mk rcd split load unit

[johnad]

In a mk split load consumer unit can the rcd be fitted on the right or in the middle
Some of the diagrams show both
So would the rcd be fussy about what way round the live and neutral enter the rcd
So the busbar can be fitted to the left or right of the rcd
Many thanks

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It doesn't matter which way round you have the L & N.

What does matter though is why you are thinking of installing a traditional split-load board in 2010....

 

[LoveRocket]

What does matter though is why you are thinking of installing a traditional split-load board in 2010....

Does it? Really?

So you don't think that a split load CU with a few circuits sharing an RCD, and the lights and other good stuff on individual RCBOs is a good idea? So you think that a "17th edition CU" complies with said edition?

Or, more likely, was all this outweighed by your desire to slate someone asking honest questions?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Does it? Really?

Yes.

So you don't think that a split load CU with a few circuits sharing an RCD, and the lights and other good stuff on individual RCDs is a good idea?

Did I say that?

Oh look - no, I didn't.

Only that it matters why he was thinking of installing that type of CU.

So you think that a "17th edition CU" complies with said edition?

It might - depends how it's used. Just like "16th Edition" ones.

Or, more likely, was all this outweighed by your desire to someone?

Was all what outweighed by my desire to what?

 

[LoveRocket]

Sorry Banal, some words seemed to disappear as I clicked submit.

Edited now.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh well - I wonder why you thought that your time was better spent making your post even more idiotic than it was before.

Does it? Really?

Yes.

Care to explain why it doesn't matter?

So you don't think that a split load CU with a few circuits sharing an RCD, and the lights and other good stuff on individual RCDs is a good idea?

Did I say that?

Oh look - no, I didn't.

Only that it matters why he was thinking of installing that type of CU.

Care to explain why you thought it was a good idea to imagine I was thinking something for which there was no rational basis in what I wrote, and then to challenge me over the febrile result?

So you think that a "17th edition CU" complies with said edition?

It might - depends how it's used. Just like "16th Edition" ones.

Or, more likely, was all this outweighed by your desire to slate someone asking honest questions?

And so, yet again I find myself asking you to provide a rational analysis of what I wrote which shows that it could be classed as slating someone.

And yet again you will fail, because you won't be able to justify your criticism even to yourself.

Will you ever grow some brains, or are we doomed to suffer your stupid behaviour for ever?

 

[LoveRocket]

Banal, read what you wrote my son.

You instantly thought that the OP was planning on doing an installation to the 16th, and with this your penis twitched and you seized the opportunity to have a pop at someone.

You now get all arsey because I have pointed out that split load boards certainly have their place, and in the arrangement I described are much better than a so-called "17th edition" dual RCD CU.

Sorry to pee on your potatoes.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Banal, read what you wrote my son.

I wrote this:

"It doesn't matter which way round you have the L & N.

What does matter though is why you are thinking of installing a traditional split-load board in 2010"

Go on - produce a RATIONAL analysis which shows that I was slating the OP. (HINT - "rational" does not include the idiotic results of your seriously faulty imagination).

You instantly thought that the OP was planning on doing an installation to the 16th,

That is wrong.

There is nothing in what I wrote which could reasonably be seen as evidence for that conclusion.

So yet again you have decided to invent something utterly wrong and unjustifiable which you don't like so that you can start criticising me.

and with this your penis twitched and you seized the opportunity to have a pop at someone.

God you get more pathetic and childish with each passing day, don't you.

You now get all arsey because I have pointed out that split load boards certainly have their place, and in the arrangement I described are much better than a so-called "17th edition" dual RCD CU.

Since you've twice ignored this:

So you don't think that a split load CU with a few circuits sharing an RCD, and the lights and other good stuff on individual RCDs is a good idea?

Did I say that?

Oh look - no, I didn't.

it's abundantly clear that you have no interest in what I've really written, and that all you want to do is to imagine some motive for which you can provide no evidence whatsoever just so that you can criticise me.

Sorry to pee on your potatoes.

If you really were sorry about the way you over and over and over and over and over and over again spoil topics by indulging in your mindless personal animosity towards me, which leads you to write things that even you know right from the start cannot be justified, you would stop.

 

[niceguy235uk]

A split load Cu is perfectly ok to install providing certain conditions are met.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Certainly is.

A non-split with a switch incomer and stuffed full of RCBOs is even more OK.

But at the risk of provoking more stupid childishness from LR it does require the installer to think about it.