Dedicated Circuit

[Manator]

Is'nt it strange that the thousands of miles of cable buried in walls were deemed to be quite safe for all those years , now everyone is paranoid about them .

Indeed, in fact when the new 17th edition came out our very own "Doctor" posed some very interesting questions about its "mistakes", most of which are about to be changed with the up coming amendments.

The 17th actually came out with some mistakes, and the amendments were actually being written before publication of the "BRB", however with the delays it was deemed apropriate to publish and then when all had been finalised bring out the amendments.

You never know we may get another amendment with the help of the plain English society, now wouldn't that be nice? instead of all the possible misinterpretations.

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

The whole point of my question was this - The Regs allow for a dedicated, labeled socket outlet, for one item of equipment, to not be RCD protected -

Now, if this circuit already exists and you change the CU, what do you do about the requirement for cables buried less than 50 mm (as the circuit is likely to be)

That was the gist of my question.

If this circuit already exists with a dedicated labeled non-RCD socket..

Then surely this circuit ALREADY complies with 17th ed..

as the reg you are referring to IS a 17th ed reg.. (411.3.3. (a) & (B))

so it would never have been an issue on 16th.. so there would not have been a dedicated labeled non-RCD socket....

So if the circuit already complies with 17th ed..

when you change the CU it don't make a jot of difference cuz the circuit & all aspects of it must have been to 17th anyway....???

 

[Sidewinder]

You never know we may get another amendment with the help of the plain English society, now wouldn't that be nice? instead of all the possible misinterpretations.

Manator,

That will NEVER happen, the solicitors & barristers would then be out of work, they will never allow it to be!

They are the next lowest form of life to bankers, who have easily taken over from estate agents!

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

You see, this is where it all gets confusing and annoying - it was safe enough when installed with the cables at a depth of less than 50mm, but you change the CU, making the installation safer as a whole, and suddenly that circuit isn't safe.

No one says the "circuit isn't safe"...

Its just the fact that its Less safe than a fully compliant 17th circuit?

I really can't understand why electricians get such a big hang up about this concept...

Very similar things happen in other trades, products as rules and regulations change...

When the likes of Deke & GH were boys playing with their Corgi and Dinky toy cars..

it is quite probably they may have been using toys painted with a lead based paint!

rules changed preventing manufactures and retailers from making and supplying these products...

It didn't mean Deke had to throw away all his toy cars cuz they became miraculously unsafe overnight... NO..

He just had to treat them with a bit more care compared to when playing with any newer toy cars!!

Or get onto bigger real life cars..

I can remember the days when seat belts were a manufactures optional extra..

(front only)

Or even if they were fitted you could choose if you wanted to wear them or not..

And they Never existed in the back of a car..

and children always just rattled around on the back seat of the car anyway!!

Power assisted breaks were an option extra...

then the norm

Rear fog lights...

once optional now standard..

High level brake lights

optional now standard..

ABS breaking was just a flash gimmick only on the big expensive cars..

Now nearly every new car has Power assisted ABS break systems..

Then you get Air bags thrown in as well...

Manufactures would NOT be allowed to make or sell cars that complied with old standards..

All new vehicles MUST meet current standards..

And no one would deny these items make motoring safer...

BUT....

Non of the above make the OLD card unsafe...

and you can still legally drive an old car on the public highway...

The only issue it raises is...

In the event of a car crash you will probably be less safe in an old vehicle,

compared to a modern vehicle with a '5star NCAP' rating.

This is EXACTLY the same with electrical installations..

NO one suggests its UNSAFE...

BUT

in the event of an electrical fault you will probably be less safe with an installation to an earlier version of regs compared to a new installation compliant with current regs.

I have NEVER come across a customer who cannot understand this concept..

It appears its just electricians who are unable to asses the correct risks,

advise the customer of best solutions.

give a competitive price and do the work!

They just seem to panic about doing their work to current regs!!!!

:|

 

[Manator]

This is EXACTLY the same with electrical installations..

NO one suggests its UNSAFE...

BUT

in the event of an electrical fault you will probably be less safe with an installation to an earlier version of regs compared to a new installation compliant with current regs.

I have NEVER come across a customer who cannot understand this concept..

It appears its just electricians who are unable to asses the correct risks,

advise the customer of best solutions.

give a competitive price and do the work!

They just seem to panic about doing their work to current regs!!!!

:|

What a very good paragraph this is. Guinness

 

[Badger]

im not saying the circuit itself needs rcd to be safe what im trying to say is that because of the neture of whats connected a bit more protection is required due to the filters and such like being aroung a tank of water, thus higher chance of shock from faulty equipment, by all means stick it on mcb and use a plug in rcd to protect the tank, its not the circuit im trying to stop getting hit by a nail its electric and water meeting! thats like saying our kitchen lights are on a mcb and yet they should be on rcd thats bull****e!! difference is there not submerged in water

 

[sellers]

also, if you wanted to add an extra seat in your 1970's car or van, then it would need to have a seat belt.

similar to adding onto an existing circuit

 

[Apache]

im not saying the circuit itself needs rcd to be safe what im trying to say is that because of the neture of whats connected a bit more protection is required due to the filters and such like being aroung a tank of water, thus higher chance of shock from faulty equipment, by all means stick it on mcb and use a plug in rcd to protect the tank, its not the circuit im trying to stop getting hit by a nail its electric and water meeting! thats like saying our kitchen lights are on a mcb and yet they should be on rcd thats bull****e!! difference is there not submerged in water

Badger - It not a fishtank! He just gave that as an example for the hypothetical situation. It could easily be the crazy lady who needed her magic medicine let at a stated temp in her special fridge.

Incidentally arn't these things on transformers so the 230V not in the tank? I have a pint of beer on the table next to me, there's a socket behind the table. I'm more likely to spill my pint than bust a fishtanks.

 

[Megaohm7]

Fish tanks!! That's a tricky one but not the same as a freezer for example on a dedicated circuit as long as it's labelled correctly.. I'm going to read that reg again..But make sure the circuit is installed in trunking and he can have his fish tanks not protected by an RCD.. You can only advise?? and maybe walk away from the job.

 

[NozSpark]

When I had an aquarium it was all 230v

pump/filter, air pump, heater and light - not one bit of it SELV

 

[Megaohm7]

When I had an aquarium it was all 230vpump/filter, air pump, heater and light - not one bit of it SELV

I had an aquarium and it too had all equipment that was 230v all on BS3036 too . No one got electrocuted either..

 

[spinlondon]

I had an aquarium and it too had all equipment that was 230v all on BS3036 too . No one got electrocuted either..

Obviously not trying hard enough.

 

[Megaohm7]

Obviously not trying hard enough.[/QUOTeROTFWLROTFWL

 

[sellers]

I had an aquarium and it too had all equipment that was 230v all on BS3036 too . No one got electrocuted either..

just because no one has been electrocuted or no fires doesn't make it right, nails have been in fuse carriers with no fires, but its not right to todays standards.

I'm going to be doing a salon soon, the ones where women put their feet in a tank of fish, do you reckon I'll rcd the existing sockets even though I don't have to? Of course!

 

[ADS]

Absolutely crackers!!

You ask a simple question and it's amazing the response - it's a bit like 'chinese whispers'.

Has anyone actually read this thread from start to finish - it's unbelievable.

If this circuit already exists with a dedicated labeled non-RCD socket..Then surely this circuit ALREADY complies with 17th ed..

as the reg you are referring to IS a 17th ed reg.. (411.3.3. (a) & (B))

so it would never have been an issue on 16th.. so there would not have been a dedicated labeled non-RCD socket....

So if the circuit already complies with 17th ed..

when you change the CU it don't make a jot of difference cuz the circuit & all aspects of it must have been to 17th anyway....???

Specs, when I said the circuit already exists, I meant that it's purpose was already in existence i.e. whatever it was that it was supplying that the customer didn't want an RCD on.

I have no problem working to new regulations, so the long-winded post wasn't reqired.

My question was simple:

A) When doing a CU swap, if the customer has an existing, single socket radial that they would rather not have RCD protected, can you allow him this, if it's use is labelled, even if the cables aren't run deeper than 50mm?

B) Or do you say no, I can't, because, now that I've replaced the CU, it has to comply with the current Regs - even though it's complied with previous Regs for years.

That's it - dead straight forward - Option A or Option B

 

[sellers]

problem is, theres options A and B. But this is the real world where theres options A1,2,3,4,5 inbetween.

I'd probably go with A and note on the cert and get customer to sign disclaimer.

 

[Badger]

When I had an aquarium it was all 230vpump/filter, air pump, heater and light - not one bit of it SELV

like mine then but the difference being with the pond aswell. both are protected by rcbos

---------- AUTO MERGE Post added at 23:31 ---------- Previous post was at 23:23 ----------

Absolutely crackers!!You ask a simple question and it's amazing the response - it's a bit like 'chinese whispers'.

Has anyone actually read this thread from start to finish - it's unbelievable.

Specs, when I said the circuit already exists, I meant that it's purpose was already in existence i.e. whatever it was that it was supplying that the customer didn't want an RCD on.

I have no problem working to new regulations, so the long-winded post wasn't reqired.

My question was simple:

A) When doing a CU swap, if the customer has an existing, single socket radial that they would rather not have RCD protected, can you allow him this, if it's use is labelled, even if the cables aren't run deeper than 50mm?

B) Or do you say no, I can't, because, now that I've replaced the CU, it has to comply with the current Regs - even though it's complied with previous Regs for years.

That's it - dead straight forward - Option A or Option B

ok as long as the ruddy fish tanks not plugged in :^O :^O :run if its a washing machine/fridge/freezer/aircon/microwave/securitycamera/ etc etc etc id go option a and write something on cetificate stating this, then ask the customer to sign to say that i advised and that if any electroution or problems occur from that part of the circuit then it is not my responsibility ] ] ] clear as mud eh! :slap :Spam2

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

Specs, when I said the circuit already exists, I meant that it's purpose was already in existence i.e. whatever it was that it was supplying that the customer didn't want an RCD on.

I have no problem working to new regulations, so the long-winded post wasn't reqired.

My question was simple:

A) When doing a CU swap, if the customer has an existing, single socket radial that they would rather not have RCD protected, can you allow him this, if it's use is labelled, even if the cables aren't run deeper than 50mm?

B) Or do you say no, I can't, because, now that I've replaced the CU, it has to comply with the current Regs - even though it's complied with previous Regs for years.

That's it - dead straight forward - Option A or Option B

Right...

first I have read the whole thread all the way through..

and I had before my previous answers...

Due to the way you continued discussing & debating the point.

(such as your comment about ignore reliability issues of RCDs)

I had assumed wrongly you were referring to a circuit already designated in accordance with 17th...

However Taking your scenario you have now outlined..

I would quote you back to my Post #11

i.e..

If a permanent supply is that essential..1/ Install an UP's unit.

2/ Have the circuit supplied via an RCBO, or surface clipped then RCD socket outlet, so other circuits won't cause any disruptions.

because as Badger has said.. there is just as much risk, (if not greater), of a power cut as an RCD trip....

Why all the paranoia that because its got and RCD/RCBO in the circuit its going to be tripping off every other week..???????

You need to take into account Option [C]

which includes greater discussions and risk assessment with the customer..

i.e.

I would be asking the questions like..

What possible harm could come to this radial circuit if you put it on an RCBO???

That is any worse than if you get a power cut?

And if its that essentail... Back to my post#11 & get and UPS unit!?

:|

Just to add as a side note....

I generally try and put 1 socket directly next to the fuse box..

labelled & clearly identified..

surface Non-RCD protected for maintenance and emergency purposes

Had a few assessments on jobs like this No problems!

 

[spinlondon]

You're doing a CU change, is there a Regulation that requires you to place RCD protection in the CU?

 

[scrag]

What about instructing him. Getting him to sign a bit of paper to say he has been instructed about RCD's, nails, srews, people working in house etc etc. All in compliance with BS 7671. JOB DONE