New fuseboard in shed.

[madman41]

I cant get a picture atm , as im not home till sunday, (girfirend )

You get yourself home and take care of your electrical problem.

We'll take care of your girlfriend - we have representatives nationwide, there will be somebody handy who can help out.

Hahaha Im guessing your the chairman of the representatives ?

 

[plugwash]

All the evidence is pointing towards a faulty MCB that holds in under no load but trips under very small loads. If you really want to confirm you could try disconnecting the shed circuit and connecting something else to the breaker but honestly if the breaker is easilly replaceable I'd just try replacing it.

 

[madman41]

All the evidence is pointing towards a faulty MCB that holds in under no load but trips under very small loads. If you really want to confirm you could try disconnecting the shed circuit and connecting something else to the breaker but honestly if the breaker is easilly replaceable I'd just try replacing it.

Brilliant thanks, Its a volex MCB and CU , will an NSB20 Wylex fit ?

 

[JohnW2]

Get the kn*bhead sparks in who designed, fitted and 'tested' it back. It's evidently not FFP.

An interesting point is that if (as seems fairly probable) the problem is a duff MCB in the house CU (which trips whenever a significant load is applied to the circuit), I'm not at all sure that the standard regime of I&T would have picked it up - because, IIRC, the one thing (which one might think was pretty basic/'obvious' - perhaps the only 'test' that many DIYers would undertake) that the prescribed I&T regime does not include is applying a significant load to an energised sockets circuit! If I'm right, the recognised testing regime checks all sorts of things, other than that the circuit is actually 'fit for purpose' (i.e. satisfactorily supplies power to a connected load) - which, if true, is a bit ironic!

Kind Regards, John

 

[AndyPRK]

I would hardly call a phone charger a significant load.

I do believe a wylex MCB will fit.

 

[JohnW2]

I would hardly call a phone charger a significant load.

I meant more significant that the (virtually non-existent) load that any of the electrician's test equipment would put through the MCB. It does seem that many electricians test virtually everything other than than that the circuit can do what it is intended to do

Kind Regards, John

 

[Belboz]

Get the kn*bhead sparks in who designed, fitted and 'tested' it back. It's evidently not FFP.

An interesting point is that if (as seems fairly probable) the problem is a duff MCB in the house CU (which trips whenever a significant load is applied to the circuit), I'm not at all sure that the standard regime of I&T would have picked it up - because, IIRC, the one thing (which one might think was pretty basic/'obvious' - perhaps the only 'test' that many DIYers would undertake) that the prescribed I&T regime does not include is applying a significant load to an energised sockets circuit! If I'm right, the recognised testing regime checks all sorts of things, other than that the circuit is actually 'fit for purpose' (i.e. satisfactorily supplies power to a connected load) - which, if true, is a bit ironic!

Kind Regards, John

Point noted but....

Whether the prescribed regime includes such a basic 'check' or not, I would have expected any tradesperson worth their salt to have at least carried it out.

I am sure most professionals on here would have done so??

I do, of course, have my own views as to the installer......

 

[JohnW2]

Point noted but.... Whether the prescribed regime includes such a basic 'check' or not, I would have expected any tradesperson worth their salt to have at least carried it out. ... I am sure most professionals on here would have done so??

Only they can tell you that - but I don't doubt that there are some electricians who just 'do it by the book' and thereby perhaps miss the most most basic of common sense 'tests' of a circuit designed to supply power to loads!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I have a socket circuit load tester.

 

[Belboz]

 

[JohnW2]

I have a socket circuit load tester.

... and do I take it that you use it routinely to test every socket?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, if I'm there all day.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, if I'm there all day.

However, it's a serious point I'm making, and one that hasn't really ever occurred to me before. Particularly since there isn't (AFAIAA) anywhere on an EIC or MWC to record the results of 'functional tests', I would strongly suspect they often don't get done. It is, admittedly, going to be pretty unusual for a circuit to pass all the usual tests and yet not be capable of 'doing what it was meant to do' (in this case provide power to things plugged in to a sockets circuit), but what we are talking about in this thread (a possibly duff MCB, that trips in response to virtually any load) might be one example of a situation in which that can be the case!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Belboz]

I know we have gone slightly off-topic and I appreciate all you professionals out there say but the upshot is this:

Electrician asked to specifically provide sockets in a shed where there was none before. Reason is so the householder can plug in various electrical items.

Electrician comes along and does said job.

If the electrician is not required to actually check that the sockets work then that makes no sense at all because, in effect, the installation is not fit for the purpose [ irrespective of the issue - MCB or whatever it subsequently proves to be]

That would be like asking a plumber to fit a new cistern flush valve and leaving without checking it actually flushed.....

If the testing and certification regime does not include such a basic check then all I can say is that the entire system (IMHO) is flawed from the consumer's point of view.

 

[EFLImpudence]

John -
Yes, I agree that the tests mean it will work.

However, there isn't, as you have commented in the past, any test for the MCBs so I suppose all you can do is switch on and if the customer has a problem later it will just have to be investigated then.

We are thinking of an MCB tripping unnecessarily; what about the opposite?


Just seen Belboz's last post.

As above - all the sockets should be tested, in fact.
If not by plugging in a kettle but the test equipment and if all is satisfactory then really they can't NOT work.

However, a faulty MCB - if that is what it is, may appear alright at the time.
As long as it is rectified I don't think there is much else that could have been done.

Of course it could be just a cock-up.