RCD protect meter tails?????

Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:

Joined
Mar 7, 2008
Messages
9,994
Reaction score
0
Location
In the office again.
Question I was asked today - would like to get some affirmation of my answer please.

My oppo has a job where the incomer is being moved to en external cabinet. The CU will be approx 6m away, on an adjacent (interior wall). He intends to bring the tails & EC up the cavity,along the top of the wall (ceiling down to be reboarded) and down single skin internal wall to CU. Question was, as customer has `requested` 17th ed. install, does he have to fit an RCD on the supply side? :eek:

I said no, but that the internal wall where the CU is going should have protection against nails, screws etc, and that I`d personally put a sheet of steel between the top of the wall and the CU; thereby affording necessary mechanical protection.B)

Yea........... :) ...........or Nay......... :( ........?????????

 

steptoe

of course Im wrong, ask my wife™
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
24,344
Reaction score
119
Location
Gtr Manchester
to meet 17th, and have protection within the scope of not causing nuisance tripping.....

HO HO HO

well yes and no then....

do you know of a suppliers that do a 30mA rcd with a time delay function?

like the more common 100mA (T or S) version, I have brought this exact situation up numerous times to various organisations with no definitive answer as yet.

simple answer is YES you must provide 30mA RCD protection for the sub,

but you must be able to provide this without causing un necessary tripping to other circuits,.

how to do this and ensure discrimination between tripping devices with what is on offer with a BS/IEC/EN mark at this present time is beyond me.

perhaps some1 that makes the regs will eventually come up with a reason/explanation as to why every single install like this will always have a deviation.

SORRY to go on, but dont stress too much about the regs, just mark as a deviation, its not a fail, or anything like it, as long as you prove its safe and if possible mark the wall as such,

ie, "ELECTRICAL CABLES - KEEP AWAY" (or whatsoever it is)

you have fulfilled your obligation under the EAWR.

HTH,

remember, its only IMHO

Albert

 
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
Messages
9,994
Reaction score
0
Location
In the office again.
Thank you Albert....Don`t apologise for "going on" - you didn`t, and I like explainations anyway (even if you had, which you hadn`t).

HTH?????? Haven`t come across that one before?

I can get a 30mA "s" type (I think.......), but would be a bit leery of caging such an animal in an external meter box.

Personally can`t see the prob with steel sheet (earthed of course:) )on vertical drop to cons.unit -

 
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
13,621
Reaction score
297
to meet 17th, and have protection within the scope of not causing nuisance tripping.....HO HO HO

well yes and no then....

do you know of a suppliers that do a 30mA rcd with a time delay function?

like the more common 100mA (T or S) version, I have brought this exact situation up numerous times to various organisations with no definitive answer as yet.

simple answer is YES you must provide 30mA RCD protection for the sub,

but you must be able to provide this without causing un necessary tripping to other circuits,.

how to do this and ensure discrimination between tripping devices with what is on offer with a BS/IEC/EN mark at this present time is beyond me.

perhaps some1 that makes the regs will eventually come up with a reason/explanation as to why every single install like this will always have a deviation.

SORRY to go on, but dont stress too much about the regs, just mark as a deviation, its not a fail, or anything like it, as long as you prove its safe and if possible mark the wall as such,

ie, "ELECTRICAL CABLES - KEEP AWAY" (or whatsoever it is)

you have fulfilled your obligation under the EAWR.

HTH,

remember, its only IMHO

Albert
Evnin Mr Step...: :)

I had noticed few people had tried to answer / input to this one...

Thought you may come up with a suggestion.

as you say its a Yes/No/Maybey situation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :(

perhaps the 17th ed ammendment will include a proper answer..

what do you recon?? ?:| ? :|

 

steptoe

of course Im wrong, ask my wife™
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
24,344
Reaction score
119
Location
Gtr Manchester
steel sheet would be a very acceptable form of protection indeed,,,,,

(1/8" I should think more than enough,)

from 1 side, how do you propose to protect the other 3 sides?

stoopid reg.... (read the regs, dont slag me!)

steel sheet would IMHO be more than acceptable.

you could always use the reg that alllows an unprotected circuit to be used if the point of use/connection is hard wired,

ie, your C/U !!!!

sorry I dont know the number,(as youve prob gathered Im not into it)

but thats the reg I would go on, and **** the 30mA stoopid rule,

if some **** is thick enough to drill thru the tails then he deserves a whack.!!

LMFAO :^O :^O:^O:^O

disclaimer... I didnt mean that.! :eek:

 

steptoe

of course Im wrong, ask my wife™
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
24,344
Reaction score
119
Location
Gtr Manchester
Lucky you..... haven`t had ANY yet:( :( Agree with all (except maybe the disclaimer :) :) )

Still don`t know what HTH means though?
Hope This/That Helps

TBH , personally I tend to swing with you on the disclaimer being proven in court, dodgy,.

I will personally be going with the hard wired option when this comes to me on a 17th cert,

its just the same as a fridge/freezer etc on a FCU, just a bigger fuse, and a multiple connection unit.! :)

my own house is like that, although I have a 100mA protecting a 25mm SWA from the front porch to under stairs C/U.

Im concerned as to how this will all work in agricultural etc as Ive seen 100mA getting threw by sheer animal heat!!!!

oh, and I still promote the use of radials for everything.!!! B)

 
Top