific
equipment (the freezer was used as an example here) and (b) for
situations where the sockets are only for use by electrically skilled
persons;
- 30 mA RCD protection will also be required for circuits of up to 32 A
feeding equipment outdoors, whether fixed or portable and even if not
connected via a socket-outlet (I think, but this might not be 100% right).
There are some very significant changes affecting bathrooms:
- zone 3 will disappear. There will only be zones 0, 1 and 2 (there was
no mention of the zone definitions changing);
- *all* circuits feeding equipment (anywhere?) in a bath or shower room
will require 30 mA protection - including lighting;
- mains voltage socket outlets will be allowed - beyond the zones,
presumably, and 30 mA RCD protected. This is already widely rumoured
but actually it was only after the lecture and question session finished
I realised that he hadn't mentioned it. It's clearly controversial
(even though most of the rest of the world allows it) so maybe they're
having second thoughts? We may just have to wait for the public draft;
- provided that the new requirement for RCD protection of all circuits
has been complied with, and compliant main equipotential bonding is in
place then [fx: fanfare] there will no longer be any requirement for
supplementary bonding in a bath or shower room.
Discuss...
--
Andy
Colin Wilson
> "the wiring regulations and Part P." The speaker was John Ware (senior
> engineer in the IET standards and compliance department). The
> interesting part was the introduction given to the forthcoming "17th
> Edition."
Thanks for that - makes for interesting reading !
d...@gglz.com
Which IET/IEE local group was it? Is the presentation likely to tour
round other local groups?
Frank Erskine
<spamb...@ajwade.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>I went to a local IEE (oh, sorry, IET) branch meeting this week about
>"the wiring regulations and Part P." The speaker was John Ware (senior
>engineer in the IET standards and compliance department). The
>interesting part was the introduction given to the forthcoming "17th
>Edition."
>
>Here's a summary:
<snip>
>- *all* socket-outlets rated at 20 A or less (i.e. 13 A sockets) and
>intended for _general_use_ will require 30 mA RCD protection.
>Exceptions will be allowed (a) for labelled sockets for specific
>equipment (the freezer was used as an example here) and (b) for
>situations where the sockets are only for use by electrically skilled
>persons;
Are electrically skilled persons exempt from shocks?
:-)
--
Frank Erskine
Andy Wade
> Which IET/IEE local group was it?
Cambridge:
http://www.iee.org/OnComms/Branches/UK/England/EastAng/Camb/events.cfm
> Is the presentation likely to tour round other local groups?
Pass.
--
Andy
Owain
> - *all* socket-outlets rated at 20 A or less (i.e. 13 A sockets) and
> intended for _general_use_ will require 30 mA RCD protection.
This will also include BS4343 16A sockets (if for "general use")
> - 30 mA RCD protection will also be required for circuits of up to 32 A
> feeding equipment outdoors, whether fixed or portable and even if not
> connected via a socket-outlet (I think, but this might not be 100% right).
Would this be for final circuits only, or include submains? It's usually
desirable to *not* RCD protect a submain to an outbuilding and allow the
use of local RCD protection with discrimination (particularly to a
workshop with rotating machinery)
> - *all* circuits feeding equipment (anywhere?) in a bath or shower room
> will require 30 mA protection - including lighting;
Whilst I can see the wisdom of that, especially as illuminated mirrors
etc are very popular, and rather more reachable than the single ceiling
battenholder with the Home Office skirt, I would hope that lighting
wouold be on a *separate* RCD.
I hope this isn't going to encourage the use of whole-house 30mA RCDs
again.
> - provided that the new requirement for RCD protection of all circuits
> has been complied with, and compliant main equipotential bonding is in
> place then [fx: fanfare] there will no longer be any requirement for
> supplementary bonding in a bath or shower room.
Will we still be expected to bond the kitchen sink though :-)
Please do keep us informed.
Owain
EricP
<spamb...@ajwade.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>I went to a local IEE (oh, sorry, IET) branch meeting this week about
>"the wiring regulations and Part P." The speaker was John Ware (senior
>engineer in the IET standards and compliance department). The
>interesting part was the introduction given to the forthcoming "17th
>Edition."
>
>Here's a summary:
>Discuss...
As a punter I can't do detailed comments, but here is my thought for
what it's worth.
In the beginning was the 15 amp/5 amp plug with many adapters.
This was replaced by ring mains and many plugs with less adapters.
Then the RCD was born and reasonable safety became available for every
consumer.
Now we seem to be going back to the early days with single use plugs,
duly labeled, on their own circuits and the ring main is being killed
off.
As people will largely ignore this and use a convenient socket, it
seems pointless overkill?
For example garages were required to have sophisticated installations,
which are largely ignored. When faced with the cost, a cheap long lead
was bought from a shed, the plug removed, the lead pushed through a
hole in the garage wall, up the garden, through a hole in the house
wall, plug replaced and put into the first convenient socket. Instant
garage electrification!
New builds will be fine as it will be compulsory to meet these
requirements, but it will be snowflake in hell for existing houses,
mine included.
Does the word "Overkill" figure in these peoples vocabulary?
Particularly on bathroom electrics.
We seem to be in a situation in many fields where the natural desire
to save lives has eclipsed common sense. The logical progress seems
to be banning cars from the roads will result in nil road deaths,
restrict use of household electricity so much that it has no practical
use results in nil electrical deaths. Crucify any use of CO2 producing
resources saves the world, without considering local consequences.
The above is obviously simplistic and just intended as such since
detailed comment would require it's own news group.
Guy King
from Andy Wade <spamb...@ajwade.clara.co.uk> contains these words:
> - *all* circuits feeding equipment (anywhere?) in a bath or shower room
> will require 30 mA protection - including lighting;
I wonder how many people a year fry themselves on bathroom ceiling lights.
--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
John Rumm
> I went to a local IEE (oh, sorry, IET) branch meeting this week about
> "the wiring regulations and Part P." The speaker was John Ware (senior
> engineer in the IET standards and compliance department). The
> interesting part was the introduction given to the forthcoming "17th
> Edition."
What (if anything) did they have to say about Part P then?
> Here's a summary:
>
> - BS 7671:2008 will be published on 1st January 2008 and will come into
> effect on 1st June. It will have a red cover.
>
> - the subtitle will be "*IEE* Wiring Regulations 17th Edition" - not the
> "IET Wiring Regs" :~o
They probably could not face the barrage of questions about where the
regs have gone!
> - a draft for public comment will be published by the end of this year,
> with three months allowed for comments; (these drafts are usually
> available as free downloads, but will this one be?)
Would be nice if they did a version available as a paid for download. I
would really like an electronically searchable version, and would be
happy to pay for one, but not at the level they currently charge for the
CD based version!
(I have found dodgy scanned copies available for download in the past,
but those are entirely graphic and not searchable)
> - the familiar concepts of [protection against] electric shock by direct
> contact and indirect contact will disappear and be replaced by new
> terminology "basic [shock] protection" and "fault [shock] protection";
Probably makes more sense...
> - there will be several new sections in the 700s, including requirements
> for small-scale embedded generators (i.e. micro-CHP, wind, solar PV,
> etc.),
It will be interesting to see what requirements they place in these
sections. Also interesting to see how many of the current B&Q wind
turbine type devices comply.
> exhibition stands, underfloor & ceiling heating systems, marinas,
> fairgrounds(!) and possibly others I can't remember. The scope of the
> construction sites section will extend to include demolition activities.
> The present Section 607 (high protective conductor currents) will be
> absorbed into the main earthing rules (54.x.x);
>
> - there will be a new section on luminaires and lighting under the
> selection and erection heading;
Any idea as to content?
> - *all* socket-outlets rated at 20 A or less (i.e. 13 A sockets) and
> intended for _general_use_ will require 30 mA RCD protection. Exceptions
> will be allowed (a) for labelled sockets for specific equipment (the
> freezer was used as an example here) and
That was predictable enough... more a case of the regs catching up with
current practice.
> (b) for situations where the
> sockets are only for use by electrically skilled persons;
Who are presuably used to getting shocks by now ;-)
> - 30 mA RCD protection will also be required for circuits of up to 32 A
> feeding equipment outdoors, whether fixed or portable and even if not
> connected via a socket-outlet (I think, but this might not be 100% right).
Be interesting to see if that does apply to submains.
> There are some very significant changes affecting bathrooms:
>
> - zone 3 will disappear. There will only be zones 0, 1 and 2 (there was
> no mention of the zone definitions changing);
> - *all* circuits feeding equipment (anywhere?) in a bath or shower
> room will require 30 mA protection - including lighting;
If you assume mandated RCD protection, then Zone 3 as a concept becomes
almost indistinguisable from the practices which are currently permitted
"outside" the zones. So one presumes what was Zone 3 becomes outside.
> - mains voltage socket outlets will be allowed - beyond the zones,
> presumably, and 30 mA RCD protected. This is already widely rumoured
> but actually it was only after the lecture and question session finished
> I realised that he hadn't mentioned it. It's clearly controversial
> (even though most of the rest of the world allows it) so maybe they're
> having second thoughts? We may just have to wait for the public draft;
You can see the logic of allowing power sockets for connection of things
like washing machines in large bathrooms (or very small flats!) for
example.
However I anticipate that the one place Jo Public would probably really
like to have a socket would be next to the basin for feeding their hair
dryer etc. It will be interesting to see if they perhaps extend Zone 2
to include basins so as to prevent this while allowing the former.
(although if as you say there is no suggestion of changing the zone
definitions then perhaps this would become alowed)
> - provided that the new requirement for RCD protection of all circuits
> has been complied with, and compliant main equipotential bonding is in
> place then [fx: fanfare] there will no longer be any requirement for
> supplementary bonding in a bath or shower room.
What will we have left to talk about then! ;-)
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
John Rumm
> In the beginning was the 15 amp/5 amp plug with many adapters.
>
> This was replaced by ring mains and many plugs with less adapters.
>
> Then the RCD was born and reasonable safety became available for every
> consumer.
>
> Now we seem to be going back to the early days with single use plugs,
> duly labeled, on their own circuits and the ring main is being killed
> off.
Which lines did you read between to arive at that conclusion? ISTM that
ring final circuits are still very much the order of the day (and with
time they become ever more suited to modern patterns of use). However if
you mandate RCD protection for all such circuits (sensible IMHO), then
you need to introduce an allowable exception for circuits which are low
risk and where it would be counter productive to have RCD protection
(the freezer example springs to mind)
> As people will largely ignore this and use a convenient socket, it
> seems pointless overkill?
Would they though? if your kitchen has only one sensible place to stand
the freezer and the socket next to it is marked "For Freezer Only"...
> For example garages were required to have sophisticated installations,
> which are largely ignored. When faced with the cost, a cheap long lead
> was bought from a shed, the plug removed, the lead pushed through a
> hole in the garage wall, up the garden, through a hole in the house
> wall, plug replaced and put into the first convenient socket. Instant
> garage electrification!
While I am sure that doess happen, I must confess to never having seen
it done as a long term solution.
> New builds will be fine as it will be compulsory to meet these
> requirements, but it will be snowflake in hell for existing houses,
> mine included.
In reality I don't see actual practice changing much anyway since it is
largely in line with what is being proposed (i.e. All new installations
I have seen (and done) include all the general purpose socket circuits
on the RCD protected side anyway even though there is currently no
requirement to do so in the 16th edition)
As with any existing install there is no requirement to bring it up to
modern standards.
> Does the word "Overkill" figure in these peoples vocabulary?
> Particularly on bathroom electrics.
Again, with the possible exception of RCD protected lighting circuits in
the bathroom, I don't see much change here on a practical level.
Removing the need for suplimentary bonding and moving some of the
responsibility for protection over to RCDs seems more in line with
current practice (i.e. RCD protecting power used in bathrooms) and
current error (i.e. not having suplimentary bonding up to scratch).
> We seem to be in a situation in many fields where the natural desire
> to save lives has eclipsed common sense. The logical progress seems
> to be banning cars from the roads will result in nil road deaths,
While I agree there is far to much nannyism about, I don't see the
proposed changes to the wiring regs[1] as adding to it in any
significant way. Which aspect in particular were you thinking of?
[1] This assumes you are taking the 16th edition as your baseline. If
you are taking how a typical 1950's property was originally wired as a
basline, then I can see that the new edition would appear to be a very
significant change in policy! ;-)
Andy Wade
[RCDs for 'all' sockets]
> This will also include BS4343 16A sockets (if for "general use")
Yes, good point.
[RCDs for outdoor equipment]
> Would this be for final circuits only, or include submains? It's usually
> desirable to *not* RCD protect a submain to an outbuilding and allow the
> use of local RCD protection with discrimination (particularly to a
> workshop with rotating machinery)
I would think final circuits only, for the reasons you give.
[RCDs for all bathroom ccts]
> Whilst I can see the wisdom of that, especially as illuminated mirrors
> etc are very popular, and rather more reachable than the single ceiling
> battenholder with the Home Office skirt, I would hope that lighting
> wouold be on a *separate* RCD.
Separate from what though, _all_ other equipment, or just other final
circuits? That level of detail remains to be seen, as does how this
will be implemented in practice. Will it become standard to have a
separate lighting/fan/shaver/mirror circuit from the RCD of the CU, or
will an in-room (or nearby) bathroom RCD wiring accessory become
available (like an 'RCD spur')?
> I hope this isn't going to encourage the use of whole-house 30mA RCDs
> again.
I don't see why it should. You can expect a new set of Guidance Notes
and OSG to appear, all to swell the coffers of IET Publishing...
["Bathroom bonding to be abolished"]
> Will we still be expected to bond the kitchen sink though :-)
And how long will some people carry on unnecessarily bonding the
bathroom and interconnecting it to the main bonding...?
> Please do keep us informed.
I'll certainly try.
--
Andy
d...@gglz.com
> > sockets are only for use by electrically skilled persons;
>
> Who are presuably used to getting shocks by now ;-)
I was trying to think of the logic behind this exception. One that
springs to mind is diagnostics on known faulty equipment. Particularly
an intermittent RCD tripping fault might be hard to track down with a
loss of state the moment the fault occurs. Another would be max earth
loop current testing (though probbaly only a very temporary setup).
Others?
d...@gglz.com
>
> Cambridge:
Damn - my next to local group.
Owain
> [RCDs for all bathroom ccts]
> Separate from what though, _all_ other equipment, or just other final
> circuits?
Sufficiently separate that someone cutting through the lawnmover cable
doesn't dim the lights in the en-suite just as I'm shaving round my jugular.
> That level of detail remains to be seen, as does how this
> will be implemented in practice. Will it become standard to have a
> separate lighting/fan/shaver/mirror circuit from the RCD of the CU, or
> will an in-room (or nearby) bathroom RCD wiring accessory become
> available (like an 'RCD spur')?
If it;'s spurred off a socket circuit it will be RCD'd anyway.
>> I hope this isn't going to encourage the use of whole-house 30mA RCDs
>> again.
> I don't see why it should. You can expect a new set of Guidance Notes
> and OSG to appear, all to swell the coffers of IET Publishing...
It all makes work for the working man to do...
Owain
John Rumm
> [RCDs for all bathroom ccts]
>
>> Whilst I can see the wisdom of that, especially as illuminated mirrors
>> etc are very popular, and rather more reachable than the single
>> ceiling battenholder with the Home Office skirt, I would hope that
>> lighting wouold be on a *separate* RCD.
>
>
> Separate from what though, _all_ other equipment, or just other final
> circuits? That level of detail remains to be seen, as does how this
> will be implemented in practice. Will it become standard to have a
> separate lighting/fan/shaver/mirror circuit from the RCD of the CU, or
> will an in-room (or nearby) bathroom RCD wiring accessory become
> available (like an 'RCD spur')?
A RCBO on the non RCD side of the CU feeding all "special location"
lighting circuits might be one way.
Andrew Gabriel
John Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> writes:
> A RCBO on the non RCD side of the CU feeding all "special location"
> lighting circuits might be one way.
Maybe it will increase demand and reduce price of RCBO's.
Last 3 domestic CU's I've fitted have all been non-split
load, but with around 4-5 RCBO's, which does work out
very expensive. Split-loads have long since had their day.
--
Andrew Gabriel
John Rumm
Or you need a three way split, using two RCDs...
Andy Wade
>> Instant garage electrification!
>
> While I am sure that doess happen, I must confess to never having seen
> it done as a long term solution.
Don't think I have either, but a few times I have seen an old practice
that must date from what one might call the F. J. Camm era. The shed or
garage installation consisted of a few round-pin sockets, together with
a light or two. When electricity was required a special extension lead
would appear, one with a plug at each end...
> As with any existing install there is no requirement to bring it up to
> modern standards.
Except insofar as the safety of new work isn't compromised. Adding,
say, a fan or shaver point to an existing lighting circuit under the
proposed new rules will presumably mean adding RCD protection for the
whole circuit. And most new work relies on existing earthing and
bonding which often has to be upgraded to the current standard.
>> Does the word "Overkill" figure in these peoples vocabulary?
That's what people were saying in 1966 when lighting circuits were
required, for the first time, to have earth continuity conductors (as
CPCs were called at that time).
--
Andy
Andy Wade
> Andy Wade wrote:
> What (if anything) did they have to say about Part P then?
Nothing you don't already know, probably. The legal requirement
("reasonable provision..." etc.), the approved document, notifiable and
non-notifiable work, competent persons schemes, applicability in mixed
premises, and so on. Nothing particularly controversial, or anti-DIY,
just the party line that you must involve building control.
> Would be nice if they did a version available as a paid for download. I
> would really like an electronically searchable version, and would be
> happy to pay for one, but not at the level they currently charge for the
> CD based version!
Yes, but flying pigs and hell freezing over come to mind. This is the
BSI you're talking about. But you never know - and Part P will help
here since ready availability of the standard is key to compliance.
> (I have found dodgy scanned copies available for download in the past,
> but those are entirely graphic and not searchable)
OCRable?
>> - there will be a new section on luminaires and lighting under the
>> selection and erection heading;
>
> Any idea as to content?
No, except that he did mention the street lighting stuff that's
currently in section 611 would move there. Otherwise one could guess
that rules for things like ELV (12 V halogen) lighting might be added.
> If you assume mandated RCD protection, then Zone 3 as a concept becomes
> almost indistinguisable from the practices which are currently permitted
> "outside" the zones. So one presumes what was Zone 3 becomes outside.
Agreed.
> However I anticipate that the one place Jo Public would probably really
> like to have a socket would be next to the basin for feeding their hair
> dryer etc. It will be interesting to see if they perhaps extend Zone 2
> to include basins so as to prevent this while allowing the former.
> (although if as you say there is no suggestion of changing the zone
> definitions then perhaps this would become alowed)
As I said, most of the rest of the world has allowed it for ages, so why
not the UK? A socket at, say, 300 mm from a basin is probably no more
dangerous than one at the same distance from a kitchen sink - probably
safer in fact since the basin will usually be non-conductive, unlike the
the metal sink which is most probably fortuitously earthed via its
pipework.
> What will we have left to talk about then! ;-)
I doubt that that will be a problem :~) Electricians unaware of the new
regime for a start...
--
Andy
John Rumm
>> Would be nice if they did a version available as a paid for download.
>> I would really like an electronically searchable version, and would be
>> happy to pay for one, but not at the level they currently charge for
>> the CD based version!
>
>
> Yes, but flying pigs and hell freezing over come to mind. This is the
> BSI you're talking about. But you never know - and Part P will help
> here since ready availability of the standard is key to compliance.
Except they could argue that Part P is available for "free"
(lets face it, that is all it is worth)... Just the docs that make it
usable cost plenty!
>> (I have found dodgy scanned copies available for download in the past,
>> but those are entirely graphic and not searchable)
>
>
> OCRable?
Have to see if my aging copy of Omnipage can hack a PDF...
Andy Wade
> Have to see if my aging copy of Omnipage can hack a PDF...
If not Photoshop will rasterise any PDF page, then save as GIF or
whatever and proceed from there. For such a large document though
you'll have an awful lot of manual editing to do...
--
Andy
John Rumm
> John Rumm wrote:
>
>> Have to see if my aging copy of Omnipage can hack a PDF...
>
>
> If not Photoshop will rasterise any PDF page, then save as GIF or
> whatever and proceed from there.
Not a bad idea actually.... you can create actions or droplets in PS to
automate that bit.
Oh, in fact - Extract - Images as TIFF in Acrobat (full version, not
reader) seems to do it for you.
> For such a large document though
> you'll have an awful lot of manual editing to do...
Probably true...
Tournifreak
John Rumm wrote:
> EricP wrote:
> > For example garages were required to have sophisticated installations,
> > which are largely ignored. When faced with the cost, a cheap long lead
> > was bought from a shed, the plug removed, the lead pushed through a
> > hole in the garage wall, up the garden, through a hole in the house
> > wall, plug replaced and put into the first convenient socket. Instant
> > garage electrification!
>
> While I am sure that doess happen, I must confess to never having seen
> it done as a long term solution.
OK, not in a garage, but I have seen this done...
An aquaintance works as a secretary in an office. I saw that she had at
home a roll of perhaps 5m of cable with a plug at both ends. Horrified,
I asked what it was for. "it's to make the photocopier work".
Apparently, when the office electrical system had its last periodic
inspection, one circuit was disconnected because it was deemed unsafe.
So to get around this problem, she constructed this extension lead to
go from one side of the office to the other, plugging the "extension"
into the same double socket outlet as the photocopier.
When asked if she thought it could be dangerous she replied, "No, no. I
take it home with me every weekend so the cleaner won't have an
accident." It turns out she had been electricuted twice already by this
contraption.
Perhaps public information films or something is a better idea to stop
these things from happening than more regulation?
Jon.
David Hansen
<see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote this:-
>> - there will be several new sections in the 700s, including requirements
>> for small-scale embedded generators (i.e. micro-CHP, wind, solar PV,
>> etc.),
>
>It will be interesting to see what requirements they place in these
>sections. Also interesting to see how many of the current B&Q wind
>turbine type devices comply.
These regulations aren't written in isolation, but rather those
involved are aware of what is going on. I have no doubt that
manufacturers have had long discussions with the IET in order that
what they currently produce will comply with the new regulations,
perhaps with some small changes.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
Mary Fisher
"Andy Wade" <spamb...@ajwade.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:454c87a5$0$18061$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>I went to a local IEE (oh, sorry, IET) branch meeting this week about "the
>wiring regulations and Part P." The speaker was John Ware (senior engineer
>in the IET standards and compliance department). The interesting part was
>the introduction given to the forthcoming "17th Edition."
>
> Here's a summary:
!
>
>
> There are some very significant changes affecting bathrooms:
>
> - zone 3 will disappear. There will only be zones 0, 1 and 2 (there was
> no mention of the zone definitions changing);
>
What's zone 3?
Come to that, what are zones 0, 1 and 2?
Have I missed something?
Mary
John Rumm
>>There are some very significant changes affecting bathrooms:
>>
>>- zone 3 will disappear. There will only be zones 0, 1 and 2 (there was
>>no mention of the zone definitions changing);
>>
>
> What's zone 3?
>
> Come to that, what are zones 0, 1 and 2?
>
> Have I missed something?
Where have you been? ;-)
http://www.niceic.org.uk/downloads/NL139supp.pdf
Table 2 and 3 tell you what can go in each zone. The last three pages
show how to work out where they start and stop.
David Hansen
<mary....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote this:-
>What's zone 3?
>
>Come to that, what are zones 0, 1 and 2?
There are also drawings on the packets of some lights in large tin
sheds. Beware, many of these drawings are incorrect, as they show a
zone around basins that does not exist.
>Have I missed something?
A change to the wiring regulations in about 2000.
Mary Fisher
"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:454e675c$0$8746$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> Mary Fisher wrote:
>
>>>There are some very significant changes affecting bathrooms:
>>>
>>>- zone 3 will disappear. There will only be zones 0, 1 and 2 (there was
>>>no mention of the zone definitions changing);
>>>
>>
>> What's zone 3?
>>
>> Come to that, what are zones 0, 1 and 2?
>>
>> Have I missed something?
>
> Where have you been? ;-)
Obviously not in the bathroom!
>
> http://www.niceic.org.uk/downloads/NL139supp.pdf
>
> Table 2 and 3 tell you what can go in each zone. The last three pages show
> how to work out where they start and stop.
The whole thing is very interesting, thank you. It does seem to make common
sense complicated ...
Spouse has always done electrical and plumbing work with these safety
precautions, for more than thirty years. Mind you, he was trained by my
godfather, a master plumber who cared about safety and good work but not
about rules.
I'm wondering about 'wet rooms'. As I understand it water is everywhere in
those, do they not have lights?
I'm going to send this to Spouse (his pc is downstairs before you think he's
escaped - although right now he has, to return the extractor fan from the
bathroom).
Thanks again,
Mary
Mary Fisher
"David Hansen" <SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:16stk2dk0sg91mbj9...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 21:55:51 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
> <mary....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote this:-
>
>>What's zone 3?
>>
>>Come to that, what are zones 0, 1 and 2?
>
> There are also drawings on the packets of some lights in large tin
> sheds. Beware, many of these drawings are incorrect, as they show a
> zone around basins that does not exist.
Good job we don't buy lights in sheds then :-)
>
>>Have I missed something?
>
> A change to the wiring regulations in about 2000.
Apparently. That's the trouble with diy, you don't HAVE to keep up with
things for the sake of your employment so whether you'd like to or not you
might miss something.
Mary
John Rumm
> I'm wondering about 'wet rooms'. As I understand it water is everywhere in
> those, do they not have lights?
You need to use an appropriate type of light fitting. Have a look at
table 1 of the document. IPX7 fittings can be totally immersed if
required. For your average wet room IPX5 would be more common though,
installed in Zone 3.
Mary Fisher
"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
> Mary Fisher wrote:
>
>> I'm wondering about 'wet rooms'. As I understand it water is everywhere
>> in those, do they not have lights?
>
> You need to use an appropriate type of light fitting. Have a look at table
> 1 of the document. IPX7 fittings can be totally immersed if required. For
> your average wet room IPX5 would be more common though, installed in Zone
> 3.
We've no intention of having a wet room, I can't think of anything less
desirable :-)
The shower in Spouse's ward was virtually a wet room, the wshower sprayed
everywhere and the waste ran through a drain in the centre of the floor. It
was nice showering in there but that was all. Everything else got wet -
seat, washbasin, towel rail, door ... the floor needed to be mopped clean
after every use. Anything which neded to be kept dry would have to be
outside the room. What a fag!
Mary
Tim S
> The shower in Spouse's ward was virtually a wet room, the wshower sprayed
> everywhere and the waste ran through a drain in the centre of the floor.
> It was nice showering in there but that was all. Everything else got wet -
> seat, washbasin, towel rail, door ... the floor needed to be mopped clean
> after every use. Anything which neded to be kept dry would have to be
> outside the room. What a fag!
>
I concur, having used a wet-room bathroom. What I would like is a wet-dining
room - so much easier to clean up after the sproglets' feeding time ;->
Tim
Guy King
from "Mary Fisher" <mary....@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> We've no intention of having a wet room, I can't think of anything less
> desirable :-)
Very handy for wheelchair users though. And Mum's doesn't get mopped out
each time, it just drains into the floor and that's an end to it.
Mary Fisher
"Tim S" <t...@dionic.net> wrote in message
news:454f5669$0$631$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
> Mary Fisher wrote:
>
>
> ... What I would like is a wet-dining
> room - so much easier to clean up after the sproglets' feeding time ;->
:-)
You could get a dog.
Mary
Mary Fisher
"Guy King" <guy....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3130303034323...@zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <454f522f$0$29546$4c56...@master.news.zetnet.net>
> from "Mary Fisher" <mary....@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>> We've no intention of having a wet room, I can't think of anything less
>> desirable :-)
>
> Very handy for wheelchair users though. And Mum's doesn't get mopped out
> each time, it just drains into the floor and that's an end to it.
Unless you have a steep slope there's going to be debris which doesn't drain
away.
And what about wet from the wheels when leaving the room? That was one
problem in the one I saw. When going in shoes got wet from the wet floor.
They left wet tracks when leaving the room.
There might be special cases when a wet room would be better than other
solutions but for general family use I don't think I could be convinced.
Mary
Guy King
from "Mary Fisher" <mary....@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Unless you have a steep slope there's going to be debris which doesn't
> drain
> away.
Mum seems to manage. It isn't terribly steep and water from the wheels
doesn't seem to be an issue either. Perhaps she just takes a few minutes
to dry off.
Brian Sharrock
"Mary Fisher" <mary....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:454f0c9c$0$29540$4c56...@master.news.zetnet.net...
what's current/coming!
I've now postponed purchase of the 'regs' until the 'Seventeenth Edition'
.... if I'd have bought one from Borders/Waterstone (whatever) I'd doubt
they'd have advised 'Keep yer money, Mate ... there's a new edition soon!"
--
Brian
Mary Fisher
"Brian Sharrock" <b.sha...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:95L3h.6311$fz1....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
...
>>>
>>>>Have I missed something?
>>>
>>> A change to the wiring regulations in about 2000.
>>
>> Apparently. That's the trouble with diy, you don't HAVE to keep up with
>> things for the sake of your employment so whether you'd like to or not
>> you might miss something.
>>
>> Mary
>>
> Contrary wise ... that's the beauty of this newsgroup ... advising folks
> of what's current/coming!
Yebut it seems I'm six years out of date.
What's more, I asked Spouse what Zones in bathrooms were. He looked at me
from his perch at the top of the big steps as though he was joining the rest
of you around here in thinking that I'd lost the plot and said he hadn't the
faintest idea.
>
> I've now postponed purchase of the 'regs' until the 'Seventeenth Edition'
> .... if I'd have bought one from Borders/Waterstone (whatever) I'd doubt
> they'd have advised 'Keep yer money, Mate ... there's a new edition soon!"
I'm going to mail him the url given earlier. He'll say that's what he's done
since the year dot anyway, I know, but it will give him a bit of pleasure to
be right.
Yet again :-(
Mary
Owain
> I've now postponed purchase of the 'regs' until the 'Seventeenth Edition'
I'm glad it'll be a red cover. I'll be able to update my 16th Ed. with
a letraset 7 over the 6...
Owain
Andy Wade
> Owain wrote:
>> Please do keep us informed.
>
> I'll certainly try.
See http://www.iee.org//Publish/WireRegs/DPC/
Alas, the DPC[1] will cost GBP50. However there is a useful free
summary here
http://www.iee.org//Publish/WireRegs/DPC/DPC_Introduction.pdf
This is what it says about bathrooms, confirming that sockets will be
allowed (but only 3m horizontally beyond the boundary of zone 1):
The following major changes are incorporated in Part 7:
Section 701 Locations containing a bath tub or shower basin.
Zone 3 is no longer defined.
Each circuit in the special location must have 30 mA RCD protection.
Supplementary bonding is no longer required providing the
installation has main bonding in accordance with Chapter 41.
This section now allows socket-outlets (other than SELV and shaver
supply units to BS EN 60742) to be installed in locations containing
a bath or shower 3m horizontally beyond the boundary of zone 1.
[1] That's draft for public comment, not damp proof course :-)
--
Andy