Tricky radial

[Adam_151]

You're sure I can get 2 x 4mm conductors in the terminals of an FCU?

Yup, they'd be unsuitable for use on 4mm² radial circuits if you couldn't 3x2.5mm² or 2x4² conductors is what they can take (technically thats for BS1362 sockets but there is no reason for an FCU to be different, as they are installed on the same types of circuits as sockets)

 

[Observer]

About the RCD for the outdoor sockets - to avoid putting the whole kitchen on, if you don't want to, you can get an RCD Double in waterproof enclosure at enormous expense; but you can also buy an indoor RCD 13A FCU and interpose that. I was surpised to see Argos selling an outdoor socket kit with a waterproof socket and the RCD FCU, I think it was about £25 for the kit.

Yes - that is an option. But existing power sockets near the back door call for RCD protection as well. It's more satisfying to reconfigure the split load. I'm really not worried about freezer contents (these damn side by side 'American fridges' aren't exactly cavernous anyway) - and as far as I can work out, reconfiguring a CU isn't notifiable .

 

[colport27]

Yes Adam, Im sure.........just means the guy thats been training me....for the last 16 years doesn`t know everything.
On the other hand I dare say some people will comment that as an approved sparks myself I shouldn`t believe everything I`m told and that I should know the regs book back to front?
At the end of the day though, it`s generally why I read what`s written within this forum......to get a better understanding of other peoples perspectives Re the regs.
The 17th edition is apparently going to rear upon us within the next two years..........joy !!!

 

[Adam_151]

Yes - that is an option. But existing power sockets near the back door call for RCD protection as well.

Arguably, not, if you have an outside socket near this door, it cannot be reasonably expected that someone will run an extension cable into the kichen instead of plugging in outside

On the other-hand, it might be good practice (not regs though) to put the kitchen sockets on RCD, because thats one room in the house where both water and portable appliances can be expected to be present in

as far as I can work out, reconfiguring a CU isn't notifiable .

I'm pretty sure it is, I'm sure ban will be along in a bit and give a definative answer, but I won't tell if you don't

 

[Observer]

I'm sure ban will be along in a bit

I can barely contain myself.

 

[Steve]

I'm sure ban will be along in a bit

I can barely contain myself.

LOL! dont be so hard on ban, he gives good advice, though he seems not to visit this forum as frequently as he used to.

im sure i made a post here yesterday, i should have been the first reply in this thread, im sure unless im going senile in my old age (20)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

and as far as I can work out, reconfiguring a CU isn't notifiable .

Is it on the list of work that is not notifiable?

 

[Observer]

and as far as I can work out, reconfiguring a CU isn't notifiable .

Is it on the list of work that is not notifiable?

1. Work consisting of -

(a) replacing any socket-outlet, control switch or ceiling
rose;

An MCB is a control switch (as well as a protective device) and if it's being moved from non-RCD to RCD side of CU it is, literally, being replaced.

Admittedly stretches the interpretation a bit, but the whole of Part P stretches credulity. If an MCB in a CU fails, is a householder required to notify LABC or call in a sparks to replace it? Depends how you want to interpret S.I. 3210. Could be yes or no.

And it could be argued that

(c) re-fixing or replacing enclosures of existing installation components, where the circuit protective measures are unaffected;

includes a like for like replacement of an entire CU.

BTW, I admire most of what you write. Sorry for the little dig. No offence.

 

[plugwash]

1. Work consisting of -

(a) replacing any socket-outlet, control switch or ceiling
rose;

An MCB is a control switch (as well as a protective device) and if it's being moved from non-RCD to RCD side of CU it is, literally, being replaced.

thats stretching it a bit far but i can see where you are coming from

And it could be argued that

(c) re-fixing or replacing enclosures of existing installation components, where the circuit protective measures are unaffected;

includes a like for like replacement of an entire CU.

it would provided you kept the existing breakers on the same cuircuits. it would not cover replacing the breakers.

 

[JohnD]

This is perhaps turning into a theological debate (I say an infinite number can dance, because they are not corporeal beings and therefore occupy no space) but at the weekend I'm planning to put some Wylex MCBs into an old Standard CU with re-wireable fuses. Who would want to stop me? What if I were to replace the shower switch with an RCD, if I have one of the same size and make that fits exactly into the enclosure and has ample rating?

 

[plugwash]

realistically noones going to stop you, even tradesmen are likely to get several chances before the law is turned to.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And it could be argued that

(c) re-fixing or replacing enclosures of existing installation components, where the circuit protective measures are unaffected;

includes a like for like replacement of an entire CU.

it would provided you kept the existing breakers on the same cuircuits. it would not cover replacing the breakers.

Why not?

If I replaced a light switch with a new one, nobody would claim that was notifiable.

So why not replacing an MCB with a new one?