Talk:Lighting Circuits Without an Earth
There are also plenty of Class II metal fittings around that are perfectly compliant. These are no less safe on 2 core cable than on 3 core. I might not be a big fan of unearthed metal fittings, but they do comply. NT 15:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I have updated the article. But don't call it 3 core:-) it makes you sound like a plumber --ARWadsworth 16:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC).
Well, its the term most diyers will understand. Same reason I avoid saying CPC, if someone needs to read a basic article they usually dont know what a CPC is. NT 23:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with using the correct terminology. I specifically choose the article name to include the word earth NOT cpc to make it clear to non-electricians what the article was about, However the rest of the article should then use the word cpc where appropriate.--ARWadsworth 14:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
But there isn't really anything more correct about either term, earth wire or CPC. Both describe the same thing, one is widely understood, the other isn't. NT 15:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
You might note that I did explicitly put "earth (aka Circuit Protective Conductor (CPC))" in the intro which ought to make it fairly clear for folks regardless of their knowledge level. --John Rumm 15:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually extending 2 core circuits is quite safe as long as all accessories/luminaries are class II. Its just not regs compliant. NT 23:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Right up until someone swaps a fitting. --ARWadsworth 14:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Modern unearthed circuits
There's also much more modern earthless wiring here and there. I've seen some eyeopening wiring, I thought bellwire lighting circuits was bad enough till I saw assorted offcuts of 2 core flex twisted together and strung overhead, literally.
So I wonder if a small section suggesting checking the wiring type might be of use. Ie if its bellwire or speaker flex, its time to probe further. NT 23:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Most of the safety section ought to be in a different place, eg Electrical Safety > Mainainance (or suggestions please) with a link to it from this article as it is applies to all older installations including ones that have an earth on the lighting circuits.--ARWadsworth 14:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
It could be. It seems to me to make sense though to include in the article a description of what the problem with earthless lighting is. Why not have the content in both places, it applies to both. NT 15:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
It should be in more than one place or in its own place with links to it. The point that lighting circuits that have no earth are over 50 years old and there could be other electrical issues in the house is spot on. The most common issues (in my experience) are a lack of RCD for sockets that may be used outside (16th ed) a lack of RCD for sockets (17th ed), a lack of main bonding and unfortunately a lack of RCD protection on TT supplies. Whilst there is no legal requirement to upgrade there are many DIYers who would like do so.
I believe we are missing an opportunity to have a new article detailing and expanding the points you made about poor connections, dirt build up and sticking switches etc as these also apply to sockets and earthed lighting circuits! I would say that when an installation reaches 25 to 30 years old then there must be concerns about sockets that fail to grip the plug pins properly, lightswitches that "bounce" or "stick" and so on. It is not the inclusion of your safety section that I object to but that it is too limited and in a section of the wiki that will not be seen by people with earthed lighting circuits. I would rather we expanded your safety points and put hem in an article for everyone to see and not just those that have no earth on the lights. I am open to suggestions to an article name. It could possibly be based on a PIR report as these nearly always give out code 4 failures and the installation is quite safe!--ARWadsworth 16:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Where does the idea come from that the yellow notice in the article should be attached by the fusebox? NT 19:47, 30 May 2012 (BST)
Its detailed in various "best practice" guides. One by the ESC on changing CUs for example, details them as a way of being able to proceed with a CU swap on properties that don't have CPCs on the lights. There is a risk assessment to do (combination of inspections and tests) which if passed, means the CU swap can happen with appropriate labelling such as shown in the article. Drop me an email if you want a copy of the PDF. --John Rumm 20:51, 30 May 2012 (BST)
Cheers. That sounds like info good to put in the article. NT 10:31, 31 May 2012 (BST)