Same bloke in TLC Direct in the lamp holder post, reckoned that the 18th
edition will specify that all new lighting installations after a certain
date will have to be low voltage.

Anyone heard this?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:13:29 +0000, David Lang
wrote:

Same bloke in TLC Direct in the lamp holder post, reckoned that the 18th
edition will specify that all new lighting installations after a certain
date will have to be low voltage.

Anyone heard this?

I hope not. When I installed 12V LED spotlights they obliterated
radio reception.

On 11/02/17 13:41, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:13:29 +0000, David Lang
wrote:

Same bloke in TLC Direct in the lamp holder post, reckoned that the 18th
edition will specify that all new lighting installations after a certain
date will have to be low voltage.

Anyone heard this?

I hope not. When I installed 12V LED spotlights they obliterated
radio reception.

Should have used a toroid...


--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:34:25 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/02/17 13:41, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:13:29 +0000, David Lang
wrote:

Same bloke in TLC Direct in the lamp holder post, reckoned that the 18th
edition will specify that all new lighting installations after a certain
date will have to be low voltage.

Anyone heard this?

I hope not. When I installed 12V LED spotlights they obliterated
radio reception.

Should have used a toroid...

I did. Three of them in fact.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:41:41 +0000, Scott
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:34:25 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/02/17 13:41, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:13:29 +0000, David Lang
wrote:

Same bloke in TLC Direct in the lamp holder post, reckoned that the 18th
edition will specify that all new lighting installations after a certain
date will have to be low voltage.

Anyone heard this?

I hope not. When I installed 12V LED spotlights they obliterated
radio reception.

Should have used a toroid...

I did. Three of them in fact.

So you were feeding these LEDs 12vAC?

--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:51:37 +0000, Graham.
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:41:41 +0000, Scott
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:34:25 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/02/17 13:41, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:13:29 +0000, David Lang
wrote:

Same bloke in TLC Direct in the lamp holder post, reckoned that the 18th
edition will specify that all new lighting installations after a certain
date will have to be low voltage.

Anyone heard this?

I hope not. When I installed 12V LED spotlights they obliterated
radio reception.

Should have used a toroid...

I did. Three of them in fact.

So you were feeding these LEDs 12vAC?

Yes. I understand this is where the problem lay, with the switched
mode converter handling 19 or so times the current mains would have
needed. I had to go back to halogen.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:34:25 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/02/17 13:41, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:13:29 +0000, David Lang
wrote:

Same bloke in TLC Direct in the lamp holder post, reckoned that the 18th
edition will specify that all new lighting installations after a certain
date will have to be low voltage.

Anyone heard this?

I hope not. When I installed 12V LED spotlights they obliterated
radio reception.

Should have used a toroid...

PS do you mean a toroidal transformer?

On 11/02/17 16:42, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:34:25 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/02/17 13:41, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:13:29 +0000, David Lang
wrote:

Same bloke in TLC Direct in the lamp holder post, reckoned that the 18th
edition will specify that all new lighting installations after a certain
date will have to be low voltage.

Anyone heard this?

I hope not. When I installed 12V LED spotlights they obliterated
radio reception.

Should have used a toroid...

PS do you mean a toroidal transformer?

Of course. What other types of toroids are in use in LV lighting circuits?


--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

On 11/02/2017 18:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/02/17 16:42, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:34:25 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Should have used a toroid...

PS do you mean a toroidal transformer?

Of course. What other types of toroids are in use in LV lighting circuits?

Sugar doughnuts? Magnetic confinement for fusion generators?

--
Max Demian

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:41:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/02/17 16:42, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:34:25 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/02/17 13:41, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:13:29 +0000, David Lang
wrote:

Same bloke in TLC Direct in the lamp holder post, reckoned that the 18th
edition will specify that all new lighting installations after a certain
date will have to be low voltage.

Anyone heard this?

I hope not. When I installed 12V LED spotlights they obliterated
radio reception.

Should have used a toroid...

PS do you mean a toroidal transformer?

Of course. What other types of toroids are in use in LV lighting circuits?

That's a yes then, the lighting tracks were each powered by a toroidal
transformer.

On Saturday, 11 February 2017 13:13:31 UTC, David Lang wrote:
Same bloke in TLC Direct in the lamp holder post, reckoned that the 18th
edition will specify that all new lighting installations after a certain
date will have to be low voltage.

*extra* low voltage ? :-)

That'll be a right bugger for theatres and sports stadia.

Owain

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 06:22:07 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

*extra* low voltage ? :-)

That'll be a right bugger for theatres and sports stadia.

Sports stadia, yeah. At EPL stadiums each luminaire is 2 kW so that's
40A @ 50 V and there are around 200 of these luminairs... For top
flight Champions League or FIFA matches the lights must not go out,
full stop. Stadiums these days have twinset on site generation which
is hot from about three hours before kick off.

Any club with any sense has those sets available to the grid under
STOR. They are only needed for their primary purpose for 6 hours
every week or so...

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article l.net,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 06:22:07 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

*extra* low voltage ? :-)

That'll be a right bugger for theatres and sports stadia.

Sports stadia, yeah. At EPL stadiums each luminaire is 2 kW so that's
40A @ 50 V and there are around 200 of these luminairs... For top
flight Champions League or FIFA matches the lights must not go out,
full stop. Stadiums these days have twinset on site generation which
is hot from about three hours before kick off.

Does the 18th edition cover commercial lighting installations?

Any club with any sense has those sets available to the grid under
STOR. They are only needed for their primary purpose for 6 hours
every week or so...

--
*Organized Crime Is Alive And Well; It's Called Auto Insurance.

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

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:43:07 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 06:22:07 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

*extra* low voltage ? :-)

That'll be a right bugger for theatres and sports stadia.

Sports stadia, yeah. At EPL stadiums each luminaire is 2 kW so that's
40A @ 50 V and there are around 200 of these luminairs... For top
flight Champions League or FIFA matches the lights must not go out,
full stop. Stadiums these days have twinset on site generation which
is hot from about three hours before kick off.

Any club with any sense has those sets available to the grid under
STOR. They are only needed for their primary purpose for 6 hours
every week or so...

Wasn't there a betting fraud case a few years ago, that worked by
literally hacking the floodlight control system?

--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

On 12/02/2017 10:43, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 06:22:07 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

*extra* low voltage ? :-)

That'll be a right bugger for theatres and sports stadia.

Sports stadia, yeah. At EPL stadiums each luminaire is 2 kW so that's
40A @ 50 V and there are around 200 of these luminairs... For top
flight Champions League or FIFA matches the lights must not go out,
full stop. Stadiums these days have twinset on site generation which
is hot from about three hours before kick off.

They also have an on site electrician.

--
Adam

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 16:07:37 +0000, ARW wrote:

Sports stadia, yeah. At EPL stadiums each luminaire is 2 kW so
that's
40A @ 50 V and there are around 200 of these luminairs... For top
flight Champions League or FIFA matches the lights must not go
out,
full stop. Stadiums these days have twinset on site generation
which
is hot from about three hours before kick off.

They also have an on site electrician.

Who earnt his money at Sunderland's "Stadium of Light" not so long
ago. Ordinary live to world (but not the UK) EPL fixture, so lights
are allowed to go out but should come back on again within 10
minutes, ie about how long they have to cool before being restruck
(they are "arc lamps" most variations won't restrike when hot).

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 12/02/2017 20:11, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 16:07:37 +0000, ARW wrote:

Sports stadia, yeah. At EPL stadiums each luminaire is 2 kW so
that's
40A @ 50 V and there are around 200 of these luminairs... For top
flight Champions League or FIFA matches the lights must not go
out,
full stop. Stadiums these days have twinset on site generation
which
is hot from about three hours before kick off.

They also have an on site electrician.

Who earnt his money at Sunderland's "Stadium of Light" not so long
ago. Ordinary live to world (but not the UK) EPL fixture, so lights
are allowed to go out but should come back on again within 10
minutes, ie about how long they have to cool before being restruck
(they are "arc lamps" most variations won't restrike when hot).

That's about all they are there for.

I have not done the job for a few years but sitting in the control room
at the Keepmoat stadium and doing **** all but getting paid to watch a
football match was a nice little earner. You had to be there 2 hours
before kick-off, and stay an hour after the match finished. You got free
parking and free coffee and tea.

I once had to fix the roller shutters on one of the bars, other than
that I have done over 100 hour of getting paid to sit down and do ****
all apart from watch football and some Rugby.

I booked a holiday when Elton John played there. It was either that or
jump off a motorway bridge.

--
Adam

On 11/02/2017 13:13, David Lang wrote:
Same bloke in TLC Direct in the lamp holder post, reckoned that the 18th
edition will specify that all new lighting installations after a certain
date will have to be low voltage.

That would make sense when everyone is using LEDs.

Though incandescents can be low voltage and no-one suggested that all
your lighting circuits should be supplied from a transformer. Then it
wouldn't matter if you stuck your fingers in the sockets (as I suggested
in another post).

--
Max Demian

On Saturday, 11 February 2017 13:13:31 UTC, David Lang wrote:
Same bloke in TLC Direct in the lamp holder post, reckoned that the 18th
edition will specify that all new lighting installations after a certain
date will have to be low voltage.

they already are, if you use the 17th edition terminology.

Anyone heard this?

Making them all 50v makes no sense.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:13:29 +0000, David Lang wrote:

Same bloke in TLC Direct in the lamp holder post, reckoned that the 18th
edition will specify that all new lighting installations after a certain
date will have to be low voltage.

Anyone heard this?

Total ********.
The consultation document hasnt been released yet, so no-one, apart from
the JPEL Committee members know what is to be included.
Maybe it is someone who thinks low voltage is ~12-24volts, whereas that
is extra low voltage?

No but I'd often wondered why the combined brains of the world could not
come up with a better lampholder design than ES or BC, one that does not
leave the contacts directly exposed when no bulb is present.
I'm sure there were many such designs proposed back when tomorrows World
was on the telly.
When I was young my gran had an electric iron that had a BC male connector
on it to plug into a lamp socket. so we have come a long way since then, or
have we?
Brian

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

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"David Lang" wrote in message
...
Same bloke in TLC Direct in the lamp holder post, reckoned that the 18th
edition will specify that all new lighting installations after a certain
date will have to be low voltage.

Anyone heard this?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman

On 11/02/2017 19:05, Brian Gaff wrote:
No but I'd often wondered why the combined brains of the world could not
come up with a better lampholder design than ES or BC, one that does not
leave the contacts directly exposed when no bulb is present.

It's OK because lamp-holders are all high up so the kids can't stick
their fingers in.

--
Max Demian

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:48:54 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:

On 11/02/2017 19:05, Brian Gaff wrote:
No but I'd often wondered why the combined brains of the world could not
come up with a better lampholder design than ES or BC, one that does not
leave the contacts directly exposed when no bulb is present.

It's OK because lamp-holders are all high up so the kids can't stick
their fingers in.

Not if they are part of a table lamp.

In article ,
Scott wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:48:54 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:

On 11/02/2017 19:05, Brian Gaff wrote:
No but I'd often wondered why the combined brains of the world could
not come up with a better lampholder design than ES or BC, one that
does not leave the contacts directly exposed when no bulb is present.

It's OK because lamp-holders are all high up so the kids can't stick
their fingers in.

Not if they are part of a table lamp.

If a kid is old enough to remove a BC bulb, they should be old enough to
know not to stick their fingers in it.

But if you are really concerned about safety, fit an appropriate RCD. But
don't expect others to have to pay extra for stupid parents.

--
*One nice thing about egotists: they don't talk about other people.

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

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:43:07 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Scott wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:48:54 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:

On 11/02/2017 19:05, Brian Gaff wrote:
No but I'd often wondered why the combined brains of the world could
not come up with a better lampholder design than ES or BC, one that
does not leave the contacts directly exposed when no bulb is present.

It's OK because lamp-holders are all high up so the kids can't stick
their fingers in.

Not if they are part of a table lamp.

If a kid is old enough to remove a BC bulb, they should be old enough to
know not to stick their fingers in it.

But if you are really concerned about safety, fit an appropriate RCD. But
don't expect others to have to pay extra for stupid parents.

I'm not concerned at all. Anyway, I thought an RCD only detected
leakage to earth so why would touching both terminals trip an RCD?

On 12/02/2017 11:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Scott wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:48:54 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:
On 11/02/2017 19:05, Brian Gaff wrote:

No but I'd often wondered why the combined brains of the world could
not come up with a better lampholder design than ES or BC, one that
does not leave the contacts directly exposed when no bulb is present.

It's OK because lamp-holders are all high up so the kids can't stick
their fingers in.

Not if they are part of a table lamp.

If a kid is old enough to remove a BC bulb, they should be old enough to
know not to stick their fingers in it.

But if you are really concerned about safety, fit an appropriate RCD. But
don't expect others to have to pay extra for stupid parents.

Has anyone tested RCDs on children? ;-

--
Max Demian

On Saturday, 11 February 2017 19:48:59 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 11/02/2017 19:05, Brian Gaff wrote:
No but I'd often wondered why the combined brains of the world could not
come up with a better lampholder design than ES or BC, one that does not
leave the contacts directly exposed when no bulb is present.

It's OK because lamp-holders are all high up so the kids can't stick
their fingers in.

Wrong answer. I think I was 6.


NT

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 23:40:33 -0800 (PST), wrote:

It's OK because lamp-holders are all high up so the kids can't
stick
their fingers in.

Wrong answer. I think I was 6.

Ditto...

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice explained :
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 23:40:33 -0800 (PST), wrote:

It's OK because lamp-holders are all high up so the kids can't stick
their fingers in.

Wrong answer. I think I was 6.

Ditto...

My first shock was around that age, from the grill of an electric
cooker, trying to light a match. A modern toaster also has bare
elements, but perhaps less easy to make contact with.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:23:54 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 23:40:33 -0800 (PST), wrote:

It's OK because lamp-holders are all high up so the kids can't
stick
their fingers in.

Wrong answer. I think I was 6.

Ditto...

JOOI, did either of you suffer burns on your fingertips? Alternatively,
since you don't make this clear as to whether you were shocked by
touching a ceiling pendant light socket or handling a table lamp, did you
suffer a shock through your arm and body as a result of providing a path
to earth?

ELCBs and RCDs have been mentioned in this thread, asking how such
protective devices can work in the absence of any path to earth such as
atop a wooden step ladder when bridging the lamp contacts with a
fingertip. The answer in this case is, "They don't!".

Fortunately, in this case, they don't have to (work, that is!) since the
luckless victim does all the necessary work of 'protective action' either
by rapidly withdrawing their digit or else by dragging the lamp cord out
of the ceiling rose or even snapping it in two as they spring off the
ladder, howling in pain with nothing worse than a bruise or three to show
for their embarrassment.

I dare say that there *have* been a (mercifully) few fatalities as a
result of injuries consequent to such electric shocks over the many
decades of DIY lamp changing to date, presumably a statistically
insignificant number to warrant a 'fresh look at the problem'.

I'd imagine most such fatal cases would have been the result of failing
to take account of the higher than usual risk of death by injury
resulting from falling from a greater height such as from a set of steps
on a landing at the top of a flight of stairs and similar hazardous
locations where such precautions should have been undertaken anyway,
irrespective of the electric shock hazard of changing out a lamp.

What few of the remaining fatalities in more prosaic settings (a living
room lamp changing exercise) resulting from injuries consequent to a fall
from a ladder (step or otherwise), even when electric shock was proved to
be the trigger, have probably been determined to be a fatality due to
'unsafe ladder working practice' rather than a lack of safety in the
design of the lamp holder or socket itself.

Compared to all the other hazards associated with changing a lamp, the
risk of actual electrocution is vanishingly small, assuming no other
obvious electrical deficiencies such as damaged insulation or loose bare
wiring.

The humble lamp socket is, imho, safe enough for its purpose although
the ES types are slightly less so and the adoption of ES over BC fittings
for GLS lamps, other than in exceptionally appropriate usage cases, is a
practice that ought to be actively discouraged in spite of Ikea's
determined efforts to introduce it as a de-facto standard via the
backdoor of selective marketing.

--
Johnny B Good

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:48:54 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

On 11/02/2017 19:05, Brian Gaff wrote:
No but I'd often wondered why the combined brains of the world could
not come up with a better lampholder design than ES or BC, one that
does not leave the contacts directly exposed when no bulb is present.

It's OK because lamp-holders are all high up so the kids can't stick
their fingers in.

Pendant lamp holders dangling from ceiling roses significantly reduce
the risk of electrocution (fatal electric shock - usually the result of
currents flowing across the heart, hand to hand or hand to foot paths) to
a vanishingly low level (especially true in the case of BC lamp holders).

The safety aspect of BC lamp holders dangling by wire cords from ceiling
roses is only compromised by damaged pendant cord insulation which is a
whole new "accident waiting to happen" issue altogether.

The only 'scenario' I can envisage where such "Safety" can be
compromised is when the 'Lamp Changer' has just stepped out of a shower
straight onto a set of metal step ladders sans their plastic protective
feet in a room with a bare and very damp concrete floor (the downstairs
shower room itself?) to swap out a failed lamp whilst the lamp socket is
still 'live' and fed via a fuse or mcb protected circuit unprotected
against earth leakage faults.

The more usual scenario, a dry, fully dressed 'Lamp Changer' is unlikely
to suffer anything worse than a shock localised to the unlucky fingertip
that happened to stray deep within the empty BC lamp holder with perhaps
a couple of painful burn marks on the end of said unlucky digit with
virtually no shock current reaching the chest area.

Of course, this form of protection fails in the case of an old fashioned
earth protected brass table lamp. However, since it's a fairly trivial
matter to unplug such lamps so they are visibly isolated from any mains
voltage, the 'Lamp Changer' can only have himself to blame in the event
of a "Darwin Award" styled electrocution.

The statistics on UK 'lamp changing induced fatalities by
electrocution' (0 BC and 1 ES associated deaths?) seem to bear out that
the risk is extremely low in practice in spite of the theoretical risk
case that can be made against either type of lamp holder or socket.

When a long established design and/or practice has proved itself to be
acceptably safe for many decades (seven or more?), it's unlikely to be
modified any time soon. Unless we start seeing a sudden spate of juvenile
fatalities due to misuse of electric light sockets (which would be more a
case of bad childcare rather than a deficiency of lamp socket safety),
it's very unlikely that we'll see a change in the regulations to mandate
"A Safer Lamp Socket".

At least whilst there are countless other 'safety issues' of much higher
priority waiting to be addressed by the H&S executive, this one will
remain firmly placed on the back burner. Who knows? Perhaps one day, when
*every* other potential death hazard has finally been dealt with, the
death hazard embodied by the current lamp socket design might finally
become visible above the death statistics 'noise floor' and 'Something
done about it'. :-)

If you're waiting for a safer lamp holder or socket to materialise, I'd
recommend against holding your breath in anticipation. Most, if not all
of us, here will likely be long dead of natural causes without any need
for asphyxia by the time such a design change is ever deemed necessary.

--
Johnny B Good

On 13/02/2017 16:33, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:48:54 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

On 11/02/2017 19:05, Brian Gaff wrote:
No but I'd often wondered why the combined brains of the world could
not come up with a better lampholder design than ES or BC, one that
does not leave the contacts directly exposed when no bulb is present.

It's OK because lamp-holders are all high up so the kids can't stick
their fingers in.

Pendant lamp holders dangling from ceiling roses significantly reduce
the risk of electrocution (fatal electric shock - usually the result of
currents flowing across the heart, hand to hand or hand to foot paths) to
a vanishingly low level (especially true in the case of BC lamp holders).

The safety aspect of BC lamp holders dangling by wire cords from ceiling
roses is only compromised by damaged pendant cord insulation which is a
whole new "accident waiting to happen" issue altogether.

The only 'scenario' I can envisage where such "Safety" can be
compromised is when the 'Lamp Changer' has just stepped out of a shower
straight onto a set of metal step ladders sans their plastic protective
feet in a room with a bare and very damp concrete floor (the downstairs
shower room itself?) to swap out a failed lamp whilst the lamp socket is
still 'live' and fed via a fuse or mcb protected circuit unprotected
against earth leakage faults.

The more usual scenario, a dry, fully dressed 'Lamp Changer' is unlikely
to suffer anything worse than a shock localised to the unlucky fingertip
that happened to stray deep within the empty BC lamp holder with perhaps
a couple of painful burn marks on the end of said unlucky digit with
virtually no shock current reaching the chest area.

Of course, this form of protection fails in the case of an old fashioned
earth protected brass table lamp. However, since it's a fairly trivial
matter to unplug such lamps so they are visibly isolated from any mains
voltage, the 'Lamp Changer' can only have himself to blame in the event
of a "Darwin Award" styled electrocution.

The statistics on UK 'lamp changing induced fatalities by
electrocution' (0 BC and 1 ES associated deaths?) seem to bear out that
the risk is extremely low in practice in spite of the theoretical risk
case that can be made against either type of lamp holder or socket.

When a long established design and/or practice has proved itself to be
acceptably safe for many decades (seven or more?), it's unlikely to be
modified any time soon. Unless we start seeing a sudden spate of juvenile
fatalities due to misuse of electric light sockets (which would be more a
case of bad childcare rather than a deficiency of lamp socket safety),
it's very unlikely that we'll see a change in the regulations to mandate
"A Safer Lamp Socket".

At least whilst there are countless other 'safety issues' of much higher
priority waiting to be addressed by the H&S executive, this one will
remain firmly placed on the back burner. Who knows?



Perhaps one day, when
*every* other potential death hazard has finally been dealt with

Women drivers.

--
Adam

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:33:06 GMT, Johnny B Good
wrote:



The statistics on UK 'lamp changing induced fatalities by
electrocution' (0 BC and 1 ES associated deaths?) seem to bear out that
the risk is extremely low in practice in spite of the theoretical risk
case that can be made against either type of lamp holder or socket.


If there had been a problem I would have thought it may have been
revealed back in the era before power sockets were fitted in many
premises and the pendant lamp fitting was the only source of electric
in the room.
Removing the lamp and connecting the flex of an Iron or other small
appliance using a bayonet plug was common, some users used a Y piece
with two outlets that allowed the lamp to remain in place which did
leave unprotected pins when the appliance was disconnected.
Some more expensive versions did have switch.

http://www.flameport.com/electric_mu...52_adaptor.cs4

G.Harman

In article ,
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:33:06 GMT, Johnny B Good
wrote:



The statistics on UK 'lamp changing induced fatalities by
electrocution' (0 BC and 1 ES associated deaths?) seem to bear out that
the risk is extremely low in practice in spite of the theoretical risk
case that can be made against either type of lamp holder or socket.


If there had been a problem I would have thought it may have been
revealed back in the era before power sockets were fitted in many
premises and the pendant lamp fitting was the only source of electric
in the room.
Removing the lamp and connecting the flex of an Iron or other small
appliance using a bayonet plug was common, some users used a Y piece
with two outlets that allowed the lamp to remain in place which did
leave unprotected pins when the appliance was disconnected.
Some more expensive versions did have switch.

you could buy them in Woolworths!

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:05:52 +0000, Brian Gaff wrote:

No but I'd often wondered why the combined brains of the world could
not come up with a better lampholder design than ES or BC, one that does
not leave the contacts directly exposed when no bulb is present.

There are a number of BC lampholders that are perfectly safe.

One type have springs that have to be depressed to make contact inside
the holder. They are not live unless pressed hard.

A better type have a built in 'switch'. The bulb is inserted, then
rotated to lock. The rotation operates the switch.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Saturday, 11 February 2017 19:05:59 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
No but I'd often wondered why the combined brains of the world could not
come up with a better lampholder design than ES or BC, one that does not
leave the contacts directly exposed when no bulb is present.
I'm sure there were many such designs proposed back when tomorrows World
was on the telly.
When I was young my gran had an electric iron that had a BC male connector
on it to plug into a lamp socket. so we have come a long way since then, or
have we?
Brian

I recently bought a batten lampholder that has shielded BC contacts.

On 2017-02-11, Brian Gaff wrote:

No but I'd often wondered why the combined brains of the world could not
come up with a better lampholder design than ES or BC, one that does not
leave the contacts directly exposed when no bulb is present.

I'm pretty sure such things exist (e.g., with spring-loaded bits that
break the contact when the lamp is removed), but they are slightly
more expensive to manufacture.

On 11/02/2017 14:38, Huge wrote:
On 2017-02-11, David Lang wrote:
Same bloke in TLC Direct in the lamp holder post, reckoned that the 18th
edition will specify that all new lighting installations after a certain
date will have to be low voltage.

240V *is* low voltage.


So is 230V.

--
Adam

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:41:30 +0000, ARW
wrote:

On 11/02/2017 14:38, Huge wrote:
On 2017-02-11, David Lang wrote:
Same bloke in TLC Direct in the lamp holder post, reckoned that the 18th
edition will specify that all new lighting installations after a certain
date will have to be low voltage.

240V *is* low voltage.


So is 230V.

Plus or minus. Is it +10% / -6% or something else as there seems to
be some confusion? I'm sure 240V is in there. .

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:52:05 +0000, Scott
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:41:30 +0000, ARW
wrote:

On 11/02/2017 14:38, Huge wrote:
On 2017-02-11, David Lang wrote:
Same bloke in TLC Direct in the lamp holder post, reckoned that the 18th
edition will specify that all new lighting installations after a certain
date will have to be low voltage.

240V *is* low voltage.


So is 230V.

Plus or minus. Is it +10% / -6% or something else as there seems to
be some confusion? I'm sure 240V is in there. .

That's European harmonised supply ********. Nothing to do with what is
or isn't LV.
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%