An argument that does not apply if the boiler circuit shares an RCD with other circuits as in this case.
Advice on poor standard on electrical work i've had carried out.
- Thread starter Tirglas_7
- Start date
An argument that does not apply if the boiler circuit shares an RCD with other circuits as in this case.
Sponsored Links
I suppose it's quite unusual, but in my house "one thing I really want to keep working if there's a fault elsewhere in the property" is the macerator in the most-often-used (ground floor) loo... but, no, it's not on a dedicated circuit!
I think I'd value heating and hot water more than not having to climb a few stairs to find a working toilet.
That's why I put it on a separate circuit.
Multiple circuits sharing the same RCD is also poor circuit design.
In the OP, unless the fault in the adjacent circuit is N>E, then switching the circuit breaker of the affected circuit will allow the boiler to function as normal.
Even if the fault is N>E a skilled person can have the faulty circuit disconnected and the boiler back up and running in a matter of minutes.
Multiple circuits sharing the same RCD is also poor circuit design.
In the OP, unless the fault in the adjacent circuit is N>E, then switching the circuit breaker of the affected circuit will allow the boiler to function as normal.
Even if the fault is N>E a skilled person can have the faulty circuit disconnected and the boiler back up and running in a matter of minutes.
Yes I do!
Sponsored Links
Is that not putting it a bit strongly? You must, after all, be talking about the vast majority of UK domestic installations.
Kind Regards, John
Probably so would I, but my other half struggles to climb stairs any more times than she has to.
Kind Regards, John
Interesting. I have several fridges and freezers. Would you put each of them on its own dedicated circuit?
Kind Regards, John
Just because lots of people do it, it doesn't make it right.
The recent proliferation of dual split RCD boards is purely down to penny pinching.
True, but I'm not sure that all that many would agree that use of a dual-RCD CU was 'poor circuit design'!
It's not all that 'recent', is it? I imagine that when they first appeared (and even more so when single-RCD 'split-load' boards appeared) RCBOs were not all that available, at least at sensible prices.
Just to be clear, I agree that 'all RCBOs' is the ideal.
Kind Regards, John
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2016
- Messages
- 6,833
- Reaction score
- 1,010
- Country
Is all rcbos really ideal? If you exclude cost maybe. But based on that you'd say a separate circuit for each accessory is ideal, when clearly the cost would be prohibitive. The regs require a good division of circuits to minimise inconvenience and danger, it's agreed that having all your lighting on the same rcd is not acceptable but after that it's a matter of opinion. Trading off cost against risk.
I would say that it's 'almost ideal', if, as you suggest, one ignores the cost issue. I think the only downside is probably the fact that most (all?) 'ordinary' RCBOs do not give an indication of whether a trip has been due to overcurrent or residual current. If they had such an indicator then (cost aside), I would say that that was 'really ideal'.
Well, yes, I suppose that (particularly given the 'indicator' mentioned above, that would probably be the 'ideal ideal' - but, as you say, cost and other practicalities probably usually preclude such an approach.
Indeed. The regulation is obviously vague to the extreme, so opinions about its implementation are going to vary considerably. As you say, lighting is perhaps the most compelling issue but, as I always say, that really needs to be addressed with (battery backed-up) 'emergency lighting', since no amount of 'division of circuits' is going to reduced the "inconvenience and danger" resulting from a power cut!
Kind Regards, John
...and wondering how on earth we managed in the past.
In the future, will the blanket use of RCDs be viewed as overkill and a waste of money?
In the future, will the blanket use of RCDs be viewed as overkill and a waste of money?
Well, as you know, I have often asked for evidence as to how many (if any!) lives may have been saved by RCDs (i.e. how many people have suffered shocks that caused an RCD to operate - so may have died in the absence of the RCD). I've also offered my view that the vast amount spent on buying and installing RCDs would almost certainly have 'saved more lives' had it been redirected to some other safety-critical areas (e.g. road safety) - but others may disagree.
Kind Regards, John
It already is in my opinion. Even an RCD socket for outside equipment is too much. If people want to use garden power tools carelessly then they should expect to face the consequences. The same for people who want to drill through concealed cables.
A properly designed, installed and maintained UK electrical installation is safe as it is, even without RCDs.
All these silly extra precautions seem to be ignoring the real problems - shoddy installation and poor quality materials.
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
