Could you rewire a domestic without RCD protection

[ianmacd]

Canoe.

If you put a new overcurrent protective device in on the selv side then to comply, you would still have to RCD from that overcurrent protective device (don't shoot me as thats what the regs say).

All I am trying to do is explain what ADS is too, that it may be safer but you still need to list it as a departure as it does not comply.

 

[sprocketflup]

Hmm. I personnally hope that the next edition of the regs is written a little less ambiguously, meself like

get the feeling I may be urinating into the wind with that one tho, best RCD old oneeye

 

[Sidewinder]

I can second the SITOP, I used to work for a competitor, and even we used them!!!

OK I can see the argument for fitting an rcd in the selv side i.e. the regs demand it, however, as it would never function as designed, then you would be adding 4 unnecessary connections into the circuit.

I am going to have to dig my regs book out to see the wording around this, later in the week though, too much on at the moment.

 

[Sidewinder]

A sitop selv supply is not a transformer, a transformer is not a selv supply as a basic transformer unless it has been designed as a selv transformer to meet selv standards.Sidewinder, yes look at the regs and read one chapter further ( I think ) also

Canoe,

Was the transformer bit aimed at me? I know the SITOP supply, I have used them also. I also understand the SELV requirements for transformers, I'm now confused.

I wll dig the regs out when I get a chance, well, I have the brb along side me at the moment, bit I am completing todays PIR.

Which regs/chapter are you referring to mate?

 

[ADS]

Canoe,Was the transformer bit aimed at me?

Sidewinder,

Sorry mate, it was probably aimed at me.

I posted and then withdrew what I had put - the reason for this is that I was getting drawn into the SELV/RCD argument again and realised that I didn't want to be.

I had already made my point and was just repeating myself, so I deleted.

Sorry again.

 

[Manator]

ADS I fully understand where you are comming from on the signature, it could be argued that having signed with the noted departure you have fully complied with the regulations. As the regulations are a guide, any departure or deviation could if you prove be just as compliant.

The hardest part of any type of departure is your ability to prove its ability to protect against electric shock, or to limit the effects of any contact.

One certificate I always fill in with a departure is the fire alarm certificate, this time because of a building regulation and not a wiring regulation.

However the fire alarm certificate is fully compliant as the agreed departure is imposed upon us.

 

[ADS]

Agree Manator.

I would suggest the correct way would be to note a departure from Regulation 701.411.3.3, on the basis that RCD additional protection of the bathroom is not required, as it has been wired as SELV, offering sufficient protection, with no LV wiring present in the location.

That's me -I know others will disagree

 

[Manator]

Like all good debates some agree some do not, not one person who projects his view is wrong, if that veiw is based on his or her true belief. I like it when people disagree with me, it makes me look at sides of the tale I have never thought of. This way I have learned so much from people I thought could not teach me anything, its really surprising where some little gems come from, take for example an apprentice, comes back from day off:tongue in cheek and says something like, my tutor said " blah blah blah", next thing you know your doing something another way.

 

[M107]

Well I for one am glad the post was reopened, from the last half dozen posts alone I've gone away looked up and learnt........... Thanks Guinness

 

[green-hornet]

This is just not fair, because of my personal problems at the moment I have not been on as much as I would like.

I finally pluck up the courage and find I have missed the debate of the year !

To be honest I have never even given thought to alternatives, ok I once used cable exempt from RCd protection but thats as far as I went. Very thought provoking indeed.

On the departures theme I can see where this could be a stumble block in your argument Manator, if its a departure should it be against the regulations ? i then thought if no departures where allowed under the regulations there would be no need to include it in the regulations.

I then looked up the wording of all documents and found that because a departure from regulation was not against the regulation, it must therefore comply, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

My first instinct had I been given the choice to vote would have been no, but on reflection I have to admit it could be done.

I salute you and those who gave some very good argument, as you all know I like that.

 

[Sidewinder]

G-H,

YOU WOULD NOT BELIEVE THIS!

I was reading some posts tonight & your name came up I think someone has posted to a thread you started, I have not read it yet but it was in the unread search window, & I thought well where is G-H these days!!!

I hope all is as well as can be expected?

ATB

 

[green-hornet]

Likewise canoeboy, I take it you do more specialised work? I mean siemens are expensive units I have installed a few in my time working to the old NHS restrictive I mean proactive standards.

Another thought I had was the max Zs, we used to reduce this with additional earthing so that most equipment trips within 0.01, the restrictions of max Zs in some installations were a nightmare to control, but we used various types of circuit protection, I do remember a very large all metal x ray unit we installed had instructions that in no circumastances should an RCD be used on the circuit. I guess this was because of the surge inbalance which would trip an RCd.

I am still reading the regs as we speak, first timre in a few months, and I know more now in the last hour than I did in the last year.

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 22:09 ---------- Previous post was made at 21:39 ----------

G-H,YOU WOULD NOT BELIEVE THIS!

I was reading some posts tonight & your name came up I think someone has posted to a thread you started, I have not read it yet but it was in the unread search window, & I thought well where is G-H these days!!!

I hope all is as well as can be expected?

ATB

Hello mate,

I think it was Manator in this post he mentions a debate I had with The Doctor, I remember the topic but can not remember any input I had, I think I just agreed with The Doctors observations.

everything is as well as can be expected thanks, really hard work but I can see at least a glimmer of light and hope at the end of this dark tunnel.

 

[ianmacd]

Glad you are back Horny.

 

[green-hornet]

Thanks mate, just missed a good debate, not sure I could have added anything though

 

[Manator]

Thanks mate, just missed a good debate, not sure I could have added anything though

Not sure about that GH, looking back at your contribution to the forum I would say you would have had some very good input.

Glad to see you back on the forum

 

[green-hornet]

Thanks Manator, looks like most of what I would have said has been covered. I am still reading the regs just so I can nit pick

 

[binky]

By heck, never would have thought abthroom light could cause so much debate :Salute

I've always understood the regs as generally assuming LV wiring as it is normal to supply LV to bathroom lights and switches, and would still argue that ELV lighting is therefore not requiring RCD.

However to take the discussion forward, if RCDs are absent would we then require supplementary bonding given ELV lighting only in bathroom - a subject much forgotten since RCDing all circuits to avoid associated hassle of bonding pipes etc ?:|

 

[Sidewinder]

^ VERY different!

 

[green-hornet]

Hold on I am still reading

 

[green-hornet]

At the moment I am reading about the scope, going to be a very long night