PIR coding

[Sb8389]

Hi guys,
Doing a periodic on a cabin which is to be used for buisness use.
Its a new install and the one thing i have seen which im not sure weather it warrants a code or
not is they have a chandelair type fitting where the bracket is screwed to the beam,
Meaning due to the size of the fitting its possible for someone to put there hand above the
fitting and go into the connection behind it.
The height from floor to the fitting is 2.25m
would you guys snag this.
thanks

 

[andyb]

With the lamp missing? but that could apply to any fitting.

That's my point.

 

[davesparks]

No problem Dave, it's puzzled me for a while now how normal lamp holders are still allowed.
Often accessible without steps, live parts accessible without the use of a tool. Just take the lamp out.
Same with table lamps.

The code question was rhetorical.

That is basically grudgingly permitted through the historical existence of the standard.
Basically there is no simple way to get rid of them!

If you look at a more modern mains rated lampholder design like the GU10 then it's got a much better IP

 

[ruston]

That's my point.

Still no reason to install a fitting with , what I am assuming are exposed live terminals.
I see your point and have considered it before. Although some are safe.
Brass Lamp Bulb Holder with Safety Switch 10mm Bayonet Cap B22 ? Buy It Better

That's similar to the type I meant where the pins have to be compressed.

 

[Dave OCD]

It's a very good point, I suppose the difference is anyone in their right mind would expect there to be a potentially lethal voltage present within a lampholder so will avoid getting fingers too close, the other scenario is all about preventing accidental contact when the danger isn't as clearly perceived.

 

[davesparks]

Plus there can be permanent live inside the fitting that doesn't go off when the switch is turned off

 

[gutterball]

I would assume the live parts would be in some sort of connector and not likely to be able to be touched so not a shock hazard. So I would give it a 3 at the very most, and probably not code it at all. As above could you not put a disk of some sort of material over it?

 

[davesparks]

I would assume the live parts would be in some sort of connector and not likely to be able to be touched so not a shock hazard. So I would give it a 3 at the very most, and probably not code it at all. As above could you not put a disk of some sort of material over it?

Assume, some sort, not likely,

All nice definite terms to be basing a professional decision and safety report on!

 

[Flanders]

The op has still not answered my question as to why a pir is being carried out on a new install , mind you i don't think the op as returned at all, i am enjoying the debate about the lamp holder , i would go down the line that only an idiot would put their fingers in a lamp holder , but somone not thinking could be their hand inside the open part of the fitting .

 

[Lucien Nunes]

To my mind, something is 'readily accessible', if it can be accessed without the use of a key, tool or access equipment.

To mine, these don't belong in the same category. If someone uses a key or tool to detach or open something, they will be aware that whatever was previously behind / within will become exposed. OTOH if they use access equipment for some unrelated purpose like cleaning or decorating, they wouldn't anticipate suddenly being exposed to an existing but hidden electrical hazard.

Turned around, if you popped a downlighter out to change a transformer and a bunch of venomous spiders fell out onto you without warning, would you be happy with the explanation 'I keep them up there because they are only accessible from a ladder.'

 

[andyb]

Venomous spiders, code 1 or 2?

 

[Jake1992]

Venomous spiders, code 1 or 2?

Depends
a) If they are behind barriers & enclosures or out of reach ! - C3 or just a note
or
b) If they are within MY zone 0,1 or 2 ! - C1 !!!!

 

[Lucien Nunes]

Could be some mutual detrimental influence!

 

[YoungScud]

You are now telling me I'm wrong and you're right!



As the connections are probably made in a connector block (which is probably IP2X anyway) then live connections are still not readily accessible.

I'm telling you quite definitely wrong. You can make all the arguments in a court of law you want, but this one is going to get you a bigger fine. The OP has stated that it's possible to reach behind the enclosure to where the live parts are and that's readily accessible in anyone's language. When everyone else is saying it's accessible and you're the only one making the opposite argument, it's worth at least considering that you may have to have a rethink. If a consumer unit was fitted at 2.25M and it had a 20mm knockout missing on the side, using your line of logic it would be OK on the basis that it would be fairly difficult to stick your finger in there. The regs don't deal with that difficulty.

As for the connector block, it's not an enclosure, so the IP rating is irrelevant. Try screwing a block to a board with live parts connected and see if you can convince anyone that's alright.

 

[Bobster]

416.2 - 417.3.3 covers this.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

To mine, these don't belong in the same category. If someone uses a key or tool to detach or open something, they will be aware that whatever was previously behind / within will become exposed. OTOH if they use access equipment for some unrelated purpose like cleaning or decorating, they wouldn't anticipate suddenly being exposed to an existing but hidden electrical hazard.

Turned around, if you popped a downlighter out to change a transformer and a bunch of venomous spiders fell out onto you without warning, would you be happy with the explanation 'I keep them up there because they are only accessible from a ladder.'

Doesn't really matter whether you believe they belong in the same category.
The simple fact is that they are in the same category.
Hence uninsulated High Voltage cables on pylons, overhead lines for rail and tram lines, etc.