Any ideas? Unlike most houses, getting the cable from the fuse box to
the bathroom is easy in our house. However, getting the cable to a
switch in the ceiling and then back to the shower is much more
problematic. I can get the switch easily into the cupboard with the
storage tank and wondered if this was a good idea.

Not being a plumber or electrician I would really appreciate any
thoughts on this topic. Also, is electric really the way to go? I'm
assuming their cheaper to run; we currently have a gravity fed system
but our cold water supply from the mains is good.

Thanks in anticipation of some expert advice - Bear

"nonymouse" wrote in message
ups.com...
Any ideas? Unlike most houses, getting the cable from the fuse box to
the bathroom is easy in our house. However, getting the cable to a
switch in the ceiling and then back to the shower is much more
problematic. I can get the switch easily into the cupboard with the
storage tank and wondered if this was a good idea.

Not being a plumber or electrician I would really appreciate any
thoughts on this topic. Also, is electric really the way to go? I'm
assuming their cheaper to run;

You assume incorrectly if you have a gas boiler :-) heating with electricity
is far more expencive then gas.

we currently have a gravity fed system
but our cold water supply from the mains is good.

If it were me, I would go for a power shower (rather then an electric
shower)
You would need to run a hot pipe from your hot water tank, and also a cold
water pipe from your cold water tank.
You will also need a low current electrical feed (Personally I would always
RCD protect this, although I am not sure it is against the regs to not do
so)

This type of shower pumps the water from the hot and cold feeds (so you must
NOT connect it directly to the mains water supply) they produce a much
higher flow rate then electric showers.


Sparks...

Thanks Sparks...

Do I assume correctly that most gravity fed showers can be pumped then?


Our current shower has something called a Venturi valve - apparently a
way of boosting the flow without the need for electricity. As we're
having the bathroom napalmed we thought it wise to update the shower -
but nothing is simple! Our shower ideally needs to have the pipes
exposed - and using a power shower would require two pipes running down
the wall as oppose to one (with an electric system).

Using a pump presumably does not draw too much electricity then? I know
electric showers are typically 8.5 - 10.5 Kw meaning a current draw of
around 40 amps. I have no idea how much current pumps draw (although
I'm assuming it's obviously related to their Kwattage)

"nonymouse" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks Sparks...

Do I assume correctly that most gravity fed showers can be pumped then?

I can't see why not, even if your shower does not have a pump, and was never
designed to have one, adding a pump is very easy - to the shower, it's just
like having more height between it and the tank.
Adding somthin like this is fairly straight foward
http://www.screwfix.com/app/sfd/cat/pro.jsp?id=70280

Our current shower has something called a Venturi valve - apparently a
way of boosting the flow without the need for electricity. As we're
having the bathroom napalmed we thought it wise to update the shower -
but nothing is simple! Our shower ideally needs to have the pipes
exposed - and using a power shower would require two pipes running down
the wall as oppose to one (with an electric system).

Can't you chase them in the wall if you are nuking the room anyway!?

Using a pump presumably does not draw too much electricity then? I know
electric showers are typically 8.5 - 10.5 Kw meaning a current draw of
around 40 amps. I have no idea how much current pumps draw (although
I'm assuming it's obviously related to their Kwattage)

We are talking hundreds of watts rather than thousands, so probably around
500-600 watts (2.5A)

When I do our bathroom (Gravity fed hot and cold water, like you), I will
probably have a thermostatic valve in the bathroom, and stick a shower pump
up in the loft, because:-
I don't like the idea of having a box with mains electricity in front of me
when I am naked and wet!
I don't like the look of a big box screwed on the wall when I don't have to
have one,
If the pump breaks, I expect it would be easier to replace, as it doesn't
matter if it looks different/is a different size etc.

Sparks...

The switch must be within sight of the shower or of the type that is
lockable-off for maintenance.
A friend of mine has an electric shower, but the isolator is a switch
outside the room above the light switch for the bathroom - as this switch
can't "see" the shower (It is on the other side of the wall to the shower
unit), should this be a lockable one then?


It should be, so that there is no risk of someone switching on when
someone else is working on the shower.


Has there always been this requirement, as this was installed, maybe, 10
years ago.


16th Ed regulations were in force 10 years ago, so yes.


This is in reply to Owain's message 12/13 but I get a fault message
when I try to respond directly to either message.

I have just re-read BS 7671 (latest Brown cover edition) and cannot
find any reference to such a requirement, only to a general requirement
to reduce the risk of inadvertant re-connection of an isolator
(Sections 461, 462 and 537). Maybe I have missed it - can you quote
the reference please?

Incidentally, I have also checked back on the installation instructions
for a Wickes shower and a B&Q shower that I installed 5 years and 7
years ago and there was no mention in these instructions of such a
requirement either.

CRB

Owain wrote:

Inadvertant reconnection of an isolator would cover it, as would good
practice.

For motors, Electricity Regulation 11 and IEE Regulation (15th Ed) 476-5
referred.

So, as I thought, there is no such specific requirement then, either
currently or in the past.

CRB

crb wrote:

For motors, Electricity Regulation 11 and IEE Regulation (15th Ed) 476-5
referred.


So, as I thought, there is no such specific requirement then, either
currently or in the past.

panto_mode

Oh yes there is!

/panto_mode


Try 476-02-02


--
Cheers,

John.

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

John Rumm wrote:

panto_mode

Oh yes there is!


/panto_mode


Try 476-02-02

Well spotted - I missed that. So Owain was right after all - sorry
Owain!

CRB

crb wrote:

Try 476-02-02

Well spotted - I missed that. So Owain was right after all - sorry
Owain!

He usually is! ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

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