Replacing Fuse wire with MCBs

[ban-all-sheds]

Which it is, why would you think not, for an alteration to a fuseboard post 17th introduction?

Because the requirements in 522.6.7 apply to cables.

You aren't installing cables, so 522.6.7 does not apply to your work.

This is the most important change to the 17th RCD - the requirement for whole house protection and a must!

So would you insist on fitting RCDs even if every cable was either not within the scope of 522.6.6, or complied with one of 522.6.6 (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv)?

You are required to ensure that any new work that you do, conforms to the regulations, this would involve RCD protection as a minimum.

The regulation which you believe applies to the job of replacing a rewirable fuse with an MCB in fact applies to cables concealed in walls or partitions.

i.e. not the new work which you are doing.

You're not suggesting the installation is ripped apart, to conform to the 17th?

I'm not, but it is inconsistent for you not to say that must be done.

So FOR THE FOURTH TIME OF ASKING, why do you insist that additional work must be done in order to bring the rest of the installation into compliance with 522.6.7 but not a single other one of the many regulations with an equal status in BS 7671:2008? What is it that you feel you cannot do unless you make what's already there comply with 522.6.7 but you can do without making what's already there comply with 522.6.5, 522.6.8, 522.6.5, 521.10.1, 526.3, 522.8.10 etc etc etc?

And why?

I think you've lost the plot, I have already stated the requirement to protect the existing installation by front end RCD's!

But you haven't pointed to a regulation which says that.

You appear to be making that claim over and over again because of a regulation which applies to the installation of cables, not the work you are doing.

So FOR THE FIFTH TIME OF ASKING, what is it that you feel you cannot do unless you make what's already there comply with 522.6.7 but which you can do without making what's already there comply with 522.6.5, 522.6.8, 522.6.5, 521.10.1, 526.3, 522.8.10 etc etc etc?

 

[JonoPashley]

Jaymack = Mark Coles??

 

[Jaymack]

This is now a trivial pursuit, try Twitter.

Regards

 

[RF Lighting]

Just admit you're wrong then we can all rest easy

 

[ban-all-sheds]

This is now a trivial pursuit, try Twitter.

Regards

OK - we'll all just take it as read that you have finally realised that you have absolutely no logical or consistent explanation of why there is something you cannot do unless you make what's already there comply with 522.6.7 but which you can do without making what's already there comply with 522.6.5, 522.6.8, 522.6.5, 521.10.1, 526.3, 522.8.10 etc etc etc.

No need for you to embarrass yourself even more by trying to pretend.

 

[Jaymack]

This is now a trivial pursuit, try Twitter.
Regards

OK - we'll all just take it as read that you have finally realised that you have absolutely no logical or consistent explanation of why there is something you cannot do unless you make what's already there comply with 522.6.7 but which you can do without making what's already there comply with 522.6.5, 522.6.8, 522.6.5, 521.10.1, 526.3, 522.8.10 etc etc etc.
No need for you to embarrass yourself even more by trying to pretend.

There is no logic to your argument, get over it.

522.6.7 requires RCD protection, easy to impliment and required for such an alteration to the 17th, as the original OP

Each circuit characteristic would be be changed, thus requiring the testing & inspection of the complete installation for those circuits; and the issuance of an EIC - to allow the new circuit parameters to be recorded.

The others relate to existing cable installations that are impracticable to impliment; but the addition of a RCD protection will protect such situations, the minimum that can be done to allow conformance to the 17th!

Assuming you were registered with NAPIT and/or the NICEIC, what would be their reaction to just simply replacing Fuses with MCB's? Their help line is free to all (as I understand). Report back on your findings.

Any more regulations you want clarification on?

Regards

 

[JonoPashley]

Except more than half the time are staffed by people who dont have a clue.

 

[securespark]

Yawn.. Jay, your argument does not stand up, even after much editing...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There is no logic to your argument, get over it.

Are you talking to yourself there?

Because it's your position which is illogical and inconsistent.

You are the one choosing to believe that there is a requirement to do something, a choice which then means you are saying that there's something you cannot do unless you make pre-existing installation components conform to one of the many regulations which apply to them but which you can do without making the same pre-existing installation components conform to several other regulations which apply to them.

522.6.7 requires RCD protection,

Yes - 522.6.7 requires cables "installed in accordance with Regulation 522.6.6 (v)..." to have RCD protection in some circumstances.

Are you installing cables in accordance with Regulation 522.6.6 (v) etc? If not, why do you think that 522.6.7 applies to what you are doing?

Are you signing an EIC to say that the scope of the work you did includes the installation of these cables? If not, why do you think you need to make them comply with 522.6.7 before you can sign an EIC for work to which 522.6.7 does not apply?

526.9 requires that cores of sheathed cables from which the sheath has been removed be enclosed as required by 526.5. Do you go around and remove every socket and switch to check that this had been done, so that you can rectify it if not in order to make pre-existing installation components conform to that regulation? If not, why not?

easy to impliment and required for such an alteration to the 17th

No - not required.

Each circuit characteristic would be be changed, thus requiring the testing & inspection of the complete installation for those circuits; and the issuance of an EIC - to allow the new circuit parameters to be recorded.

Testing and inspection?

So you do insist on uncovering all cables buried in walls, and you do insist on lifting floors and dropping ceilings, and you do insist on digging up gardens in order to inspect the complete installation.

Are your customers OK with this?

The others relate to existing cable installations that are impracticable to impliment; but the addition of a RCD protection will protect such situations, the minimum that can be done to allow conformance to the 17th!

Oh I see - there's a hierarchy of regulations is there - some of which you must do and some you don't have to if it's too much bother, but even if you don't comply with everything you can still sign an EIC to say that your work does comply.

Can you point me at that list please, it might be handy to know which regulations can be ignored if it suits.

Assuming you were registered with NAPIT and/or the NICEIC, what would be their reaction to just simply replacing Fuses with MCB's? Their help line is free to all (as I understand). Report back on your findings.

My findings are likely to be that they are as confused, illogical and plain wrong as you are.

Any more regulations you want clarification on?

If I do you may rest assured I'll not be seeking your help.

 

[Jaymack]

There is no logic to your argument, get over it.

Are you talking to yourself there?
If I do you may rest assured I'll not be seeking your help.

You require someone to be a mentor.
To summarise: - Bounce the question of simply replacing fuses with MCB's with a scheme provider, as I said. Do you think this would be allowable nowadays without also providing RCD protection?

Regards

 

[ColJack]

can we clear thing up once and for all?

SCHEME PROVIDERS DO NOT WRITE THE REGS.. and as such their interpretation of them is exactly that, their interpretation.

they may insist that their members adhere to their interpretation of them but that does not prevent those who are not members, or indeed are members of a different scheme from being compliant with the regulations because they do not follow the interpretation of one particular scheme.

one such scheme insists that metal back boxes are earthed with a flylead from socket fronts, but nowhere in the regulations does it explicitly say this.

as BAS has asked numerous times.. what makes it OK to say that you have to comply with one specific regulation when changing a fuse to an mcb whereas you choose to ignore several others that also come into play if you stick to the interpretation of bringing those circuits up to the 17th regs.

let us also not forget that the regulations are NOT statutory and don't have to be followed in order to comply with the laws concerning electricity.
but that's another argument for another time.

 

[Jaymack]

can we clear thing up once and for all?

Simple - just roll over!

SCHEME PROVIDERS DO NOT WRITE THE REGS.. and as such their interpretation of them is exactly that, their interpretation.

I take it you're not with one then. They interpret the regulations correctly, sometimes with minor differences, I can compare, being with NAPIT and the NICEIC.

they may insist that their members adhere to their interpretation of them but that does not prevent those who are not members, or indeed are members of a different scheme from being compliant with the regulations because they do not follow the interpretation of one particular scheme.

Indeedy so, those not with a scheme are loose cannons IMO, I would question why they are not with a scheme!

one such scheme insists that metal back boxes are earthed with a flylead from socket fronts, but nowhere in the regulations does it explicitly say this.

Shifting the goal posts now. There is a specific circumstance when this is required, I'm sure you're aware of it. Can you name this scheme provider?

as BAS has asked numerous times.. what makes it OK to say that you have to comply with one specific regulation when changing a fuse to an mcb whereas you choose to ignore several others that also come into play if you stick to the interpretation of bringing those circuits up to the 17th regs.

Practicalities dear boy! As I have said repeatedly: can MCB's be used to simply replace fuses nowadays without RCD protection?

let us also not forget that the regulations are NOT statutory and don't have to be followed in order to comply with the laws concerning electricity.
but that's another argument for another time.

An argument that's continually being offered for non-compliance, what is statutary is the HSE guidelines and the HSAW act. Bite, Back, Bum and Beak are relevant for infringements.

Regards

 

[JonoPashley]

Will it be safer with Plug in MCBs Answer: Yes
So would that comply with the law: Yes

BS7671 is only one was to achieve compliance

While i would recommend a CU upgrade, plug in MCBs are much better than having rewirables.

 

[Spark123]

I wouldn't say better at all - a MCB is a mechanical device and can fail.
A fuse is a piece of wire and providing it is not abused i.e. by replacing it with a larger piece of wire then it has got to be more reliable than an MCB.
I have had an MCB fail to operate before, also had some which had siezed up inside through getting damp.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Practicalities dear boy!

Oh I see - there's a hierarchy of regulations is there - some of which you must do and some you don't have to if it's too much bother, but even if you don't comply with everything you can still sign an EIC to say that your work does comply.

Can you point me at that list please, it might be handy to know which regulations can be ignored if it suits.

As I have said repeatedly: can MCB's be used to simply replace fuses nowadays without RCD protection?

Yes they can, and you have failed over and over and over again to show us a regulation which says otherwise.