Welcome to The Forum SA. As a visitor you have read only access to the public content areas of this website. You will have to register as a member to access all content, post messages and network with our members. Membership is free and registering is quick and easy. You can click here to register now and become a member within minutes.
Hi Oblivious,this is what is called exposed wiring.You can either put the connections in a joint box or use 5A Socket Outlets.Can't really see the wire size,but you should be safe with 1,5mm on 220V downlighters provided your distance is not very long.
You'll probably get more attention if you start a new thread in future.
The picture clearly shows PVC insulated cables that are closer than 100mm to the 50w halogen dichroic lamp and directly above it. This is contrary to the 0142 regs and would be sufficient for it to fail a COC inspection. You could workaround this if LED lamps were in the fittings (or even CFL), however, the exposed wiring as already suggested could also be the cause for it not passing muster.
The cable sizes and the actual terminations look fine to me.
andy i do believe if the 100 mm clause had to be enforced correctly i could safely say 90 % of downlights in durban would be illegal....and a huge majoity of COC issued would have to be withdrawn.
i believe the only problem with that light is the cover missing...so long as the standard test finger cannot touch any live wires...
i believe there should have been a junction box with one wire feeding the light and with heat resistant wire or sleeved with asbestos tape...but unfortunately the reality that would be regarded as over doing it.
Another question, if I may..... I assume this is very stupid. Can I not tape it shut with some sort of special tape? I see murdock mentions something about tape. Chaw
Hi, you hit the nail on the head Andy. The exposed conductors are a small issue here because they cannot be made contact with during the normal use of the lights. The main reason would be the lack of heat resistant wire on the fitting. I must ask here though, is it 100mm or 200mm?
andy i do believe if the 100 mm clause had to be enforced correctly i could safely say 90 % of downlights in durban would be illegal....and a huge majoity of COC issued would have to be withdrawn.
i believe the only problem with that light is the cover missing...so long as the standard test finger cannot touch any live wires...
i believe there should have been a junction box with one wire feeding the light and with heat resistant wire or sleeved with asbestos tape...but unfortunately the reality that would be regarded as over doing it.
Well I disagree one one point you make but agree with another. I think the 100mm clause (which might turn out to be a 200mm clause) is important. The operating temperature of these lamps is ridiculously high and can deteriorate the pvc insulation very quickly, in a matter of hours in fact. I can see very good reason for the clause and I could see a significantly increased fire risk if it were ignored. Arguably, this risk may be even higher for the ELV 12volt lamps but that's a discussion for another day, it still holds true for the 220volt version as well.
I do agree that the termination box shown isn't adequate for two FT&e cables as well as the lamp holder wiring. There's only one cable anchor clamp for a start and it would be impossible to refit the lid no matter how tidy your terminations are. It also clearly breaches the 100mm rule so I'm hoping it isn't an SABS approved fitting
Originally posted by Sparks
Hi, you hit the nail on the head Andy. The exposed conductors are a small issue here because they cannot be made contact with during the normal use of the lights. The main reason would be the lack of heat resistant wire on the fitting. I must ask here though, is it 100mm or 200mm?
Hi Sparks,
I'm not 100% familiar with the 0142 rules, I refer to them for design purposes but don't do any kind of domestic work/installations or inspections. I'm not sure if you're being polite knowing that it is 200mm distance required or not :-) I'll dig out my copy of the regs later and post back to clarify.
Originally posted by Dave A
May I draw attention to the two lines of surfex flat twin & earth in the picture... There's more going on than just a light connection point here.
I think the two FT+e cables is a normal layout if there's more than one light in the circuit and the particular light we're looking at isn't the last one. I'm assuming the third thinner cable is the wiring going to the ceramic lamp holder and it's probably glassfibre sleeved and the wiring possibly teflon insulated.
PS A roll of fibreglass tape is around R100.00, taping the terminations closed on several fittings won't be a cheap option.
The housing is 240V yes. Seems the original electrician did his own thing and gave a COC as well....
End of the day the current electrician is going to install 12V lights and transformers. They say it is much easier and safer. My house is 15 months old. Obviously it was given a COC then but suddenly now there is about R3500 work that needs to be done. I tried getting hold of the previous electrician but the bank and municipal electricity department "cannot obtain" the COC for me. The builder moved to Durbs, very good builder though. Just wish I could get the details of the original electrician (draadtrekker). I will still endeavour to get hold of that guy and report him.
Page 253: 7.9.3.3.1.3 At least 200 mm of the conductors leading from an ELV lamp
holder shall be 180 °C (class H) flexible conductors such as siliconrubber-
insulated conductors. The lamp holder shall also be suitable for an
operating temperature of at least 180 °C.
Page 254: 7.9.3.3.1.4 The ELV power source shall not be installed above the lamp
or within 200 mm from the lamp to any side unless a heat barrier is
installed between the lamp and the power source.
Clearly the above only applies to ELV (7.9.1.1 The particular requirements in this subclause apply to extra low voltage lighting installations supplied from sources with a maximum rated voltage of 50 V a.c. or 120 V d.c.) lighting installations? 220V lighting installations is not ELV? So the above reg cannot be applied to it?
Another reference by the sans code:
This part of SANS 10142 includes certain provisions which are for
information and guidance only. These provisions do not use the word "shall"
and they can be found in the text, in the notes and in the informative
annexes. Except in tables, notes are always for information only.
6.14.3.6 The connections between circuit conductors and luminaire
conductors shall
a) allow enough slack immediately behind the base of the luminaire for
easy handling, and
b) in the case of a pre-wired luminaire, be made using a connector.
NOTE:PVC insulated conductors should not be used where the temperature of the
conductor could exceed 70 C, unless the conductors are shielded from heat
sources.
The reference made by the code is a "note" only.
Unless an accurate temperature measurement was done along the complete conductor, and the temperature exceeded 70 C at any point, the conductor should be protected against such exposed heat for such points. (Again, the word (for a coc), is should, and not shall.)
However, the example and reasons provided for the invalidation of the said CoC could not be as a result of the above reasons.
Or am i missing something again?
Last edited by 123; 09-Feb-11, 05:32 PM.
Reason: spelling
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment