Non-bidirectional RCD/RCBO feeding sockets, should they get a code C2 with EICR?

[ericmark]

It does not matter if, or when the government permits plug and play solar, it seems it is being bought and used anyway.

We have seen the test on a non-bidirectional RCBO, OK needed the test button to be pressed, but with plug and play solar there is a potential danger that the protection device will not work.

So when will we see first complaint about EICR failure as wrong RCBO fitted?

 

[JohnW2]

We have seen the test on a non-bidirectional RCBO, OK needed the test button to be pressed, but with plug and play solar there is a potential danger that the protection device will not work.

As I've been saying, I currently know nothing that suggests that such would be the case. The only (fairly trivial) 'issue' of which I'm aware relates to the situation when current is flowing through a device in the 'unintended' direction and someone keeps the test button pressed for an appreciable period of time after the device has tripped (which seems extremely improbable).

What makes you think that "there is a potential danger that the protection device will not work" if current is flowing one way through the device?

 

[ericmark]

someone keeps the test button pressed for an appreciable period of time

The time the button was pressed with the efixx demo was not excessive. Had it not been during a test, I would have said it was simply a component failure, but it was clear all due to test button being pressed during the reverse flow.

If it was not for plug and play solar, I would say there is no risk. As to get reverse flow, it needs a battery or similar be it EV or solar, and so unless supplying EV or solar the bidirectional is not required.

But with plug and play, anyone could fit it into any 13 amp socket, I know the rules say "Plugs shall not be used for the connection of electrical power generators to socket-outlets." under BS1363-1, but the devices are still being sold in the UK, and we know they are being used, as there are YouTube videos showing it being done.

So with owner occupied homes there is no reason for Plug and Play, it is easy enough to make a proper connection into the system, but with rental we have little or no control of what the tenant may plug in. So there is a potential danger, it seems it did not burst into flames or anything like that, all it did was remove the RCD protection, so unless no RCD protection will attract a code C2 then omnidirectional RCD/RCBO should not either.

So suppose the question is will a lack of RCD protection mean a code C2? If not, then neither will an omnidirectional RCD/RCBO, if yes, then also an omnidirectional RCD/RCBO should attract a C2 code.

Nice one Ed. Bet he did not consider that before his anouncement? But Omar Khayyám in the 11th century worked out, once done, all thy Piety nor Wit, Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

So he would need to at least make a public announcement sorry I got it wrong, we can't have plug and play solar, and fast before too many are sold.

 

[Murdochcat]

No

 

[JohnW2]

The time the button was pressed with the efixx demo was not excessive. Had it not been during a test, I would have said it was simply a component failure, but it was clear all due to test button being pressed during the reverse flow.

Indeed.
I've just had a couple of watches of that video, and I have to say that I was a little surprised that, with 'reversed current direction', the test resistor clearly 'blew up' (with a bang and 'a puff of smoke') after a pretty brief period of pressing the test button. On reflection, I suppose that's not all that surprising - if designed to produce a test current of, say, 60 mA, that would amount to some 13.8W, which a 'small' resistor could only tolerate for a very brief period of time.

However, as you say, their experiment result in destruction of a component in the RCD electronics (rendering the device useless), which I can but presume that was the result of the 'test resistor' being (unnecessarily) very close to the device's electronics.

There are all sorts of ways in which this potential problem could be avoided, some of which I have already mentioned. Probably the simplest (which I don't think I mentioned before) would be to have an additional small pair of contacts which disconnceted the test button circuit immediately the device tripped.

Perhaps because simple solutions are possible, the guys in the video seemed to be suggesting that we would soon see a situation in which all new RCDs would be 'bidirectional' (i.e. without this test button issue) - so they may come to be regarded just as "RCDs" (rather than "bidirectional RCDs"), since nothing else will be available?

 

[flameport]

The vast majority of privately owned homes do not have EICRs.
Those that do (such as some rental properties) will have an EICR that covers the fixed installation. Plug in items are not included and there is no way to know what people may choose to plug in.

If people choose to plug in undesirable equipment that causes problems, that is their choice and any consequences of that are their own responsibility.

 

[JohnW2]

The vast majority of privately owned homes do not have EICRs. ... Those that do (such as some rental properties) will have an EICR that covers the fixed installation. Plug in items are not included and there is no way to know what people may choose to plug in. .... If people choose to plug in undesirable equipment that causes problems, that is their choice and any consequences of that are their own responsibility.

As I've been writing in other threads, that's a very reasonable attempt to invoke common sense (maybe even 'literal') interpretation of the rules/regs/laws, at least as far as true EICRs are concerned. I'm not sure what eric had in mind, but if he was thinking about 'private rented property', the the government's guidance for landlords indicates that the required 'inspection' is wider in scope than 'just an EICR', also including inspection (and, if deemed appropriate, testing) of all landlord-supplied electrical items, even if they are 'plugged in'.

However, returning to what is being discussed in the other threads, I would seriously doubt that you would feel it reasonable (by invocation of a literal interpretation of rules etc.) for it to be possible to take all of an installation not only out of the scope of EICRs, but also out of the scope of BS7671, simply by installing a 'plug/socket' immediately after the metering!

 

[ericmark]

I do see the point being made, if BS1363-1 says "Plugs shall not be used for the connection of electrical power generators to socket-outlets." then we should not be considering what happens should someone break the rules.

Same if someone crashes in a 30 MPH area when doing 60 MPH that does not mean it should be called a black spot and the speed limit reduced further.

The division of fixed and non-fixed (portable), does not really work. A caravan is portable, but it will still have installed electrical wiring. All EICR will have limitations, and we have to accept that, be it because we can't assess wiring or because there are changes to the supply.

Do we do an EICR with a caravan or is it PATested as clearly it is portable? The description says in-service electrical equipment, it does not say current using electrical equipment, so a PAT test could cover all, but an EICR only covers items installed. We tend to consider current using equipment needs PAT testing, and the transmission equipment needs an EICR, but there is no hard and fast rule.

So the answer so far seems to be, NO if it needs a bidirectional RCD it should not be plugged in to a BS1363 outlet. Which seems fair enough to me.

 

[JohnW2]

So the answer so far seems to be, NO if it needs a bidirectional RCD it should not be plugged in to a BS1363 outlet. Which seems fair enough to me.

Agreed. If (as seems to be the case in some senses) "it needs a bidirectional RCD", then I think that most of us would have intuitively said that at the very start.

 

[ericmark]

Agreed. If (as seems to be the case in some senses) "it needs a bidirectional RCD", then I think that most of us would have intuitively said that at the very start.

@flameport has made the point, until BS1363 changes, they are simply breaking regulations if they are using anything needing a bidirectional RCD/MCB/RCBO with a socket supply, so if it works, then we pass it.

 

[JohnW2]

@flameport has made the point, until BS1363 changes, they are simply breaking regulations if they are using anything needing a bidirectional RCD/MCB/RCBO with a socket supply, so if it works, then we pass it.

We 'pass it' because it is breaking regulations?

 

[ericmark]

We 'pass it' because it is breaking regulations?

Yes, we know it would likely fail if a solar inverter is plugged in, but they should not plug in a solar inverter, so we pass it.

Like we know this corner is dangerous at 70 MPH, but speed limit is 30 MPH, so no need to improve the corner.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, we know it would likely fail if a solar inverter is plugged in, but they should not plug in a solar inverter, so we pass it.

Hmmmm ! For a start, I'm far from convinced that, in law, there is anything which says that one must not plug in a solar inverter!

In any event, I think that's probably irrelevant since, as flameport wrote, I don't think (unless, perhaps, one considers silly contrived extreme situations, like 'plugging in' an entire electrical installation!!) an EICR should consider anything 'that happens to be plugged in' (or not plugged in!) at the time of the inspection - so even if something diabolically dangerous were plugged in (to a compliant socket/circuit) at the time of the inspection, that would probably be outside of the scope of an EICR, and therefore could not result in an 'EICR fail'. Perhaps more to the point, even if a solar inverter were normally plugged in, it could be unplugged five minutes before the inspector arrived - such is the nature of plugs/sockets

What one might be in breach of if one plugged in a solar inverter is the contract that one is deemed to have entered into with both supplier and DNO - and the penalty for breaching that contract could be disconnection of one's installation from the grid!