Non-bidirectional RCD/RCBO feeding sockets, should they get a code C2 with EICR?

[ericmark]

It does not matter if, or when the government permits plug and play solar, it seems it is being bought and used anyway.

We have seen the test on a non-bidirectional RCBO, OK needed the test button to be pressed, but with plug and play solar there is a potential danger that the protection device will not work.

So when will we see first complaint about EICR failure as wrong RCBO fitted?

 

[JohnW2]

We have seen the test on a non-bidirectional RCBO, OK needed the test button to be pressed, but with plug and play solar there is a potential danger that the protection device will not work.

As I've been saying, I currently know nothing that suggests that such would be the case. The only (fairly trivial) 'issue' of which I'm aware relates to the situation when current is flowing through a device in the 'unintended' direction and someone keeps the test button pressed for an appreciable period of time after the device has tripped (which seems extremely improbable).

What makes you think that "there is a potential danger that the protection device will not work" if current is flowing one way through the device?

 

[ericmark]

someone keeps the test button pressed for an appreciable period of time

The time the button was pressed with the efixx demo was not excessive. Had it not been during a test, I would have said it was simply a component failure, but it was clear all due to test button being pressed during the reverse flow.

If it was not for plug and play solar, I would say there is no risk. As to get reverse flow, it needs a battery or similar be it EV or solar, and so unless supplying EV or solar the bidirectional is not required.

But with plug and play, anyone could fit it into any 13 amp socket, I know the rules say "Plugs shall not be used for the connection of electrical power generators to socket-outlets." under BS1363-1, but the devices are still being sold in the UK, and we know they are being used, as there are YouTube videos showing it being done.

So with owner occupied homes there is no reason for Plug and Play, it is easy enough to make a proper connection into the system, but with rental we have little or no control of what the tenant may plug in. So there is a potential danger, it seems it did not burst into flames or anything like that, all it did was remove the RCD protection, so unless no RCD protection will attract a code C2 then omnidirectional RCD/RCBO should not either.

So suppose the question is will a lack of RCD protection mean a code C2? If not, then neither will an omnidirectional RCD/RCBO, if yes, then also an omnidirectional RCD/RCBO should attract a C2 code.

Nice one Ed. Bet he did not consider that before his anouncement? But Omar Khayyám in the 11th century worked out, once done, all thy Piety nor Wit, Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

So he would need to at least make a public announcement sorry I got it wrong, we can't have plug and play solar, and fast before too many are sold.

 

[Murdochcat]

No

 

[JohnW2]

The time the button was pressed with the efixx demo was not excessive. Had it not been during a test, I would have said it was simply a component failure, but it was clear all due to test button being pressed during the reverse flow.

Indeed.
I've just had a couple of watches of that video, and I have to say that I was a little surprised that, with 'reversed current direction', the test resistor clearly 'blew up' (with a bang and 'a puff of smoke') after a pretty brief period of pressing the test button. On reflection, I suppose that's not all that surprising - if designed to produce a test current of, say, 60 mA, that would amount to some 13.8W, which a 'small' resistor could only tolerate for a very brief period of time.

However, as you say, their experiment result in destruction of a component in the RCD electronics (rendering the device useless), which I can but presume that was the result of the 'test resistor' being (unnecessarily) very close to the device's electronics.

There are all sorts of ways in which this potential problem could be avoided, some of which I have already mentioned. Probably the simplest (which I don't think I mentioned before) would be to have an additional small pair of contacts which disconnceted the test button circuit immediately the device tripped.

Perhaps because simple solutions are possible, the guys in the video seemed to be suggesting that we would soon see a situation in which all new RCDs would be 'bidirectional' (i.e. without this test button issue) - so they may come to be regarded just as "RCDs" (rather than "bidirectional RCDs"), since nothing else will be available?