Search results

You may also want to consider dedicated, non-rcd protected circuits for things like fridges, freezers, IT Equipment, Smoke alarms. If you do this, you will need to consider that cables supplying these circuits, buried less than 50mm, will need mechanical protection, either by using earthed...

+1 for drilling it first - makes it much easier!

no, I think what he has done is made a BS1361 -> male 16A IEC 60309 cable Then used the Male 16A IEC 60309 -> Female 16A IEC 60309 pre-bought cable the wrong way round and installed a female on the shed.

ouch! yes, he's got that completely round the wrong way! What I don't get is how all of these seemingly intelligent people can't see how dangerous this is??

Must have been migrated to a new thread by the mods. It was originally a thread from 2008 about what to code no rcd protection on all circuits on an EICR

Yes, you are right, I was :oops: But the definition of a ring final circuit is: A final circuit arranged in the form of a ring and connected to a single point of supply.

I know, and I do agree.

No, because of the specific definition of a ring final. No, but I suppose having read the definition for a radial too, technically two branches of a radial originating at the cu wouldn't be compliant either. But a spur from a ring final at the cu is! Some of these regs really...

And in fig 15a, it says: A ring final circuit starts and finishes at the distribution board where it is connected to a 30a or 32a over current protective device

BS7671 says: where an installation comprises more than one final circuit, each final circuit shall be connected to a separate way in a distribution board. So would this not be two final circuits? EFLImpudence - court, yes I know, very unlikely :)

Oh ok, maybe I misunderstood what was being proposed. I thought what was being suggested was essentially a new ring running off an existing PD. My point was that this should go to a new PD and therefore should be notified. Same with "spare" mcb's left in a cu. I think anything connected to...

And how would you record this on the certificate? Just the highest of the r1, r2 and rn values? If they are two rings coming back to the cu, then they should be on separate protective devices. And the new circuit should be notified

No, I agree that an RCD socket and and RCD FCU would not constitute a new circuit. What I am debating, is whether replacing an MCB with an RCBO would be a new circuit, on the basis that you are technically introducing a new protective device.

I share the view that ‘a new circuit’ is one that was previously absent and which originates from a new (previously absent or unused) OPD in a CU, switch-fuse or equivalent which is supplied directly from the installation’s meter (i.e. supplied from 'the origin of the installation') I know...

from what you are saying, it doesn't sound like there are enough wires going to the switch... either that, or one of the blacks shouldn't be in the terminal with the rest of the blacks... Post pictures of what wires you have in each of the light fittings in the kitchen.

In that case the wire going into "L1" on switch 2 probably needs to go into "C" on switch 1. What was the purpose of switch 2 previously?

Maybe she wanted this one, as posted by RF a while back...

Something like this would probably suit your needs http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/TIMER-SWITCH-TIME-RELAY-0-5-TO-20-SEC-KIT-7A-Delay-Off-Switch-12V-ON-BUTTON-/270989991155

PS. I take it by: You mean 2395, which covers the inspection of existing installations (Elecrical Installation Condition Reports)? If so, yes, you should do 2394 then 2395 - most of the same topics are covered in 2395 as 2394, but you need to be able to report on the condition of the...

I did the 2394 exams and from what I've heard from people who also did 2391 it is harder. This is backed up by the apparent 33% national pass rate. There are three parts to it; a 3 part practical assessment, a 20 question multiple choice exam and then the written exam. Unlike BS7671 it is all...