CU change what is the exact standing now under the 17th

[FingRinal]

Dual RCD boards can facilitate this compliance,

They do not comply with reg 413.

I advised the correct option.

I haven't the foggiest why you've mentioned 413

If it's a case of opinion, I would say that the opinion of the IET (who publish the Regs, OSG, GNs etc.) and the consumer unit manufactures would be correct and you would be incorrect.

IET have even put a nice full colour illustration of a dual RCD board on page 25 of the On Site Guide.

 

[oharaf]

CHRIST ALMIGHTY CHAPS!!!!!!!

I only wanted a little advice / clarification!

Put your handbags away and lets have a nice cup of tea and finish that scarf and gloves for Nelly

 

[holmslaw]

I haven't the foggiest why you've mentioned 413

If it's a case of opinion, I would say that the opinion of the IET (who publish the Regs, OSG, GNs etc.) and the consumer unit manufactures would be correct and you would be incorrect.

IET have even put a nice full colour illustration of a dual RCD board on page 25 of the On Site Guide.

I should have said reg 314, right numbers wrong order.

Not an opinion a fact, dual rcd boards do not comply with regs unless fitted on a TT system. I'm sure the illustration you refer to must be with regard to a TT system.

I'm gonna get on with my knitting now.

 

[oharaf]

Knit one pearl one, whoops dropsies

 

[Pensdown]

There are no other requirements to bring circuits up to 17th edition, regs not retroactive.

For a board change nowadays, unless you can prove otherwise, you have to assume that RCD protection is required for all circuits. So all circuits will require it should you change the board.

Well - you can't both be right.

What are your arguments for and against...

My reasoning is included in the bit you've quoted. I'm sorry if it confuses you.

There are no other requirements to bring circuits up to 17th edition, regs not retroactive.

For a board change nowadays, unless you can prove otherwise, you have to assume that RCD protection is required for all circuits. So all circuits will require it should you change the board.

Well - you can't both be right.

What are your arguments for and against...

You pompous p****, another pointless and unhelpful post.

It's a shame you both reacted that way because I too (and I'm sure others as well) would like to know what arguments you both have for and against.

 

[FingRinal]

My argument is quite simple, as is the explanation, justification etc.

If you cannot prove that cables are routed to comply with 522.6.6, you have to assume that they aren't and thus 522.6.7 is required.

How hard is that?

 

[holmslaw]

It's a shame you both reacted that way because I too (and I'm sure others as well) would like to know what arguments you both have for and against.

Apart from me quoting the wrong reg No (413 instead of 314) what am I supposed to explain.

bas loves to try and embarrass people by not entering into the to and fro of a conversation, that way he can hide behind his facade until it is time to deliver (as he sees it) the killer punch - that is why he is a pompous p****.

 

[FingRinal]

I haven't the foggiest why you've mentioned 413

If it's a case of opinion, I would say that the opinion of the IET (who publish the Regs, OSG, GNs etc.) and the consumer unit manufactures would be correct and you would be incorrect.

IET have even put a nice full colour illustration of a dual RCD board on page 25 of the On Site Guide.

I should have said reg 314, right numbers wrong order.

Not an opinion a fact, dual rcd boards do not comply with regs unless fitted on a TT system. I'm sure the illustration you refer to must be with regard to a TT system.

I'm gonna get on with my knitting now.

Not a fact I'm afraid.

Exactly how 314 is complied with is not mentioned anywhwere in the Regs. The decision, like much of the Regs, rests with the electrician taking into consideration the relevant facts.

So the FACT remains that a dual RCD boards can facilitate compliance, but it not a guarantee that it will e.g. if all circuits are connected to just one of the RCDs.

Electricians are empowered to read the Regs and apply their understanding of them, their understanding of engineering, design etc.

If they are unable or unwilling to do so, that's their decision. But please don't tell those that can that it is a fact they are wrong to do so.

 

[holmslaw]

Knit one pearl one, whoops dropsies

Trouble you've caused, where's my bleedin handbag.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm afraid you are either confused or being deliberately obtuse and obdurate.

I wonder which?

You pompous p****, another pointless and unhelpful post.

bas loves to try and embarrass people by not entering into the to and fro of a conversation, that way he can hide behind his facade until it is time to deliver (as he sees it) the killer punch - that is why he is a pompous p****.

It's a shame that both of you feel that the only way you can respond to a civil question is with abuse, but it is nevertheless amusing to see a question objected to because it is "pointless and unhelpful", and to be criticised for not entering into the to and fro of a conversation instead of being criticised for making too many replies.

My argument is quite simple, as is the explanation, justification etc.

If you cannot prove that cables are routed to comply with 522.6.6, you have to assume that they aren't and thus 522.6.7 is required.

How hard is that?

If you say that existing circuits which you are not installing have to be made to comply with 522.6.7 are you not saying that the regulations are retroactive, and that existing installations do have to be brought up to spec?

 

[FingRinal]

[If you say that existing circuits which you are not installing have to be made to comply with 522.6.7 are you not saying that the regulations are retroactive, and that existing installations do have to be brought up to spec?

It's quite simple.

Those boys that have sports after lunch, but haven't written a letter home, move your coats to the lower pegs, unless you have a brother in the year above in which case move your coats to the lower peg before lunch and before sports but after you've written your letter home, unless you haven't written a letter home in which case.......

note: extract from BAS7671...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It's quite simple.

Those boys that have sports after lunch, but haven't written a letter home, move your coats to the lower pegs, unless you have a brother in the year above in which case move your coats to the lower peg before lunch and before sports but after you've written your letter home, unless you haven't written a letter home in which case.......

note: extract from BAS7671...

I'm sure you have a reason for behaving like this.

I'm not sure whether anyone other than you understands it though.

 

[FingRinal]

I thought if anyone would understand it, it would be you...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Q: If you say that existing circuits which you are not installing have to be made to comply with 522.6.7 are you not saying that the regulations are retroactive, and that existing installations do have to be brought up to spec?[/quote]

A: Those boys that have sports after lunch, but haven't written a letter home, move your coats to the lower pegs, unless you have a brother in the year above in which case move your coats to the lower peg before lunch and before sports but after you've written your letter home, unless you haven't written a letter home in which case.......

note: extract from BAS7671...


Nope - sorry - I don't understand why you thought your answer was a good one.

 

[Chri5]

I'm not sure why you guys have chosen to lambaste BAS. I thought that a debate on the rights and wrongs would be informative and possibly help others.

I am of the mind that to comply with 7671:2008 1st July that a CU change would have to be done to the letter of the big red book.

Which unless my 7671:2008 NICIEC 3 day course and 92% pass has subsequently been changed, required suitable protection via RCD / RCBO for all circuits that are not mechanically protected and where they may be less than 50mm from the surface of a wall.

Since a CU change situation is unlikely to include a full (and proven) inspection that the cables are either deep enough or correctly protected then RCD / RCBO is the only choice.

I'd appreciate a debate and an understanding as to how homslaw believes a non RCD installation is an acceptable methodology within the current regs that should be worked to for a CU upgrade.