Andy Wade wrote:

[Lampholders]

Placing "out of reach" is acceptable in many circumstances.


That isn't the measure (as defined in BS 7671) being used here though,
to avoid shock by direct contact. The measure is still "protection by

Yup, appreciate that, but was just highlighting that "out of reach" is
still an effective policy for many circumstances.

As well as the points you made, another is that the area of skin contact
with the live terminal in a lampholder is too small to give rise to a
shock current likely to be high enough to prove fatal.

Yes, that is a good point I had not considered. Is there actually any
published details on the relationship of contact area with shock current
(or lethality)?

The only time a 100mA trip RCD would be mandated for protection from
direct or indirect contact is when EEBADS alone cannot be relied on
to do this


Careful... This is still EEBADS, it's just that the RCD (of whatever

Yup, sorry my bad - being sloppy with terminology.

trip current) is providing the Automatic Disconnection of Supply, rather
than an OPD [see all of 413-02-xx]. Also it's not actually mandated in
BS 7671 that such an RCD be 100 mA, merely that one may be used. The
advice that an RCD provided /only/ for this purpose should be at least
100 mA appears in the OSG [sect. 3.6.2]



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/