kitchen rewire

[JohnW2]

I'm pretty sure you are over-thinking this.

Maybe, but don't forget that we're talking about regulations which say that if we have an existing non-RCD-protected circuit invoving, say, 30 metres of cable, mainly buried <50mm, if we extend the circuit involving an extra 1 metre of (similarly buried) cable, that we then have to RCD protect the circuit.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

I personally would struggle to see how one could argue that one had complied with 314.1 if one had created a situation in which a single fault could take out all circuits in the installation.

This is where I need to get my head around (iv)
As this does not specify a fault condition.

 

[JohnW2]

I personally would struggle to see how one could argue that one had complied with 314.1 if one had created a situation in which a single fault could take out all circuits in the installation.

This is where I need to get my head around (iv) As this does not specify a fault condition.

That's surely different. 314.1(iv) is about avoiding RCD tripping by having too many 'high leakage' loads protected by one RCD/RCBO, isn't it?

It's surely 314.1(i) which one would struggle to say one was compliant with if an entire installation was protected by a single RCD?

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

That's surely different. 314.1(iv) is about avoiding RCD tripping by having too many 'high leakage' loads protected by one RCD/RCBO, isn't it?

It's surely 314.1(i) which one would struggle to say one was compliant with if an entire installation was protected by a single RCD?

But you could say that the installation even on one RCD, has been divided in to circuits and danger/inconvenience avoided/minimised, when under fault.

 

[JohnW2]

It's surely 314.1(i) which one would struggle to say one was compliant with if an entire installation was protected by a single RCD?

But you could say that the installation even on one RCD, has been divided in to circuits and danger/inconvenience avoided/minimised, when under fault.

In the event of an L-N fault then, yes, the 'division into circuits' (with individual OPDs) could be said to avoid/minimise danger/inconvenience.

However, by bringing all those circuits together under the protection of a common RCD, you are losing that 'division' in the face of L-E or N-E faults - which doesn't sound very compliant with 314.1(i) to me.

Kind Regards, John