Double insulated down lights cpc

[Deleted member 26818]

521.10.1 does not apply to a CPC which complies with section 543.

 

[westward10]

How so I have no Regs with me.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

21.10.1 Non-sheathed cables for fixed wiring shall be enclosed in conduit, ducting or trunking. This requirement does not apply to a protective conductor complying with Section 543.......

 

[westward10]

So this applies to the 1.0 cpc in the OPs pic, leave it unenclosed?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Unless you or someone else can find a Regulation which says not, then yes, leave it unenclosed, just as we used to do with JBs.

 

[westward10]

521.10.1

 

[Deleted member 26818]

521.10.1

As already said, does not apply.

 

[westward10]

Does.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Does.

If it applies, then we can’t have non-sheathed earthing or bonding conductors, unless they’re in conduit or trunking.

 

[Wilko]

Reading 543, it's got "if the protective conductor is not integral part of a cable .. the cross sectional area shall not be less than 2.5mm". So I'm thinking that irky 50mm bit of 1mm we've stripped back doesn't comply with 543, so needs to comply with ... think I'd better get my coat.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Reading 543, it's got "if the protective conductor is not integral part of a cable .. the cross sectional area shall not be less than 2.5mm". So I'm thinking that irky 50mm bit of 1mm we've stripped back doesn't comply with 543, so needs to comply with ... think I'd better get my coat.

Nothing says the whole of the CPC has to form part of a multi core cable.
That wouldn’t be possible even if the termination was within an enclosure.

 

[Toneyz]

leave it unenclosed, just as we used to do with JBs.

I remember an old Rock Ashley catalogue that showed an accessory for junction boxes that added earth terminals outside the J.box to allow additional terminals inside.

 

[westward10]

Reading 543, it's got "if the protective conductor is not integral part of a cable .. the cross sectional area shall not be less than 2.5mm". So I'm thinking that irky 50mm bit of 1mm we've stripped back doesn't comply with 543, so needs to comply with ... think I'd better get my coat.

Quite correct but your words are going to deaf ears.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Quite correct but your words are going to deaf ears.

I think if anyone has deaf ears, it’s you.
You cite a Regulation which does not apply, then despite me quoting the Regulation which clearly states it does not apply, you then go right back and cite the Regulation again.

Like I said, find a Regulation that requires a CPC that forms part of a multi core cable to have a minimum CSA and find another that requires terminations to be enclosed.
Once you’ve found (or think you’ve found) those Regulations, then explain how they apply to main bonding and earth conductors.

 

[westward10]

No one is talking minimum csa or bonding or earthing conductors.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

No one is talking minimum csa or bonding or earthing conductors.

Well if minimum CSA is not an issue, why are you agreeing with Wilko?
How is it earthing and bonding conductors can be terminated without enclosures, but the CPC in this instance can’t?

 

[westward10]

I actually have no idea where you are going with this.

 

[Toneyz]

Well if minimum CSA is not an issue, why are you agreeing with Wilko?
How is it earthing and bonding conductors can be terminated without enclosures, but the CPC in this instance can’t?

It's obvious even without a regs book mechanical protection of the conductor especially small conductors of that size.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It's obvious even without a regs book mechanical protection of the conductor especially small conductors of that size.

That equates to minimum CSA, which according to Westie isn’t an issue.
But as the Regs only state a minimum CSA for CPCs that don’t form part of a multi core cable, what is the issue?

 

[westward10]

When have I quoted minimum csa, as I say I have no idea where you are trying to take this.