Lollipop

Joined
28 Jul 2009
Messages
9,360
Reaction score
1,100
Location
Kent
Country
United Kingdom
Got involved with another Lolipop circuit discussion this morning.
It's a lab with E stops (and other devices) added everywhere to control the ring with a contactor in an enclosure fed by 15m of 6mm² radial. Inspector insisted the ring can't be fed by a contactor/radial.

Found this useful link:
https://www.voltimum.co.uk/articles/common-issues-relating-hybrid
As a NICEIC he is confused but seems OK to accept this.
 
Sponsored Links
Got involved with another Lolipop circuit discussion this morning. It's a lab with E stops (and other devices) added everywhere to control the ring with a contactor in an enclosure fed by 15m of 6mm² radial. Inspector insisted the ring can't be fed by a contactor/radial.
As we've often discussed here, provided that it is designed correctly, there is absolutely nothing in BS7671 which prevents (let alone forbids) one having a 'lollipop' circuit.

Where I think there is scope for debate/discussion/uncertainty is in relation to the question of whether or not such a circuit can enjoy the dispensation to use 'under-sized' cable (i.e. Iz<In) - since that depends upon whether BS7671 would regard it as a 'ring final'. If protected by a 32A OPD, it may therefore all have to use at least 4mm² cable.

Kind Regards, John
 
I have installed hybrid but reading BS7671:2008 likely it did not comply, as current rating of cable changed, it was a massive warehouse, refrigerated which needed cleaning so they wanted sockets for the cleaners, the distance from distribution board was well over the then limit of 80 meters now 102 meters for volt drop, so we used 10 mm² in a ring of SWA in the loft space going into boxes above where each socket was required, then a spur to the sockets down the wall.

10 mm² x 2 would not have gone into the sockets, and each drop was around 20 foot down the wall, so this method ensured a good loop impedance and minimal volt drop, it did the job safely and neatly, however as said not sure if it strictly complied.

Seen the same with large houses, really pointless having two 2.5 mm² cables running together with no sockets until end of run, and volt drop for 2 x 2.5 mm² far higher than with 16 mm² and since 16 mm² will not fit in a socket it clearly needs a junction box to go from 16 to 2 x 2.5 mm² it makes sense, however the problem is where some one comes latter and says oh 16 mm² I can use a 45A MCB for that. In theory you should run the 16 mm² to a mini consumer unit then to ring final.

What we want is a FCU which can take a 32A fuse, however as far as I am aware they don't exist? Same with hob and oven, don't really want a 45A MCB protecting the 2.5 mm² cable going from the duel cooker connection unit to the oven, it needs a 16A fuse, it would not be that hard to make a fused duel cooker connection unit with a 32 and 16 amp fuse inside, however for domestic it needs type testing so until some manufacturer makes them, we can't use them.
 
Sponsored Links
I have installed hybrid but reading BS7671:2008 likely it did not comply...
As I said, a lollipop circuit can be designed to be compliant.

The silly thing is that if one called the 'feed cable' ('stick of lollipop') a 'distribution circuit' and put an OPD at the end of it (even if that OPD was essentially redundant), hence effectively creating a sub-main with a mini-DB, then I presume that no-one would/could complain about a ring final originating at that new OPD.

Kind Regards, John
 
I would use a duel cooker connection unit to change from the single feed to a ring, it has enough room inside and large enough terminals, the bit of regulations in question is.
433.2.1 Except where Regulation 433.2.2 or 433.3 applies, a device for protection against overload shall be installed at the point where a reduction occurs in the value of the current-carrying capacity of the conductors of the
installation.
NOTE: A reduction in current-carrying capacity may be due to a change in cross-sectional area, method of installation, type of
cable or conductor, or in environmental conditions.
In real terms one can't really fit a protection device where it says, I think it should say "at or before the point where a reduction occurs" my be is does in the new version?
 
In real terms one can't really fit a protection device where it says, I think it should say "at or before the point where a reduction occurs" my be is does in the new version?
I don't think this is relevant to lolipop circuits.

It surely goes without saying that the OPD protecting (the entirety of) a lollipop circuit should have an In no greater than that required to protect the smallest cable in the circuit? If that is the case, then there is obviously no need to have an additional protective device where a 'reduction in CSA' occurs.

Kind Regards, John
 
I don't think this is relevant to lolipop circuits.

It surely goes without saying that the OPD protecting (the entirety of) a lollipop circuit should have an In no greater than that required to protect the smallest cable in the circuit? If that is the case, then there is obviously no need to have an additional protective device where a 'reduction in CSA' occurs.

Kind Regards, John
You are correct, it is however a case of English or Electrics, the regulations use English, and it is so easy to take it by the letter rather than use common sense.

When I started the wiring regulations were regarded as a guide, and in the 14th you had what is now in the guide to, at that time there was a distance given socket to sink, which makes sense above the sink, but it did not say above, so could not fit a socket for the waste disposal unit.

When I returned to the UK in around 1988 the whole trade had changed, when I left in 1980 no one really worried what regulations said, when I returned every one was watching their back.
 
You are correct, it is however a case of English or Electrics, the regulations use English, and it is so easy to take it by the letter rather than use common sense.
I've never really thought about it before but, yes, those who wrote 433.2.1 clearly didn't think it through properly.

The requirement for an OPD at the point of reduction in CCC should obviously only apply if there is not already an upstream OPD which is adequate to protect the cable downstream of the reduction in CCC.

Kind Regards, John
 
I've never really thought about it before but, yes, those who wrote 433.2.1 clearly didn't think it through properly.
Well, they may not have worded it to cover everything anyone might ever think, but they do say "at the point where a reduction occurs in the value of the current carrying capacity of the conductors" so it does not only occur in relation to physical size.
It seems obvious to me that where there may be a larger than necessary conductor for part of a cable run, the reduction (to still adequate size) does not warrant a separate OPD or even thinking about it.

The requirement for an OPD at the point of reduction in CCC should obviously only apply if there is not already an upstream OPD which is adequate to protect the cable downstream of the reduction in CCC.
Exactly - and obviously.

The same as a uniform size cable running through thermal insulation it is the CCC to which 433.2.1 refers.
 
Of course, if anyone was unthinkingly following what they thought 433.2.1 meant, and decided to install an OPD at this (apparent) reduction (or anywhere else allowed by 433) then it would, by definition, be of the same rating as the upstream OPD.

This might make them realise what they were doing was somewhat futile.
 
Well, they may not have worded it to cover everything anyone might ever think, but they do say "at the point where a reduction occurs in the value of the current carrying capacity of the conductors" so it does not only occur in relation to physical size.
Sure, it says that, but it still implies that an OPD is required at the point of a reduction in CCC, even if the reduced CCC bit is already adequately protected by something upstream.
It seems obvious to me that where there may be a larger than necessary conductor for part of a cable run, the reduction (to still adequate size) does not warrant a separate OPD or even thinking about it. .... Exactly - and obviously.
Indeed - as eric, you and myself have all said, it's 'obvious' - but that doesn't alter the fact that is not what the regulation 'actually says' - so don't you agree with me that it should have been worded better?

The trouble is that Mr Jobsworth doesn't understand 'obviously' unless the reg 'actually says' something - so, as far as he is concerned, I suppose it would be strictly true that the absence of an OPD at the point of change of CCC (even if electrically unnecessary) represented a non-compliance with that reg!

Kind Regards, John
 
Of course, if anyone was unthinkingly following what they thought 433.2.1 meant, and decided to install an OPD at this (apparent) reduction (or anywhere else allowed by 433) then it would, by definition, be of the same rating as the upstream OPD. This might make them realise what they were doing was somewhat futile.
It 'might' - but the same reasoning has not stopped countless people having 32A OPDs in a shed/garage CU which is fed from a 32A OPD in the house - so I wouldn't hold my breath!

Kind Regards, John
 

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
Back
Top