Cooker circuit.

[ban-all-sheds]

FWIW, I don't believe a contactor is suitable for use as an isolator too, it isn't really a secureable device.

Neither are pull-cord shower isolators.

Or cooker switches.

Or FCUs.

This is a house, remember.

Probably me looking at it from a EAWR pov.
Are those 45A ones securable? Or I suppose if they are under the control of the person working on the piece of kit they may be OK.

If not, then every house in the country is full of switches which are not OK...

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[bonebill]

For a 45A flavour you will need the bigger one:
http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/MKK5215.html[/QUOTE]

(Whilst the poster and anyone else currently following this thread will already know, for the benefit of anyone reading this thread later on, the MK 45A switch mentioned above is a "2-gang" device, which is normally mounted on a 2-gang back box fitted in "tall" orientation (as opposed to the usual "wide" orientation).)

 

[Calder]

Sorry to butt in on an already handsome arguement... but table 53.2 lists which make of contactor can and can't be used for Isolation, Emergency Switching and or functional switching....

so is the contactor you're proposing to BSEN 60947-4-1 or 61095?

this should clarify it.....?shouldn't it...? hmmm

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Now there's a thing....

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Guidance on the selection of protective, isolation and switching devices?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[securespark]

Holms...you berk, he was. That is the title of the page!

1. Have you got a copy of BS 7671:2008?

If you have, you know the page to which Ban and others are referring is P117, Table 53.2.

(What is and is not acceptable for use as means of isolation, ES or FS).

Calder, I believe is spot on. I have not got my copy on the desk, however, from memory a contactor is suitable as long as it is to 60947-4-1.

2. I have telephoned the IET helpline. They agree with me. A contactor of this type is suitable.

Let's draw a line under this now.

You brag about how nobody argues with what you post because it is irrefutable, then you post a load of nonsense like this.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[securespark]

Nope. I'm a silly BIG man, but that is irrelevent here.

Why are you attempting to insult me? Feeling sheepish?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[DP]

I would like to thank everyone for their views and assistance.

Like any field of work, as I have gleaned from above, sparks also have among them those that know what it is all about and those that think they know better.

A poster mentioned that a fault on the control line could energise the contactor and 'blow' the screwdriver tip. If fail to see how or why that would take place as energising voltage stops at the control switch. I one wanted to be pedantic about it, would a key switch be better option? How about a two pole switch which has spiked and contacts' stuck'. Surely the equipment could be live despite that fact that the manual switch could be in OFF position.

In my capacity as a heating engineer, I have seen sockets under sinktops well within water 'spillage area' , boiler wired incorrectly resulting in boiler being live when switched off from the front panel mounted mains switch. Have also been to jobs where the electrical work is a work of art well worth taking a picture of.

Posts above have humbled me to read in depth views of regulars on this forum

 

[Spark123]

If you have, you know the page to which Ban and others are referring is P117, Table 53.2.

Just had a peep, it says if it complies with BS EN 60947-4-1, function provided if the device is suitable and marked with the symbol for isolation.

It would be interesting to know what the physical difference is between the ones with this marking and the ones without?

 

[holmslaw]

..