Could you rewire a domestic without RCD protection

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

Here we go again.Why is it that certain people cannot make posts without insults? Are they that incapable of making coherent argument?PC the ESC or the NICEIC do not write produce and publish the Regulations, despite what they may think. That is something that the IET does.

Specs rather than making your purile comments, why not instead produce some form of evidence to support you view?Sorry, silly question, you can't because there is none.

At present the current edition of the Regulations requires circuits of special locations to be RCD protected, there is no exception to this for ELV.

The simple fact that some people think this is silly, or wouldn't be of any particular use is immaterial.

Actually I have already answered this question for you. Possibly you can't grasp basic concepts of electrical design, or read and understand the guidance in the regs book..?

I don

 

[Manator]

Not only do I like this reply I feel it deserves a scoob.

I only wish I had explained it as well, then maybe Spinlondon would not have argued with himself so much.

 

[ianmacd]

Spec's. I do not think anyone (well maybe a few) is questioning that SELV circuits have no use for RCD's but I think reg's are clear here even if they are wrong. Omitting an RCD may make it no less safe but would be a deviation.

Now, 7671 defines circuit as:

Circuit. An Assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same and protected against overcurrent by the same protective device(s).

So, since a selv transformer may have thermal overload protection but possibly not overcurrent protection, any appliances on the SELV side belong to the same circuit as anything that does not. Is this something that can be agreed with?

I believe you agree with 701.411.3.3 and that you believe since it refers to 415.1.1 then 415.1.1 allows you to exclude the RCD based on 415.1.1 saying the need for RCD's is for assisting with Basic and fault protection. I would dispute this (if this is the case) since 701.411.3.3 refers to the characteristics of an RCD as described in 415.1.1 not the usefulness of and RCD in 415.1.1. In this context, the characteristcs would be (in bold):

415.1.1 The use of RCD's with a rated operating current (

) not exceeding 30 mA and an operating time not exceeding 40 ms at a residual current of

is recognised in a.c. systems as additional protection in the event of failure of the provision for basic protection and/or the provision of fault protection or carelessness by users.

The rest of the reg quoted above is not applicable to 701.411.3.3 as it does not describe the characteristics of the RCD. Because of this, they can not be excluded for the entire circuit that part is in a special location.

Are all the circuits in you RCD'd .

 

[spinlondon]

Steps, placing your purile attempts at making insults to one side.

What question do you believe you have answered?

As far as I'm aware, I asked "Why is it that certain people cannot make posts without insults?" This was actually rhetorical, as I believe most people understand why this occurs.

Whilst I accept that your argument for not requiring RCD protection for SELV circuits is quite valid.

The fact still remains that additional protection by the use of an RCD is required by BS7671. There is no exception made for SELV circuits.

I have underlined additional above, to draw your attention to it.

Basic protection and fault protection is required in any installation, this can be provided by a various means.

If you deem that this can be provided by the use of SELV fine, excellent, you have fullfilled those fundamentall principles.

However you will not have met all the requirements of BS7671 unless you additionally protect those circuits with an RCD.

Manator, I understand that you are a Moderator, but do you really believe that this gives you licence to make purile comments about me without comeback?

I note from your earlier posts that you have not read BS7671 for some time. I suggest you read it, and bring your self back up to speed.

Then perhaps you will realise that whatever you believe has been explained so well does not actually have any relavence.

 

[ianmacd]

OK sockets, Ian you are on about the regulation for sockets <20A for use by ordinary persons to be RCD protected.OK, we agree that no cabling needs RCD then?

Sockets, all dedicated labelled fixed appliance sockets do not require RCD's, you could even wire fixed appliances to FCU's so this would limit the number of sockets anyway.

So let us take that fixed appliances are on dedicated sockets and / or all wired to FCU's, thus they don't need RCD's

We are not looking for maximum convenience of use here, lets just think around the problem for a minute.

Leaving the general use sockets what can we do to avoid RCD's on them, can it be done?...

I can think of a way this could possibly be avoided, can anyone else?

Don't just think it, state it.

 

[Doc Hudson]

Steps, placing your purile attempts at making insults to one side.What question do you believe you have answered?

As far as I'm aware, I asked "Why is it that certain people cannot make posts without insults?" This was actually rhetorical, as I believe most people understand why this occurs.

Whilst I accept that your argument for not requiring RCD protection for SELV circuits is quite valid.

The fact still remains that additional protection by the use of an RCD is required by BS7671. There is no exception made for SELV circuits.

I have underlined additional above, to draw your attention to it.

Basic protection and fault protection is required in any installation, this can be provided by a various means.

If you deem that this can be provided by the use of SELV fine, excellent, you have fullfilled those fundamentall principles.

However you will not have met all the requirements of BS7671 unless you additionally protect those circuits with an RCD.

Manator, I understand that you are a Moderator, but do you really believe that this gives you licence to make purile comments about me without comeback?

I note from your earlier posts that you have not read BS7671 for some time. I suggest you read it, and bring your self back up to speed.

Then perhaps you will realise that whatever you believe has been explained so well does not actually have any relavence.

Mr London, a few observations, Who is this post written to I cannot see which post by Steps you are now referring? Purile purile - Wiktionary I assume you mean Puerile? puerile - Wiktionary In which case your continual inability to post without insult or answer other posters valid questions is neither helpful nor constructive to the forum and this will not be tolerated. May I remind you that BS7671 is guidance for good practice, it is to be used by competent qualified persons to make safety judgments about the installations they are working on. Somehow feeling you are the only one who can interpret regulations correctly is an issue you will have to resolve yourself. I feel confident there are many members on here with equal or greater knowledge than yourself, up to speed and with the ability to interpret and navigate BS7671. If you cannot debate without insult please go to another forum where your posting style is more accepted. Thank you

Doc H.

 

[NozSpark]

It was getting a bit heated though......

 

[sprocketflup]

Dont they all? Its getting a bit tiresome TBH, I thought this was a forum where people could learn more about the electrical world without being spoken down to or patronised, I was told it was when I joined up

 

[M107]

Shame wasnt it. Even though we all know that you probably would use an RCD anyway, at least it got people flicking through the book...I know I did.

 

[Manator]

It was a shame, I do to an extent blame myself in a way, my intention was to come back with each instance and how you could use the regulations to design without RCD. Some of the replies made me change my mind. I asked for help from another moderator because whilst we can all have reasonable debate personal insults can and will never be tolerated. One person even contradicted his own posts, which made it even harder to explain, the member agreed and then disagreed in the same post on one occasion.

I think the poll was a success in that it did get people to have a look at the regulations, and how they are to some extent interpreted.

Thank you all who took part, it has left me with more food for thought. Those I did exclude to be fair were those who I know use more than BS7671 in their normal course of work and as such could have figured out where or why the regulations could have been used. Then there is Special Location who is drip fed through the night with the BRB

Thanks again everyone I did enjoy it whilst the debate was civil.

 

[ianmacd]

The issue with these kind of discussions is that, having them on an open forum is very dangerous. What you have effectively done is given anyone who can use google the belief that they can not bother installing that RCD they were thinking about installing and that could cause issues and possibly cause people to be injured. While these discussions on 'fringe' subjects are good they should be kept to the private part so any opinions on the theoretical will not be implemented by those who know no better.

I do think closing the thread without giving a proper reason is bad though. I initially thought it had been closed by accident (that seems to have happened a few times recently) but I guess not.

 

[Manator]

Very good point ianmacd, at no time was my intention to implicate the removal of RCD's as additional protection, in fact on the whole the regulations state that they should be used. However there are times when the regulations actually permit us to protect a circuit without the need for RCD, this should only ever be carried out by a person who is fully confident in the procedure and the circuit design, strong enough to argue both the reason and the science behind that decision.

The thread was closed because the same argument was being used , the people who tried to show one side being as stubborn as the other to the point that personal insults were exchanged, a closure was deemed to be appropriate at that time. I always find it best to agree to disagree , each party confident in their own belief.

 

[Sidewinder]

I had a little more to add to that too!

Never mind.

Yes, I would use an RCD, always, however...

 

[sellers]

it is a shame, there were some good points made. I imagine an isolating transformer on the incomming tails could get round the need for RCD with a deviation.

 

[Sidewinder]

Big tranny Sellers, why the deviation?

 

[steptoe]

can you make the whole installation earth free.?

might just work, but you could have one foot outside the back door.

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 23:27 ---------- Previous post was made at 23:25 ----------

Well going on then, if we did a big tranny to isolate we would need to rod it so steps would be happy :slap Not sure how it would fit in the CU mind ROTFWL

would we have to ring Sandra every time we wanted to turn off the electricity ?

 

[sellers]

Big tranny Sellers, why the deviation?

This is exactly why the last thread was closed, name calling is not tolerated! :slap

I would take it to be a deviation because general socket outlets less than 20A need RCD protection, even though that RCD would be useless now.

Earthing could be a problem, I'm sure the earthing would be useless be it TT or TN, so everything would need to be class 2 and earth free system.

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 00:07 ---------- Previous post was made at 00:03 ----------

Edit* unless you TT the tranny like canoe says, but that surely would get rid of the whole idea of an isolation transformer?

 

[kme]

Being a tranny; Sandra is, by definition, deviant.

Case closed, is it not?

:slap

 

[Manator]

This proved to be a very popular thread which on reflection may have ended a little prematurely.

My intention at the start was to throw a thought out for discussion, this was sparked by the number of questions about what should or should not be RCD protected, often when some minor works have been carried out.

I never intended in the first instance to eliminate RCD protection, my poll was badly worded as to imply all RCD, when I had in fact only meant circuits from the cu to point of use. However from some of the replies I could see that even full elimination could be achieved providing correct design is followed.

So how could the regulations allow us to do this?

Well first of all the regulations as published were acknowledged at the time to contain some minor faults, one of these faults was very quickly picked up on by The Doctor, a member of this forum and author of the popular book, The Part P Doctor, a discussion followed with the Doctor and Green Hornet at the time of publication.

The Doctor quickly found that the wording

 

[ADS]

Very well explained, Manator.

I only have one issue with a couple of the points you raise.

Yes, the 'Regs' aren't law.

Yes, the 'Regs' may contain minor faults.

Yes, you can have 'departures' from the 'Regs'.

BUT.......you cannot sign this:-

FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, INSPECTION & TESTING

I being the person responsible for the Design, Construction, Inspection & Testing of the electrical installation (as indicated by my signature below), particulars of which are described above, having exercised reasonable skill and care when carrying out the Design, Construction, Inspection & Testing, hereby CERTIFY that the said work for which I have been responsible is to the best of my knowledge and belief in accordance with BS 7671:2008 amended to .......... (date) except for the departures, if any, detailed as follows

......if your installation doesn't comply with the current edition of the 'Regs' and you haven't listed any non-compliance as a 'departure' on the form.

If you are signing the above declaration, it either complies or it's a departure, regardless of what we might think are 'errors' in the 'current' 'Regs'.

Until they are corrected they are the 'Regs'

This was my argument in the first place, until comments ridiculing my knowledge of 'SELV' etc started to crop up - none of which had anything to do with the point I was making.

For anyone who doesn't agree, maybe we could add a line to the above declaration - it could go something like:-

FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, INSPECTION & TESTING

I being the person responsible for the Design, Construction, Inspection & Testing of the electrical installation (as indicated by my signature below), particulars of which are described above, having exercised reasonable skill and care when carrying out the Design, Construction, Inspection & Testing, hereby CERTIFY that the said work for which I have been responsible is to the best of my knowledge and belief in accordance with BS 7671:2008 amended to .......... (date) except for the departures, if any, detailed as follows, or any regulations I don't want to follow.