Ring vs Radial circuit, what would you do?

[JohnW2]

In the beginning we only had one device that was an RCD so we just called it an RCD. Then RCBOs arrived so we had to distinguish between the new arrival and the previous sole device so that is now called an RCCB.

You may now call them RCCBs, but I think you'll find that the great majority of electricians and most, if not all, manufacturers, wholesalers and other sellers (and,of course, "DIYers") still call them RCDs.

In fact, other than in some parts of 536.4 (about 'selectivity of devices') BS 7671 makes little or no reference to RCCBs, although there are obviously a very large number of references to "RCDs" - and the fact that they often speak of "RCDs and RCBOs" or "RCDs or RCBOs" seems to indicate that they generally use "RCD" to refer to an RCCB.

Ok. I don't know how many people you have asked.

I suspect you would struggle to find a DIYer who had a clue as to what an "RCCB" is.

 

[EFLImpudence]

You may now call them RCCBs, but I think you'll find that the great majority of electricians and most, if not all, manufacturers, wholesalers and other sellers (and,of course, "DIYers") still call them RCDs.

In fact, other than in some parts of 536.4 (about 'selectivity of devices') BS 7671 makes little or no reference to RCCBs, although there are obviously a very large number of references to "RCDs" - and the fact that they often speak of "RCDs and RCBOs" or "RCDs or RCBOs" seems to indicate that they generally use "RCD" to refer to an RCCB.

Are you saying you think that is the correct approach?

I suspect you would struggle to find a DIYer who had a clue as to what an "RCCB" is.

So would we not tell them when they are asking about such things?

Is that an insect or an ant?




Anyway - don't let me detract you from solving the great 'accessible' conundrum.

 

[JohnW2]

So would we not tell them when they are asking about such things?

To the best of my knowledge and recollection, you are the only person here who ever does that. The rest of us talk about "RCDs and RCBOs" and know what each other are talking about - just as do the manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors etc, not to mention (on the whole) BS 7671.

You may be one of the few people who is 'correct', but you are certainly in a very small minority (which, I suppose, begs the question of what should be regarded as 'correct')

 

[EFLImpudence]

Ah, right - let's have a debate about what 'correct' means.

 

[JohnW2]

Ah, right - let's have a debate about what 'correct' means.

Life is too short. I'll leave to your crusades.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'll leave to your crusades.

Next time I correct something; don't argue about it.

 

[JohnW2]

Next time I correct something; don't argue about it.

I won't - unless I feel that your 'correction' may cause confusion.

 

[scousespark]

For the sake of the rest of us, have your chats in WhatsApp.

 

[JohnW2]

For the sake of the rest of us, have your chats in WhatsApp.

No need. As I've just written, I'm done with all this, not the least because it is so repetitive and predictable (hence boring) - and therefore plan to leave EFLI to do as much 'correcting' as his crusade makes him feel compelled to do.

Kind Regards, John

 

[dsbuds]

What if it was not a ring, originally wired or rewired, and that cable is just a remains of which was a spur or anything else?

What was the MCB size for this circuit? And what exactly was flagged on the EICR, which would raise any sort of concern?

Horses for courses.

EIC suggests it was a ring, 32A MCB, back in early 2010s, it's now a 16A MCB so changed at some point before our ownership. The flag on the EICR from memory was a C3 "Multiple circuits in one protective device". That spark was the one that advised me to get them split onto their own MCBs as spare ways in the (split load?) board.

I presumed the cable I found was what joined the ring together, but you're right, it might have been for something else off the downstairs circuit (however no obvious signs of what it may have been for).

I didn't know I was going to cause this much commotion!

 

[Murdochcat]

EIC suggests it was a ring, 32A MCB, back in early 2010s, it's now a 16A MCB so changed at some point before our ownership. The flag on the EICR from memory was a C3 "Multiple circuits in one protective device". That spark was the one that advised me to get them split onto their own MCBs as spare ways in the (split load?) board.

Alarm bells.

You can have multiple cables coming off a MCB or RCBO - they still form a SINGLE circuit

The correct advice would be about potential overload

 

[EFLImpudence]

Oh dear. What have you done?

 

[AndyPRK]

Modern ways Seam to only like one cable per mcb (except rings).

If someone has gone to the trouble of running a cable all the way back to the CU it may as well be on its own mcb. (Is the thinking)

 

[Murdochcat]

Modern ways Seam to only like one cable per mcb (except rings).

That’s just nonsense

 

[JohnW2]

You can have multiple cables coming off a MCB or RCBO - they still form a SINGLE circuit

True - by (BS7671) definition.

The correct advice would be about potential overload

What are you concerned might be 'overloaded'? Presumably not the cable protected by a 16A OPD? The MCB itself can't really be 'overloaded' - since, if 'too much' current flows through it, it will simply 'operate' in the way it is designed to.