SPD's compulsory

[ebee]

Or us !

 

[JohnW2]

Does he mean me?

No !

 

[JohnW2]

or me?

Nope, not you, either

 

[EFLImpudence]

With that in mind, do people think I should have a CPC fitted to my circuits?

There is only a |CPC in the kitchen socket circuit.

 

[JohnW2]

With that in mind, do people think I should have a CPC fitted to my circuits? .... There is only a |CPC in the kitchen socket circuit.

With what in mind?

 

[EFLImpudence]

With what in mind?

What have the last few posts been about? Being risk averse.

Perhaps you reply to too many threads at once, thus losing track of the points raised.

 

[JohnW2]

What have the last few posts been about? Being risk averse. ... Perhaps you reply to too many threads at once, thus losing track of the points raised.

Not really. I obviously knew what the last few posts had been about, but didn't think that one had to be particularly risk-averse to feel that having CPCs was desirable (if not 'essential') - in other words, I would think that people a long way from that end of the spectrum would want to have CPCs.

You had written:

With that in mind, do people think I should have a CPC fitted to my circuits? ... There is only a |CPC in the kitchen socket circuit.

Are you saying that you have what we would call 'Class I' items whose exposed-c-ps that are not 'earthed' (connected to a CPC)? If so, do you think that you should actually have CPCs everywhere (particularly given that the answer would be a no-brainer in the UK)? (and, if not, why not?)

 

[mikehammer69]

I would rate the RCD as one of the great electrical innovations

For clearing earth faults alone and tripping on electric shock

The only time you know they're working is the moment you test them so there is that unreliability

AFDDS above surge protection for domestic as they can operate anywhere in an installation

As posters were saying lightning protection is a specialist operation and needs planning

 

[JohnW2]

I would rate the RCD as one of the great electrical innovations .... For clearing earth faults alone and tripping on electric shock

That's obviously what most people seem to believe but it's next-to-impossible to obtain even a rough estimate of what they have actually achieved (in TN installations) and hence how 'cost-effective' they have been.
I would agree that they are of great value in relation to TT installations, since (given the deficiencies of VOELCBs) in their absence there would not be any useful fault protection in such installations.

The only time you know they're working is the moment you test them so there is that unreliability

True, but that's also true of many things, and we have to live with that. MCBs are worse, since we virtually never test them, and they very rarely operate 'in anger', so we'll never know how many of them would (or would not) have worked 'when they should have worked'!

AFDDS above surge protection for domestic as they can operate anywhere in an installation

But they are different kettles of fish. I haven't a clue (and I doubt whether any one else) as to how many fires are caused by arcing, but there is at least a theoretical argument that AFDDs might afford some benefit in terms of 'personal safety' - but, without scraping barrels deeply, one can't say the same about SPDs

As posters were saying lightning protection is a specialist operation and needs planning

Quite so - but a lot of people seem to be thinking of SPDs as 'lightning protection'.

 

[mikehammer69]

The domestic SPD you're shoving something in hoping it deals with surges

As others were alluding to lightning is a different ball game

 

[JohnW2]

The domestic SPD you're shoving something in hoping it deals with surges .... As others were alluding to lightning is a different ball game

Exactly, but it's not just here. If you look around at the (countless) discussions about SPDs, a high proportion of that discussion seems to be about lightning - which seems to indicate a less-than-ideal degree of understanding.

 

[Murdochcat]

The addition of SPDs into the regs is nothing but an example of making a change to help justify the next issue of the regs ….

 

[FiremanT]

In Australia, it is "common practice" (to deter possums from traveling to ones roof )
to slit one or more thin plastic "water bottle(s)" down one side and to the center of the base
and
fit that/those over the incoming overhead cable - well away from the entry point.

While a possum can grip the (insulated) cable, it may find it difficult to deal with the larger bottle(s) and the "swing" of them.

I shall bear that in mind when my Possum problem becomes intolerable.

 

[SUNRAY]

The addition of SPDs into the regs is nothing but an example of making a change to help justify the next issue of the regs ….

T'as been mooted a few times so it seems to confirm my opinion and must be true.

 

[JohnW2]

T'as been mooted a few times so it seems to confirm my opinion and must be true.

Much as I tend to be pretty cynical about such things myself, I doubt that it was a significant part of the reason for 'adding SPDs to the regs' - since, as we know, they never have a problem in finding excuses for creating a new amendment or edition of the regs, even in the absence of some new-fangled device for them to include! ... and, of course, they have to regularly 'update' the regs to take account changes in CENELEC.

As I've said, my personal view is that SPDs are one of those things which appeared, and is heading towards 'being required' simply because it became technologically possible to mass-produce them (and for people to make a fortune by selling and installing them), without much (if any!) serious consideration of whether or not there was actually a true need - and particularly odd for BS7671,since it's really the first rime it has included regs which have really got nothing to do with 'personal safety'.