Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 102 replies
  • Subscribers 31 subscribers
  • Views 7457 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Shock Likelihood at Switch.

Zoomup
Mornin' All,


I have just inspected and tested a renovated  old flat's wiring. The original lighting wiring in places has no circuit protective conductor. The owner has installed metal plate light switches to two positions with wooden back boxes. At these two positions there is no circuit protective conductor. The flat has a new R.C.B.O. consumer unit and all other wiring is good.


I have recommended that the switches have a C.P.C. installed (difficult and disruptive) or be changed to all insulated types.


Just what is the shock risk at these two switch positions? What is the likelihood of the metal plates becoming live due to a fault? Has anyone every seen a metal plate switch break down so that the plates becomes live?


Thanks,


Z.

Parents
  • 0
    Interestingly, in the ROI, as I may have mentioned before, had the intrepid Zoomup faced the same situation, he would have had 4 code choices, two of which could be discounted. Code 1 requires urgent attention or Code 2 requires improvement. No declaration on whether the installation is satisfactory or unsatisfactory is required on the report. That firmly shifts the onus on to the recipient to decide what action is to be taken. In Zooms case, I suspect he would have went with Code 2 which is a fairly unambiguous message for the owner of the flat. Then again, perhaps the Code 4 “does not comply with the current national rules for electrical installations” which is further expanded with “this does not necessarily imply that the electrical installation inspected is unsafe”, might have fitted some aspects of Zooms argument. Anyway, I am simply musing but I do like Zoomup and if he needs support I Would offer to grip the rail along with him. I could at least tell the beak that he did sterling work in uncovering the defect in the first place, something that perhaps others might have missed!
Reply
  • 0
    Interestingly, in the ROI, as I may have mentioned before, had the intrepid Zoomup faced the same situation, he would have had 4 code choices, two of which could be discounted. Code 1 requires urgent attention or Code 2 requires improvement. No declaration on whether the installation is satisfactory or unsatisfactory is required on the report. That firmly shifts the onus on to the recipient to decide what action is to be taken. In Zooms case, I suspect he would have went with Code 2 which is a fairly unambiguous message for the owner of the flat. Then again, perhaps the Code 4 “does not comply with the current national rules for electrical installations” which is further expanded with “this does not necessarily imply that the electrical installation inspected is unsafe”, might have fitted some aspects of Zooms argument. Anyway, I am simply musing but I do like Zoomup and if he needs support I Would offer to grip the rail along with him. I could at least tell the beak that he did sterling work in uncovering the defect in the first place, something that perhaps others might have missed!
Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines