Online assistance for electrical trade people in New Zealand and Australia Login  |  Register  |   Forgot Password
Assistance for electrical trade people
 

 

 

 


Click here to send Forum Admin a pdf document for publication on this Topic

Documents must be less than 200k in pdf format

Posted By Topic: Rangehoods on Lighting Points

DibbyD
Nov 10 2019 19:02

had a discussion with a tradesman recently:

He installed a range-hood using a surface socket added to a dedicated lighting circuit, with no additional RCD protection.

At first i thought it didn't seem right but he may have convinced me:

3000-2007
2.6.3.1
Additional protection by RCDs ..... shall be provided for final subcircuits supplying....
lighting points;....

NOTE: For the purpose of this Clause.... exhaust fans .... are regarded as lighting points.

Then onward to 2.6.3.4
..... Socket-outlets that are added to an existing circuit shall be protected by an RCD.

Exception
....
2. Extensions to final subcircuits supplying lighting points only, provided that the existing final subcircuit is not RCD-protected.

What do you guys think? bit of a stretch?
   

daniel2
Nov 10 2019 20:32

2.6.3.4

As you pointed out.
   

SymonS
Nov 10 2019 23:08

Worry about what you're doing, not what others are doing. You're not paying yourself enough for the grief.
   

AlecK
Nov 11 2019 06:34

I completely disagree.
It's ALWAYS worth following through a question about wiring rules; if only to avoid making the same mistakes that some others do.

You can't cherry-pick the rules. In this case you can't apply a Note or exception from one clause to another clause.

2.6.3.1 applies to new final subcircuits. It does not apply to additions & alterations of existing subcircuits. He wasn't installing an entire subcircuit, so this clause does not apply.

He was extending an existing final subcircuit; so tho relevant clause is 2.6.3.4; which requires RCD protection of EVERY socket added.
NO Exceptions .
The Exceptions that follow 2.6.3.4 are specifically linked to 2.6.3.1 & 2.6.3.2; they do NOT have any effect on 2.6.3.4. They are only placed after 2.6.3.4 because they apply more widely than just one subclause.

So while Exception 2 (extending a lighting subcircuit) can apply to 2.6.3.1; it doesn't switch off the requirement for added sockets to be RCD protected.
If he had hard-wired the rangehood, then this Exception would apply.
But he didn't directly-connect it; he made it a socket outlet - and none of the Exceptions applies to a socket outlet.

He might be able to claim the socket is for connection of a fixed / stationary appliance, and is not readily accessible; in which case it doesn't need a control switch [4.4.4.1].
But the RCD is still required.



And if he had been installing a new final subcircuit, RCD protection of the subcircuit would have been required regardless of whether
   

DibbyD
Nov 11 2019 07:12

That makes sense, thanks for the clarification AlecK.

SymonS - it pays to worry about what others are doing. If someone has a smarter, more efficient or more cost-effective way of doing a job that i hadn't thought of, why wouldn't I take it and use it?
   

SymonS
Nov 11 2019 22:32

Oh Joy, The great Oracle has spoken... so i guess that conversation is over !!

Except that since our rules available for All to read and interpret, by seemingly intelligent people, have you ever actually considered the fact that AlecK may not be right all the time, and the only opinion that actually matters in the long run is that of the judge, should it ever get that far.

The great Oracle reads, and interprets to suit his own particular opinions, exactly the same set of rules and regulations the rest of us mere mortals do.

The difference being that some us mere mortals actually choose to Read them, and interpret them to suit our Own particular opinions, whereas some of us choose to ignore that fact we can read for ourselves and instead rely on the opinions of others.

Somewhat stupid in my opinion, and I for one wouldnt want to be standing in front of the judge saying it's okay, AlecK said so!!

Read the bloody rule book !! God knows we pay enough to have it !!


   

DibbyD
Nov 12 2019 06:17

Woah...
   

daniel2
Nov 12 2019 07:12

SymonS does have a point.

AlecK does have wealth of information and knowledge about the standards and regs and the history of the regs.

But this website isn't called the 'AlecK Electrical Forum'.

Issues should be discussed openly by every electrical tradesperson.

Having said that, AlecK is right 99% of the time, lol.

   

AlecK
Nov 12 2019 17:04

By all means discuss things.

And certainly DON'T rely on what people tell you /post on forums (including me).

read the rules - then make your own mind up.
   

BCee1
Nov 12 2019 20:06

Man. That is one huge chip that SymonS is carrying on his shoulders...
   

SymonS
Nov 12 2019 20:51

No chip. Just cant be arsed with people who either cant be bothered with reading the damned rules, or lack the confidence, after all the study and exams to become a registered and licensed tradesman, to apply them !!

At best, this is a site of opinions, and if you're going about your daily job of keeping people and property safe based on someone else's opinion you'd be better off taking up bus driving !
   

BCee1
Nov 12 2019 21:38

Agree, but it never hurts to be polite when offering a different opinion!
   

greensleeve
Nov 12 2019 21:54

Just to digress slightly.

What about changing older lights to LEDs with a plug and surface socket, do these then trigger rcd requirements??
   

DougP
Nov 12 2019 22:28

greensleeve - I think according to AlecK's comment above, it probably does because you're adding a socket. Also you could come unstuck if there isn't an earth at the lighting point.

Alternative is to just hard wire into the light or driver. Or use a junction box instead of a surface socket. Either of those gets around the RCD and earth problem.
   

AlecK
Nov 13 2019 07:05

A related issue that has come up in Oz is builders asking for just one socket per room for ;lighting, then installing a bunch of downlights from that using EPODs.

NOT a good idea, and they generally have no idea about clearances.

Personally I don't see much advantage to using sockets in most (domestic) cases. there's only slightly more work in doing a direct connection. The main benefit of sockets is ease of swapping luminaires, but how often does the average homeowner change their lights? And if the new ones are different design, they probably won't fit the same holes and the clearances may be wrong.
   

OctaneOutlaw
Nov 13 2019 07:09

The way I see it is of the socket outlet is installed, even for a downlight or anything then it needs to be RCD protected

It doesn't matter if it's a light with a three pin plug on it, or whatever else is plugging in

It's not like you wouldn't put an RCD on a socket outlet elsewhere because you say "oh, it's only going to have a light plugged in"

2.6.3.3 says "Socket-outlets that are added to an existing circuit shall be protected by an
RCD."

Have you installed a socket outlet? Yes
Does it need RCD protection? Yes

Yes there is an exception that says "Extensions to final subcircuits supplying lighting points only, provided
that the existing final subcircuit is not RCD-protected." but I see that as if you've put a socket outlet in there then that's were the installation wiring ends and the final sub circuit is no longer just supplying lighting points

If lighting point was unplugged yours simply have a socket outlet in the roof or wherever and it'd still be a complete circuit

You can't change the requirements for a socket outlet due to what plugs into it

That's just what I believe
   

AlecK
Nov 13 2019 07:22

If you look at the 2018 edition you'll find that these Exceptions have changed, ; so once the new edition is cited it will be clearer.
Firstly, right now, EVERY socket added to any circuit in any installation has to be RCD-protected. And that's regardless of whether you regard these Exceptions as applying to just 2.6.3.4, or (as they were originally and arguably still are) as applying to ALL of 2.6..

The new rule allows the same Exceptions that apply to new subcircuits to also apply for added sockets.

Secondly, the "extensions to lighting subcircuits has been removed, because it never served any real purpose (again reagardless of whether these exeptions apply to entire clause or just subclause 2.6.3.4.
The main rule applies to new final subcircuits; not to new part-of-final-subcircuits. So when you're not installing an entire new subcircuit, there wasn't an RCD requirement that needed to be turned off by an Exception.

The history of this set of Exceptions is a prime case of the rule-writers allowing themselves to get confused - and when they can get confused it obviously wasn't clear enough to expect everyone else to understand.