pull cord for shower

larrya

Hi,
Just looking for an answer to this.

What distance should the pull cord for the shower be from the shower itself.

Thanks.

mikehammer67

well...

prob 2m max for isolation i suppose

salmocab

not positive about this but think it only really needs to be outside the shower enclosure itself. If nothing has been wired you might consider using a contactor in the board and using a pull cord to control the contractor. this means you can use a 6amp pull cord wired in twin brown and run the 10 square twin and earth directly to the board. This does away with the 45amp pull cord that always seems to cause trouble down the road as the cable has to be jammed in to the box.

mikehammer67

salmocab wrote: »

not positive about this but think it only really needs to be outside the shower enclosure itself. If nothing has been wired you might consider using a contactor in the board and using a pull cord to control the contractor. this means you can use a 6amp pull cord wired in twin brown and run the 10 square twin and earth directly to the board. This does away with the 45amp pull cord that always seems to cause trouble down the road as the cable has to be jammed in to the box.

don't think it does tbh


that's 'switching' not isolation

been discussed here before

salmocab

we were advised to do this in further installations by ECSSA as good practice in future only last month

meercat

salmocab wrote: »

we were advised to do this in further installations by ECSSA as good practice in future only last month

interesting
anything in writing on that

avon barksdale

salmocab wrote: »

not positive about this but think it only really needs to be outside the shower enclosure itself. If nothing has been wired you might consider using a contactor in the board and using a pull cord to control the contractor. this means you can use a 6amp pull cord wired in twin brown and run the 10 square twin and earth directly to the board. This does away with the 45amp pull cord that always seems to cause trouble down the road as the cable has to be jammed in to the box.

I wanted to that before on a job, but was told i couldnt. Client wanted a switch on the wall to match exsisting light switch!

meercat

salmocab wrote: »

this means you can use a 6amp pull cord wired in twin brown

surely a neon indicator light will be a requirement if this is true

Bruthal

salmocab wrote: »

not positive about this but think it only really needs to be outside the shower enclosure itself. If nothing has been wired you might consider using a contactor in the board and using a pull cord to control the contractor. this means you can use a 6amp pull cord wired in twin brown and run the 10 square twin and earth directly to the board. This does away with the 45amp pull cord that always seems to cause trouble down the road as the cable has to be jammed in to the box.

This method is not giving proper isolation IMO.

Bruthal

salmocab wrote: »

we were advised to do this in further installations by ECSSA as good practice in future only last month

Well its remote switching, not local isolation. Whatever infallible person in ecssa came up with this method of getting around poor quality switches/bad connections, can't change that fact.

jjf1974

This method would add a bit of unnessesary cost to the job with a contactor and extra cable.6 amp pull cord switchs do not seem to last that long either if they are used alot. a lot of room would also be taken up in the box with a contactor , rcd, mcb all for 1 shower.I would always go for a good quality wall switch.

Bruthal

mikehammer67 wrote: »

don't think it does tbh


that's 'switching' not isolation

been discussed here before

Here is one thread on the same thing before.

mikehammer67

Bruthal wrote: »

Here is one thread on the same thing before.

yes
I posted on it under my old name m cebee
seems to come up regularly this idea
i think ive seen it posted in relation to cookers as well

meercat

mikehammer67 wrote: »

yes
I posted on it under my old name m cebee
seems to come up regularly this idea
i think ive seen it posted in relation to cookers as well

welcome back

Bruthal

meercat wrote: »

welcome back

I was just learning all the rules because I thought he was gone...

meercat

Bruthal wrote: »

I was just learning all the rules because I thought he was gone...

you going to amend this then

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=83400404

Bruthal

meercat wrote: »

you going to amend this then

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=83400404

In my own defence, although not accepted as a defence in law etc, I was a bit out of it when I wrote that:)

.G.

Welcome back M cebee if that is really you.

Join date on the other account 2011 though when M cebee was still active.

cast_iron

Bruthal wrote: »

Well its remote switching, not local isolation.

Curious as to what the difference is? I ask in the context of what why the shower is 'isolated' in the first place.

I would have thought turning the switch off instantly isolates the live conductor (just like a 45A switch), and it is done locally (for convenience in the event of maintenance or an emergency).

Does it matter how 'isolation' actually is achieved if these conditions are met?

Bruthal

cast_iron wrote: »

Curious as to what the difference is? I ask in the context of what why the shower is 'isolated' in the first place.

I would have thought turning the switch off instantly isolates the live conductor (just like a 45A switch), and it is done locally (for convenience in the event of maintenance or an emergency).

Does it matter how 'isolation' actually is achieved if these conditions are met?

The point of electrical isolation is in the DB, not beside the item being isolated. So it is possible for someone at the DB to energise it, even if it seems unlikely in a domestic scenario. The local switch is operating a remote isolator/contactor.

It is also isolated purely by electrical control, rather than mechanical means. A problem with the control cable could energise the shower.

All probably unlikely, but to me, the contactor method is not proper local isolation, no matter what inspectors might say.

2011

cast_iron wrote: »

Curious as to what the difference is? I ask in the context of what why the shower is 'isolated' in the first place.

I would not consider this fully isolated.

I would have thought turning the switch off instantly isolates the live conductor (just like a 45A switch), and it is done locally (for convenience in the event of maintenance or an emergency).

The isolation switch is really for maintenance purposes. Turning off the switch described should work, but simply put there is more that could go wrong. The contactor could stick, there may be a second switch that the "shower maintenance person" is unaware of, the controls for this are out of view (and therefore out of control) of the person working on the shower.

It could be argued that the DP isolator could be faulty too, but at least the operation of the isolator can be assessed quickly and easily by measuring voltage at the shower (and the lack of it!).

Does it matter how 'isolation' actually is achieved if these conditions are met?

Speaking as someone that has to work with LOTO procedures on a daily basis I can assure you that it does matter how the isolation is achieved.

There is a difference between turning off an electrical device and isolating for maintenance purposes.

cast_iron

2011 wrote: »

I would not consider this fully isolated.

How is it less isolated than a pull cord?

The isolation switch is really for maintenance purposes. Turning off the switch described should work, but simply put there is more that could go wrong. The contactor could stick, there may be a second switch that the "shower maintenance person" is unaware of, the controls for this are out of view (and therefore out of control) of the person working on the shower.

Yes, though that's not a great argument against doing it though.

It could be argued that the DP isolator could be faulty too, but at least the operation of the isolator can be assessed quickly and easily by measuring voltage at the shower (and the lack of it!).

Again, I don't see how this does not apply in the case of the contactor method.

Speaking as someone that has to work with LOTO procedures on a daily basis I can assure you that it does matter how the isolation is achieved.

I appreciate the logic behind such a setup, but as I would say to Robbie too, we are talking about domestic here - not best practice observed in industry.

There is a difference between turning off an electrical device and isolating for maintenance purposes.

I ask again how this is not achieved by way of the contactor.

2011

cast_iron wrote: »

How is it less isolated than a pull cord?

A local isolator can only be switched on or off locally. No external wiring can possibly turn power onto the unit if the isolator is off.

I appreciate the logic behind such a setup, but as I would say to Robbie too we are talking about domestic here - not best practice observed in industry.

Not trying to be smart here, but the laws of physics apply regardless of whether the installation is domestic or industrial. You are more likely to find that industry has far more checks an d commissioning procedures in place minimising the chances of accidentally energising a unit.

I ask again how this is not achieved by way of the contactor.

What is your suggestion? The person arriving to work on the shower is told that when they switch off a switch this ensures that the shower is now safely isolated via a contactor?

This person may not even know what a contactor is and how do you prove to them that there is no other possible way for the contactor to be energised?

Bruthal

cast_iron wrote: »

I appreciate the logic behind such a setup, but as I would say to Robbie too, we are talking about domestic here - not best practice observed in industry.

A local switch seems more suitable than a remotely switched contactor in a domestic setup. It seems a method to bypass bad switches, or badly connected switches.

A local isolator means the supply cables are isolated local to the controlled item, and can not be made live again beyond the isolating switch, no matter what happens anywhere else in an installation. That would be my view on it.

Bruthal

I'll have to type faster:)

2011

Bruthal wrote: »

I'll have to type faster:)

Yes, that is what I thought the last time around

Apologies cast_iron, we are not ganging up on you our posts are crossing.

cast_iron

2011 wrote: »

A local isolator can only be switched on or off locally. No external wiring can possibly turn power onto the unit if the isolator is off.

I think it's only fair to compare both setups by assuming they are both installed and operating correctly. Though it is a fair point to make that there is more to go wrong.

Not trying to be smart here, but the laws of physics apply regardless of whether the installation is domestic or industrial. You are more likely to find that industry has far more checks an d commissioning procedures in place minimising the chances of accidentally energising a unit.

I think that was my point...that industry does apply a higher standard, and that would be seen as overkill in many instances in a domestic setup.

What is your suggestion? The person arriving to work on the shower is told that when they switch off a switch this ensures that the shower is now safely isolated via a contactor?

A proper check should be done even after an isolator is switched off.
Perhaps let him turn off the RCBO regardless?. The contactor won't do away with the need for it.
I asked a question, and I agree both yours and Robbie answers have merit. But the logic appears to hinge on "external factors", which are highly unlikely to occur, but I agree it does introduce a greater risk of the shower becoming live.

This person may not even know what a contactor is and how do you prove to them that there is no other possible way for the contactor to be energised?

I would suggest that person is perhaps not the best person for the job, but that's probably a bit unfair.

Edit: No problem, I posed it to both of ye really. I'd rather hear everyone's take on it. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with either of ye.

Bruthal

cast_iron wrote: »

. But the logic appears to hinge on "external factors", which are highly unlikely to occur, but I agree it does introduce a greater risk of the shower becoming live.

The local isolator eliminates them risks, while being simpler than the contactor setup.

I would suggest that person is perhaps not the best person for the job, but that's probably a bit unfair.

A plumber fixing a leak would be suitable for fixing a leak, without being suitably familiar with contactor switching, possibly.

2011

cast_iron wrote: »

I think it's only fair to compare both setups by assuming they are both installed and operating correctly.

Why? As we have frequently seen on this forum setups are frequently not installed correctly.

Besides it is not good enough to have it wired "correctly".
It must also be very obvious to anyone working on it that it is wired correctly.

I think that was my point...that industry does apply a higher standard, and that would be seen as overkill in many instances in a domestic setup

Yes, and my point is that due to the lower standard/controls in domestic installations it can be argued that a stronger case can be made for a more foolproof setup.

A proper check should be done even after an isolator is switched off.
Perhaps let him turn off the RCBO regardless?. The contactor won't do away with the need for it.

Agreed, but the check can prove that the isolator is functioning correctly. It does not prove that the contactor and it's control wiring is functioning as assumed. All that the check can do is demonstrate that that the power is removed at the moment that it is tested. To be sure all of the wiring would have to be traced.

But the logic appears to hinge on "external factors", which are highly unlikely to occur, but I agree it does introduce a greater risk of the shower becoming live.

I have been in this game a long time. Like many others here I have seen the most incredibly stupid things done. These external factors can and do kill, sadly I have been on sites when people have been killed more than once.

I would suggest that person is perhaps not the best person for the job, but that's probably a bit unfair.

No disrespect intended to plumbers, but they are best qualified to connect pipes and do not necessarily understand how contractors operate (or how they are wired for a particular installation).

Edit: No problem, I posed it to both of ye really. I'd rather hear everyone's take on it. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with either of ye.

Go in peace brother

cast_iron

Point taken on the plumbers, though most of them could manage to knock off an RCBO if unsure of the setup. Nothing that goes on in the contactor circuit will affect the RCBO when it is switched off.

In any case, my original point was questioning whether "isolation" was validly achieved by way of the contactor. I would still maintain it is, though with a couple of extra elements that could go wrong and lead to an incident.

Whether the increased risk is worth it or not is debatable indeed.

Bruthal

cast_iron wrote: »

Whether the increased risk is worth it or not is debatable indeed.

It seems sort of contradictory to ask if the increased risk is worth it, since the method with the increased risk has far more work involved, and loose connection will still burn out contactor terminals.

As I said before, the single only reason to use this method would be to avoid cheap switches.

2011

cast_iron wrote: »

Nothing that goes on in the contactor circuit will affect the RCBO when it is switched off.

The RCBO does not provide a local point of isolation.