Another Compact Rcbo Job

[M107]

From this

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j293/gazjothomas/20130526_082643_zpsd1f38dbb.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j293/gazjothomas/20130526_082715_zpsee14e408.jpg

To this

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j293/gazjothomas/20130526_102758_zps80d6b557.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j293/gazjothomas/20130526_113129_zpsdcfe4b01.jpg

Had to do some rewire work & additions to circuits, so decided to bring it all upto date & change the board while at it.

Might just use it for the assessment in June, the customer will most definately be in :innocent

 

[ProDave]

Interesting.

You didn't actually "change the board" you just changed what's inside it.

Anyway, I'm trying to understand what was there before. It looks like a dual RCD board, but hang on the right hand RCD is fed from the left hand one, so cascaded rcd's?

I presume that's some well meaning "upgrade" to what was a split load board originally with rcd protection only to the right hand circuits.

Not wishing to sound dumb, why did you rip it all out? it wouldn't have taken much to make that existing board correct, which is probably what I would have done.

 

[M107]

Well I had to do other works & as this is at my place I thought I would go with an all rcbo board.

Supply is TT & yes the original set up was a split dual rcd board using 100mA s type at the front end. I know I could have made the existing compliant but I had most of the compacts in stock (just needed a couple more) so thought why not use them.

 

[batty]

Is that not a TT 16th edition board ?  with 100mA RCD incomer.

 

[sprocketflup]

You couldn't re-use the original main switch then?

 

[M107]

I could have but a bit of a waste, I do have it lined up for use elsewhere anyway.

 

[SBS Dave]

Hi M107,

Many thanks for posting the photos. Your testimony is  worth far more than my own obviously biased input could ever be.

It is interesting that nobody has yet complimented you on the neatness and simplification of the resulting DB layout. Let me be the first.

And, of course, you didn't rip it all out. You left the enclosure in situ and will no doubt use the spare RCDS and MCBs for other applications.

As mentioned by others, there were simpler ways to make the board "correct", if you turn a blind eye to Reg 314, leaving the customer with the prospect of nuisance trip.  You could have used the existing Main Switch, as I do believe the MK switch is compatible, but as you say, you have it earmarked for another job.

SBS Dave

 

[cornish terrorist]

Are theese RCBO'S tested and comliant to be installed in Mk sentry consumer units as there has been lots of talk on mix and matching breakers in boards.

Dont get me wrong the concept is great and surely not having all those stupid blue neutral links flying around inside the board which piss me off and  make the board untidy.

Is it about time comb busbars are installed in all boards and this being the way forward?

 

[SBS Dave]

Hi  cornish terrorist,

Like all quality RCBOs sold in this country, mine are completely compliant with BSEN61009 and were initially  tested in the UK for CE compliance.

The Main Switch is similarly tested to BSEN60947-3.

The MK Consumer Unit on M107's job, once stripped of its internal components, becomes an MK 5621 enclosure, compliant with BSEN60439-3. I sell the same enclosure myself.

I have test results for my devices when installed in MK enclosures, Volex enclosures and my own range of BSEN60439-3 enclosures, which would not only satisfy the requirements of PTTA (Partial Type Tested Assemblies) of 60439, but also VSD (Verified Simplified Design) criteria for BSEN61439. This could equally apply to any COMPATIBLE mix of enclosures and devices.

The "lots of talk" to which you refer, has been initiated by BEAMA, the cartel that seeks to keep smaller brands out of the UK market,  in favour of their own membership.

I have already admitted above, that my views are biased, but speak to any panel builder, who must regularly "mix & match", to achieve the customers' spec. Speak to any maintenance electrician, who keeps a van stock of "generic" devices, in order to solve urgent problems for their clients. Speak to a Forum Sponsor Wholesaler, who offers Wylex enclosures, fitted with Europa RCBOs. 

One of the reasons I sell ONLY TO TRADE, is because I know they will make qualified judgements on the safety of their work, whilst offering their clients a Dist Board arrangement that is "fit for purpose".  Nuisance trip IMHO does not equate to "fit for purpose".

SBS Dave

 

[ProDave]

My take on mix and match, is anything is okay AS LONG AS IT FITS  PROPERLY.

The big issue is some makes of mcb have a different entry height to others. So in some cases putting different makes side by side they will not clamp onto the busbar properly, and / or will not sit on the din rail properly.

Note this is ALSO true occasionally of old and new versions of the "correct" make.

This seems to have "become" an issue recently, and the long and the short of it seems to me, that we electricians are not trusted to check if a particular mcb fits properly before using it.  It seems that "test" has to be left to some laboratory, which results in the "only use the same make" guidance.

In this case, only the enclosure was retained, with a complete set of new components which have been tested together so I can't see an issue.

The REAL issue here (the one that nobody seems to want to address) is the simple fact that none of the BS/EN specification, stipulate the EXACT entry terminal heights and sizes.  That glaring omission from the standards, ensured that each manufacturer can interpret the standards as they feel fit and make their devices a little different from others, and then claim you MUST only use theirs.

Nobody can tell you what to do, just follow your own professional opinion and common sense. A commodity we are not supposed to have any more.

 

[cornish terrorist]

Hi  cornish terrorist,

Like all quality RCBOs sold in this country, mine are completely compliant with BSEN61009 and were initially  tested in the UK for CE compliance.

The Main Switch is similarly tested to BSEN60947-3.

The MK Consumer Unit on M107's job, once stripped of its internal components, becomes an MK 5621 enclosure, compliant with BSEN60439-3. I sell the same enclosure myself.

I have test results for my devices when installed in MK enclosures, Volex enclosures and my own range of BSEN60439-3 enclosures, which would not only satisfy the requirements of PTTA (Partial Type Tested Assemblies) of 60439, but also VSD (Verified Simplified Design) criteria for BSEN61439. This could equally apply to any COMPATIBLE mix of enclosures and devices.

The "lots of talk" to which you refer, has been initiated by BEAMA, the cartel that seeks to keep smaller brands out of the UK market,  in favour of their own membership.

I have already admitted above, that my views are biased, but speak to any panel builder, who must regularly "mix & match", to achieve the customers' spec. Speak to any maintenance electrician, who keeps a van stock of "generic" devices, in order to solve urgent problems for their clients. Speak to a Forum Sponsor Wholesaler, who offers Wylex enclosures, fitted with Europa RCBOs. 

One of the reasons I sell ONLY TO TRADE, is because I know they will make qualified judgements on the safety of their work, whilst offering their clients a Dist Board arrangement that is "fit for purpose".  Nuisance trip IMHO does not equate to "fit for purpose".

SBS Dave

Thanks for your comments Dave

I have changed many breakers around over the years to make them fit as i found them to be the same pattern as i have found proteus was the same as Contactum breakers, wylex and Dorman Smith were the same ,Mk and Chint and Merlin Gerin all fit exactly and look to have from the same factory but at different prices.

I think the twin comb busbar is the way forward woth DP RCBOS as i have often found nuisance tripping across RCBOS  when you have a neutral earth fault it can often cause neighbouring devices to trip.

DP RCBO units are ideal for farm installations i am keep to purchase some units from SBS as i feel i have no right to make judgment until i try the product.

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

.......As mentioned by others, there were simpler ways to make the board "correct", if you turn a blind eye to Reg 314, leaving the customer with the prospect of nuisance trip.........

SBS Dave

Just for the record lets be clear that 314 does NOT say that every circuit has to have its own RCD or RCBO...

It talks about minimising inconvenience...  

and reducing the possibility of unwanted tripping due to excessive protective conductor currents... 

and to take account of hazards that may arise due to a single faults...

etc...

A dual RCD board in a domestic environment can comfortably meet all of these requirements...

You know I am not knocking your double pole RCDs Dave as i have used them and posted illustrations of a typical board..

BUT..

EVERY job must be evaluated on its own merits and costs without the need to "Turn A Blind Eye To 314".

Lets be careful not to confuse or mislead other younger members into thinking that every circuit MUST have its own RCD!!!..

Irrespective of how nice it would be in an ideal world!!

Guinness

 

[Manator]

I would have to agree with SL. However, that's one hell of a product you have Dave! I am well impressed.

 

[SBS Dave]

Hi SL and Manator

Thank you for your comments, which I completely agree with.

For the FIRST TIME EVER IN MY LIFE, I used the abbreviation IMHO (which I hope means "In my humble opinion").

I did this deliberately, to try to differentiate between Sponsor SBS Trade Sales and Member David Stansfield. Long before I started selling RCBOs, I was an advocate of all-RCBO boards and was against 17th Edition Boards, which I believed and still believe are "not fit for purpose". My views can be attested to by around 250 NAPIT members, who I assessed annually, starting back in 2005.

I am accutely aware of the wording of 314 and it is a matter of personal opinion as to what constitutes inconvenience and unwanted tripping.

As you know, I also offer a system called "Multisplit", which seeks to reduce nuisance trip to just one other circuit and not half the house.

I am a believer in smoke alarms being on a regularly used lighting circuits, on the basis that a nuisance trip on the lights may highlight an otherwise undiscovered fault on the smoke detectors. Which means a nuisance trip can sometimes be a good thing.

I can't imagine any Forum Member knocking the Compact RCBO concept, either from a technical perspective or a logical one, so I don't have a problem on that score. I am in the unusual position of being a Forum Sponsor and a fully fledged Electrican / Forum Member, so maybe I need to let people know what hat I am wearing, when I am making posts.

Member Dave

 

[batty]

I have always been a believer in not inconveniencing customers so when I fitted 16th edition boards I would not just have one RCD, I would have some socket circuits on the RCD and would put at least one RCBO in for some of the sockets in the installation. That way if one RCD/ RCBO were to trip the customer would at least have some working sockets. When the 17th edition came in I did use a couple of 17th edition dual RCD boards but would always use a high integrity boards so the cooker circuit could be put on an RCBO. Nowadays I have opted for RCBO's as to me they are the way forward. The work I do should hopefully be used for quite a few years so for the small extra cost of an RCBO board its got to be the better option. Every job is different but most of my jobs would afford the cost of an RCBO board.