does this comply?

[Lee321]

yes it does:_|

 

[Andy™]

I would love to know what the weather is like on the planet you are living on if you think that complies. It does not. It's not a ring it's a radial end of story. Anyone who thinks otherwise really should get a copy of the brb the rest o us use (BS7671:2008).

its protected against overoad & fault current, just like 7671 requires. therefore it is compliant.

 

[ADS]

This discussion is going the same way as other discussions have in the past - i.e. I, (in my previous post), have detailed why it does comply by covering the protection required for the circuit and how it's achieved in this scenario.

Others then come on and post 'It doesn't comply'!!..........no explanation, no reg numbers, no reason for non-compliance......just shouting out their opinion.....it does your head inheadbang

 

[Badger]

it does not comply to the regs end of story, its a radial, not a f king ring main !!!

 

[Graham Lister]

OK. So, on the one hand, we have regular posts on here, which are NOT argued with, that the OCPD is protecting the cable, not the appliance.But Wozz`s OCPD isn`t.

Why is that such an issue? Sod the bit about rings & spurs - it bears no relation to the OPs question mate.

As has been said. IT DOES NOT COMPLY. (Unless you know of a "secret reg.", which is only in special copies of the BRB??? ] )

KME:C

The whole point is the cable is protected against overcurrent downstream. So with overcurrent taken care of then all we need to make sure is if there is a fault on the 2.5mm it will be cleared by the 32A rcbo. The bit about rings and spurs has a lot to do with the question as its permitted to have a cable that is protected against overcurrent downstream. Overcurrent can be dealt with in other ways not just at the origin of the circuit.

 

[Graham Lister]

This discussion is going the same way as other discussions have in the past - i.e. I, (in my previous post), have detailed why it does comply by covering the protection required for the circuit and how it's achieved in this scenarithers then come on and post 'It doesn't comply'!!..........no explanation, no reg numbers, no reason for non-compliance......just shouting out their opinion.....it does your head inheadbang

Spot on I have also seen it on other topics. To just say it doesnt comply end of and not backing it up doesnt do anybody any favours. I suppose its easier to deny things could be right than try to understand logic.

 

[ianmacd]

Try reading all of the post. We posted regs at the start. Overcurrent protection has to be within 3m of the mcb and wozz still hasn't said it is within that therefore it's not apicable.

 

[Lee321]

but that was disgarded as only a requirement for when a change occurs in CCC for 1 ocpd

 

[ADS]

Try reading all of the post. We posted regs at the start. Overcurrent protection has to be within 3m of the mcb and wozz still hasn't said it is within that therefore it's not apicable.

I think the '3m' regulation must be being mis-read......

Are you telling me that the maximum length of an un-fused spur, taken from a ring final circuit, is 3 meters??

I haven't got my regs to hand - any chance someone can type this regulation out, so that we can see what it actually says?

 

[ianmacd]

but that was disgarded as only a requirement for when a change occurs in CCC for 1 ocpd

Then you have disregarded your only supporting reg. No others support you. It's a radial simple as and if you don't get that then maybe you should become a kitchen fitter!!!

Graham: as far as I can see you have not offered any regs to support you at all but plenty have been offered supporting its non compliance.

 

[wozz]

i stopped posting for a bit as it was going round and round.

Take it as further than 3meters. I see the reg u are talking about but i dont think it applies but thankyou for offering me something to check.

as for bad practice arguments, id say its better practice than a double socket from a unfused spur on a ring main. this only has one point hence 13A max, a double socket has two points (i realise the socket is rated to 13A) but that doesnt stop the customer plugging what they want in.

You can say 'its not a ring' all you want i was using it as a example of moving overcurrent protection just like unfused spurs do.

well thats the way i look at it, i realise most will disagree, but as i said the circuit can be designed in many different ways i was just thinking about one that isnt the norm.

 

[ADS]

...... but as i said the circuit can be designed in many different ways i was just thinking about one that isnt the norm.

And you are quite correct.

It actually states in the OSG (and probably the Regs, too), that the circuit design examples given are 'standard circuits' and that other designs, by competent persons, are not precluded

Apparently, 314.3 applies, but I can't check what that is at the mo

 

[ianmacd]

Indeed they Are not just do not expect to rely on 7671 for protection for that circuit.

 

[springcrocus]

Take a six-inch length of 2.5mm cable, strip the ends and then fold it in half. Connect both the stripped ends into the mcb. Voila - we now have a ring. It may not have any outlets, but it's still a ring. Connect the radial circuits into the mcb, as allowed (it is permissible to spur at the source) and the circuit complies. ]

From a strictly "regulations" view, I'm with Wozz, Andy and others on this.

Would I do it myself? Probably not.

 

[ADS]

I know what reply they're going to hit you with ha ha.

Changed my mind, you're not right.

The total number of un-fused spurs mustn't exceed the total number of socket outlets in the ring.

The op has an unfused spur, and you have no socket outlets, so it doesn't comply.

You've actually made it worse.

 

[ianmacd]

Take a six-inch length of 2.5mm cable, strip the ends and then fold it in half. Connect both the stripped ends into the mcb. Voila - we now have a ring. It may not have any outlets, but it's still a ring. Connect the radial circuits into the mcb, as allowed (it is permissible to spur at the source) and the circuit complies. ] From a strictly "regulations" view, I'm with Wozz, Andy and others on this.

Would I do it myself? Probably not.

Not enough accessories and one spur per accessory (so only one spur at origin.

Thats ignoring the stupid idea of it so start with.

 

[ianmacd]

Apparently, 314.3 applies, but I can't check what that is at the mo

314.3 says needs to comply with ch43.

So 433,1,1(ii) seems to apply. The rated current or current setting of the protective device (In) does not exceed the lowest of the current carrying capacities (I2z of any of the conductors of the circuit.

Well theres your nail. 32>27!!

 

[ADS]

314.3 says needs to comply with ch43.So 433,1,1(ii) seems to apply. The rated current or current setting of the protective device (In) does not exceed the lowest of the current carrying capacities (Iz) of any of the conductors od the circuit.

Well theres your nail. 32>27!!

Yes, if the RCBO was offering overload protection for our cables.

But our overload protection is coming from the BS1362s (plug top or FCU) so...

3/5/13 < 27

 

[ianmacd]

How can it not be applicable when its written that it will always apply? Did you get your copy of the regs by saving coupons on your frosties packs?

 

[ADS]

Who are you talking to?