I wish to make a channel in plaster and put in some wiring for a new light.
Please could someone point me to requirements re conduit/covering.

On Monday, 5 December 2016 10:01:49 UTC, No Sparks wrote:
I wish to make a channel in plaster and put in some wiring for a new light.
Please could someone point me to requirements re conduit/covering.

There are none, provided the wiring runs in the permitted zones horizontally/vertically from a visible accessory and is RCD protected.

Owain

In article ,
No Sparks wrote:

I wish to make a channel in plaster and put in some wiring for a new
light. Please could someone point me to requirements re conduit/covering.

Provided the cable run conforms to the regs, it cam simply be plastered
over.

--
*If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 05/12/2016 10:01, No Sparks wrote:

I wish to make a channel in plaster and put in some wiring for a new light.
Please could someone point me to requirements re conduit/covering.

There are no specific requirements. So long as the circuit has RCD
protection (assuming the cable is closer than 50mm to the surface), and
the cable run is inline with the accessory, its fine just plastered in
directly.

(capping is frequently used on first fix electrical work to protect it
when the whole room is going to be plastered. Conduit / trunking can be
used when there is a requirement for later cable replacement or
additions - but again its not a requirement)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 05/12/16 10:06, wrote:
On Monday, 5 December 2016 10:01:49 UTC, No Sparks wrote:
I wish to make a channel in plaster and put in some wiring for a
new light. Please could someone point me to requirements re
conduit/covering.

There are none, provided the wiring runs in the permitted zones
horizontally/vertically from a visible accessory and is RCD
protected.

Owain


The RCD is not necessary if merely adding to a circuit compliant with an
older version of the regs.

It would be if this was a new circuit from the CU.

And providing like somebody did in this house you don't run it just in the
plaster at the height you want to put a nail in for a picture, disconnect
the lights but leave the wire live with just a fuse at the cu that is.
Still I survived due to being stood on a table at the time of the spark and
bang...Many years ago now. :-)
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
wrote in message
...
On Monday, 5 December 2016 10:01:49 UTC, No Sparks wrote:
I wish to make a channel in plaster and put in some wiring for a new
light.
Please could someone point me to requirements re conduit/covering.

There are none, provided the wiring runs in the permitted zones
horizontally/vertically from a visible accessory and is RCD protected.

Owain

On 12/5/2016 2:52 PM, Brian Gaff wrote:
And providing like somebody did in this house you don't run it just in the
plaster at the height you want to put a nail in for a picture, disconnect
the lights but leave the wire live with just a fuse at the cu that is.
Still I survived due to being stood on a table at the time of the spark and
bang...Many years ago now. :-)


.....and provided you don't compensate for having short lengths of cable
by joining two together with a terminal block and burying that, bare and
uninsulated in the plaster.

I had a guttering problem of which I was (at that stage) unaware and the
plaster the other side of the solid wall got damp. When it got wet
enough to conduct electricity between the line and neutral, it did. With
a bang! It went bang! a couple of times a day and I just couldn't locate
the problem because it was just an instantaneous sound and no smell (the
problem was inside the plaster, after all.) By the time I eventually
found it and dug it out of the wall, it had melted right through the
copper and I no longer had a ring circuit but two meandering spurs. As
you've probably guessed, this ring main was of the old-fashioned, fused
variety as I'm sure anything else would have tripped long before this stage.

Nick

On 05/12/16 17:11, Nick Odell wrote:
On 12/5/2016 2:52 PM, Brian Gaff wrote:
And providing like somebody did in this house you don't run it just in
the
plaster at the height you want to put a nail in for a picture, disconnect
the lights but leave the wire live with just a fuse at the cu that is.
Still I survived due to being stood on a table at the time of the
spark and
bang...Many years ago now. :-)


.....and provided you don't compensate for having short lengths of cable
by joining two together with a terminal block and burying that, bare and
uninsulated in the plaster.

I had a guttering problem of which I was (at that stage) unaware and the
plaster the other side of the solid wall got damp. When it got wet
enough to conduct electricity between the line and neutral, it did. With
a bang! It went bang! a couple of times a day and I just couldn't locate
the problem because it was just an instantaneous sound and no smell (the
problem was inside the plaster, after all.) By the time I eventually
found it and dug it out of the wall, it had melted right through the
copper and I no longer had a ring circuit but two meandering spurs. As
you've probably guessed, this ring main was of the old-fashioned, fused
variety as I'm sure anything else would have tripped long before this
stage.

Nick

While I built my last house I was renting a crappy cottage thing. I
decided to paint the kitchen.

That tripped the electrics.

There was a rawlplug in the wall, with no screw that had covered a hole
drilled right into a mains cable. Paint go into rawlplug and BANG. Lethal


Landlord blamed ME for painting it!




--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 05/12/2016 11:28, Tim Watts wrote:
On 05/12/16 10:06, wrote:
On Monday, 5 December 2016 10:01:49 UTC, No Sparks wrote:
I wish to make a channel in plaster and put in some wiring for a
new light. Please could someone point me to requirements re
conduit/covering.

There are none, provided the wiring runs in the permitted zones
horizontally/vertically from a visible accessory and is RCD
protected.

Owain


The RCD is not necessary if merely adding to a circuit compliant with an
older version of the regs.

Actually the RCD protection is compulsory reg wise. You just have to
know when to ignore the regs.



--
Adam

On 05/12/16 19:25, ARW wrote:

The RCD is not necessary if merely adding to a circuit compliant with an
older version of the regs.

Actually the RCD protection is compulsory reg wise. You just have to
know when to ignore the regs.

I bow to your superior knowledge - I assumed this was not a
retrospective requirement for minor works.

On 05/12/2016 21:08, Tim Watts wrote:
On 05/12/16 19:25, ARW wrote:

The RCD is not necessary if merely adding to a circuit compliant with an
older version of the regs.

Actually the RCD protection is compulsory reg wise. You just have to
know when to ignore the regs.

I bow to your superior knowledge - I assumed this was not a
retrospective requirement for minor works.

One that can be ignored (DIY) or classed as a deviation from the regs
when you see fit to do so and you can provide evidence as to why you
should do so.

--
Adam

On 05/12/2016 19:25, ARW wrote:
On 05/12/2016 11:28, Tim Watts wrote:
On 05/12/16 10:06, wrote:
On Monday, 5 December 2016 10:01:49 UTC, No Sparks wrote:
I wish to make a channel in plaster and put in some wiring for a
new light. Please could someone point me to requirements re
conduit/covering.

There are none, provided the wiring runs in the permitted zones
horizontally/vertically from a visible accessory and is RCD
protected.

Owain


The RCD is not necessary if merely adding to a circuit compliant with an
older version of the regs.

Actually the RCD protection is compulsory reg wise. You just have to
know when to ignore the regs.

Do I recall some slight relaxation for extensions to existing circuits
some while back?


--
Cheers,

John.

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

En el artículo , ARW adamwadsworth@blu
eyonder.co.uk escribió:

One that can be ignored (DIY) or classed as a deviation from the regs
when you see fit to do so and you can provide evidence as to why you
should do so.

Who would ask for this evidence?

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

En el artículo , ARW adamwadsworth@blu
eyonder.co.uk escribió:

One that can be ignored (DIY) or classed as a deviation from the regs
when you see fit to do so and you can provide evidence as to why you
should do so.

Who would ask for this evidence?

Coroner.

--

Roger Hayter

John Rumm wrote:

On 05/12/2016 19:25, ARW wrote:
On 05/12/2016 11:28, Tim Watts wrote:
On 05/12/16 10:06, wrote:
On Monday, 5 December 2016 10:01:49 UTC, No Sparks wrote:
I wish to make a channel in plaster and put in some wiring for a
new light. Please could someone point me to requirements re
conduit/covering.

There are none, provided the wiring runs in the permitted zones
horizontally/vertically from a visible accessory and is RCD
protected.

Owain


The RCD is not necessary if merely adding to a circuit compliant with an
older version of the regs.

Actually the RCD protection is compulsory reg wise. You just have to
know when to ignore the regs.

Do I recall some slight relaxation for extensions to existing circuits
some while back?

Wouldn't you then have to follow previous practice about protecting
buried cables in some way?

--

Roger Hayter

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

En el artículo , ARW adamwadsworth@blu
eyonder.co.uk escribió:

One that can be ignored (DIY) or classed as a deviation from the regs
when you see fit to do so and you can provide evidence as to why you
should do so.

Who would ask for this evidence?

Coroner.

Be interesting to know how he'd find proof of when they were fitted and by
whom?

--
*Oh, what a tangled website we weave when first we practice *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 06/12/2016 12:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

On 05/12/2016 19:25, ARW wrote:
On 05/12/2016 11:28, Tim Watts wrote:
On 05/12/16 10:06, wrote:
On Monday, 5 December 2016 10:01:49 UTC, No Sparks wrote:
I wish to make a channel in plaster and put in some wiring for a
new light. Please could someone point me to requirements re
conduit/covering.

There are none, provided the wiring runs in the permitted zones
horizontally/vertically from a visible accessory and is RCD
protected.

Owain


The RCD is not necessary if merely adding to a circuit compliant with an
older version of the regs.

Actually the RCD protection is compulsory reg wise. You just have to
know when to ignore the regs.

Do I recall some slight relaxation for extensions to existing circuits
some while back?

Wouldn't you then have to follow previous practice about protecting
buried cables in some way?

There was no previous requirement for protection that I am aware of.

(although there was a time when fitting conduit in walls was quite
common though - these days capping is quite often fitted mainly for ease
of plastering)

There was also a time where the concept of "safe zones" was introduced.

The requirement for cable protection really only came into effect when
the need for RCD protection on "all" cables was introduced. (i.e. a
choice of use a RCD, or, bury more than 50mm from surface, or, use
earthed metallic protection.


(My comment about a relaxation was based on a vague memory of reading
something along the lines of "in certain low risk situations one might
be able extend a non RCD protected socket circuit without adding RCD
protection". However I can't find a reference to that at the mo, so its
probably safer to assume its not the case).


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 06/12/2016 12:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

On 05/12/2016 19:25, ARW wrote:

Actually the RCD protection is compulsory reg wise. You just have to
know when to ignore the regs.

Do I recall some slight relaxation for extensions to existing circuits
some while back?

Wouldn't you then have to follow previous practice about protecting
buried cables in some way?


Not if you kept a stash of red and black 2.5 t&e.

On 06/12/2016 16:40, Andrew wrote:
On 06/12/2016 12:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

On 05/12/2016 19:25, ARW wrote:

Actually the RCD protection is compulsory reg wise. You just have to
know when to ignore the regs.

Do I recall some slight relaxation for extensions to existing circuits
some while back?

Wouldn't you then have to follow previous practice about protecting
buried cables in some way?


Not if you kept a stash of red and black 2.5 t&e.

Not sure what that is really supposed to achieve?


--
Cheers,

John.

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

En el artículo , John
Rumm escribió:

Not sure what that is really supposed to achieve?

Plausible denial for [Part Pee] inspectors. "it was done years ago guv,
it must have been, you can't get the cable in the old colours any more"

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On 06/12/2016 17:43, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , John
Rumm escribió:

Not sure what that is really supposed to achieve?

Plausible denial for [Part Pee] inspectors. "it was done years ago guv,
it must have been, you can't get the cable in the old colours any more"

The way the colour transition was performed over a period of time, meant
the transition straddled the intro of part P anyway - so old colours
were permitted after it, and new colours permitted before it. Hence the
colour of the wire tells you nothing of value.

Most modern wiring accessories have a date of manufacture stamped on
them - so unless you have a stockpile of those...

Lastly, why bother, who is going to ask?

So ultimately either "do it right" or take an informed decision as to
why deviation from "to the book" if you think that is a reasonable trade
off of safety against effort / cost etc.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

John Rumm wrote:

On 06/12/2016 12:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

On 05/12/2016 19:25, ARW wrote:
On 05/12/2016 11:28, Tim Watts wrote:
On 05/12/16 10:06, wrote:
On Monday, 5 December 2016 10:01:49 UTC, No Sparks wrote:
I wish to make a channel in plaster and put in some wiring for a
new light. Please could someone point me to requirements re
conduit/covering.

There are none, provided the wiring runs in the permitted zones
horizontally/vertically from a visible accessory and is RCD
protected.

Owain


The RCD is not necessary if merely adding to a circuit compliant with an
older version of the regs.

Actually the RCD protection is compulsory reg wise. You just have to
know when to ignore the regs.

Do I recall some slight relaxation for extensions to existing circuits
some while back?

Wouldn't you then have to follow previous practice about protecting
buried cables in some way?

There was no previous requirement for protection that I am aware of.


I see. I probably just copied the professionals!

(snip)



--

Roger Hayter

On 06/12/2016 22:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

On 06/12/2016 12:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

On 05/12/2016 19:25, ARW wrote:
On 05/12/2016 11:28, Tim Watts wrote:
On 05/12/16 10:06, wrote:
On Monday, 5 December 2016 10:01:49 UTC, No Sparks wrote:
I wish to make a channel in plaster and put in some wiring for a
new light. Please could someone point me to requirements re
conduit/covering.

There are none, provided the wiring runs in the permitted zones
horizontally/vertically from a visible accessory and is RCD
protected.

Owain


The RCD is not necessary if merely adding to a circuit compliant with an
older version of the regs.

Actually the RCD protection is compulsory reg wise. You just have to
know when to ignore the regs.

Do I recall some slight relaxation for extensions to existing circuits
some while back?

Wouldn't you then have to follow previous practice about protecting
buried cables in some way?

There was no previous requirement for protection that I am aware of.


I see. I probably just copied the professionals!

For the avoidance of doubt, there is obviously nothing wrong[1] with
using conduit/capping in walls etc, and in many situations it would be
good practice - especially when first fixing cables prior to plastering
since it saves getting cables damaged by plastering trowels and might
help reduce the amount of plaster they fill all your backboxes with (but
don't count on it!)

[1] You get a slight derating in maximum current capacity, but not
usually enough to cause any problem in isolation.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
There was no previous requirement for protection that I am aware of.


I see. I probably just copied the professionals!

For the avoidance of doubt, there is obviously nothing wrong[1] with
using conduit/capping in walls etc, and in many situations it would be
good practice - especially when first fixing cables prior to plastering
since it saves getting cables damaged by plastering trowels and might
help reduce the amount of plaster they fill all your backboxes with (but
don't count on it!)

[1] You get a slight derating in maximum current capacity, but not
usually enough to cause any problem in isolation.

I've often seen oval plastic used. If it makes plastering a new wall
easier, no problem. But wonder just how much extra protection it would
offer to a picture nail, etc?

--
*I'm not a paranoid, deranged millionaire. Dammit, I'm a billionaire.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 07/12/2016 14:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
There was no previous requirement for protection that I am aware of.


I see. I probably just copied the professionals!

For the avoidance of doubt, there is obviously nothing wrong[1] with
using conduit/capping in walls etc, and in many situations it would be
good practice - especially when first fixing cables prior to plastering
since it saves getting cables damaged by plastering trowels and might
help reduce the amount of plaster they fill all your backboxes with (but
don't count on it!)

[1] You get a slight derating in maximum current capacity, but not
usually enough to cause any problem in isolation.

I've often seen oval plastic used. If it makes plastering a new wall
easier, no problem. But wonder just how much extra protection it would
offer to a picture nail, etc?

Pretty much none really. Even metal capping is usually fixed with nails,
so does not offer much physical protection[1]. You need 3mm or steel
really to get significant puncture protection.

Its probably slightly easier to pull a new wire through oval than under
capping - but only so long as its straight lines.


[1] Although if its earthed, then that makes the protection more
effective in an electrical sense, but you would still have a cable with
a nail in it!

--
Cheers,

John.

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