Is this fusebox illegal
- Thread starter Psmk222
- Start date
Sponsored Links
I think that's simple enough, given what it 'actually says'. 531.3.6 lists (just) three types of RCD devices that may be used to provide 'additional protection', and also goes a long way to explaining what they mean (in the context of this reg) by 'additional protection' by citing ...
...AND...
In other words, as written, it seems that it is fairly clearly stating that only one of the three types of RCDs listed are acceptable for the (required) 'additional protection' of sockets, or even for the more general ('recognised', not required) 'additional protection' in case of failure of basic protection or 'carelessness by users'
Whether it is sensible or daft that some types of RCD appear to be excluded from that list is a question I will leave for you to ponder!
Kind Regards, John
You have clearly ignored this explicit statement: "SRCDs are intended for use in circuits where the fault protection and additional protection are already assured upstream of the SRCD." This clearly suggests that I am correct that they are not certified to provide additional protection, making their use redundant in BS7671 terms.
I think you are making the same mistake of interpretation as I recently mentioned, given that it is obvious that NO RCD (whether an SRCD or anything else) can protect anything upstream of it.
In other words, I think that the meaning of that sentence is along the lines of
"SRCDs are intended for use in circuits where the fault protection and additional protection of parts of the circuit upstream of the SRCD (if/when required) are already assured by some other device upstream of the SRCD"
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
Are you talking in terms of BS7671 or in terms of the quote (from wherever) that JohnD posted and about which I just replied to Risteard?
If the former, then I can find nothing in BS7671 which says that devices to BS 7288 are suitable for anything (the Standard is not mentioned at all). Given that such devices clearly exist, I think it's a case of "Go Figure!".
If the latter, as I just wrote to Risteard, it is quite obvious that NO RCD, whether an RCD socket or anything else, can give any protection ('additional' or otherwise) to anything upstream of it (so, for example, including the wiring feeding an RCD socket). An RCD socket obviously does (as it was designed to do) provide protection to whatever is plugged into the socket - but that is, of course, then probably outside of the scope of BS7671, anyway.
Kind Regards, John
I mean in terms of BS7671. BS 7288 is mentioned in the OSG, section 11.4. It seems awfully strange RCD sockets comply with the requirements for additional protection of sockets yet they're apparently not allowed
It may well be that what JohnW2 has put is what the standards writers wanted to convey, but its not what they wrote. I believe others have submitted a request to them to consider issueing a clarification on this, but have not had any response.
The other alterative is that they are trying to elininate RCD accessories, I think they are a UK only thing, I suppose its not beyond possibility that they are being made pointless in order to allow further harmonisation of standards
The other alterative is that they are trying to elininate RCD accessories, I think they are a UK only thing, I suppose its not beyond possibility that they are being made pointless in order to allow further harmonisation of standards
It's not what is meant. The Standard is explicit that additional protection is not provided by the devices and must be provided separately.
As I think we are agreed, I think it's very badly written.
RCD sockets obviously give RCD protection (whether one calls it 'additional' or not) to whatever is plugged into them, since that's what they are designed for, and it seems very hard to believe that BS 7671 intended to forbid their being used for what they are designed (to a BS) to do. What they equally obviously cannot do is protect any of the circuit upstream of the socket - so I can but presume that, in some contorted (and very confused/confused) way, that is what BS 7671 was trying (not at all successfully) to say.
One possibility, which I don't think has been discussed, is that they simply forgot to add BS 7288 to the list in 531.3.6. I don't know what came before BS 7288:2016, but the earliest that particular edition of the Standard might have been added would have been in Amd3 of BS 7671:2008
I think that, at least for those of us who are not tied (e.g. by scheme membership) to 'strict and unthinking compliance' with BS 7671, it's probably a situation in which electrical common sense should be allowed to prevail.
Kind Regards, John
Indeed it isn't.
I am one of those others, and have yet to receive any response (which is not unusual). We may have to wait for the DPC of Amd1 (which I imagine must be in preparation).
Nothing's impossible, but it would seem a bit odd that the BSI would (in BS 7671) be party to "trying to eliminate RCD accessories" at the same time that they were publishing a new Standard relating to RCD accessories!
Kind Regards, John
I've seen them in bathrooms in hotels and chalets in European and Canadian ski resorts
I'm sure there's some logic somewhere.
Without studying the full text we are guessing.
I remember somebody who said he could do something according to Paragraph 5b of GATT Article 24, because he hadn't read Paragraph 5c which specifically said that he couldn't.
To be fair, he was a Buffoon, which I'm sure doesn't apply here.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
