does this comply?

[wozz]

32A RCBO feeding two 2.5mm cables with a switched fused spur or single socket on the end. So one point per cable.

I think yes, but i was told different today and i think they are wrong.

 

[Andy™]

not ideal and i would have it on a 20A, but i dont think it breaks any regs. fault protection by RCBO, overload by SFCU, so all looks good

 

[wozz]

as i thought

the reason is i like rcbos i also like to keep appliances separate from sockets especially ones that draw a bit like washing machines and tumble dryers, i thought of this as a solution to reduce number of ways required. Cant really see it being much different from, two spurs from a 32A ring without the ring being there!

NAPIT technical disagreed, but didnt really grasp what i was on about.

 

[tom1]

i think your right so long as they only serve 1 point, or fcu first then fed from load side to more points i guess

 

[wozz]

So 433.3.1 (ii) is the applicable reg? or is there a more applicable one?

 

[wozz]

o and it was NAPIT technical who disagreed with me, i only rang them as i was trying to explain to the apprentice my theory and wanted a reg number to back up my explanation, i wasnt expecting to be told i was wrong!

 

[tom1]

if its what i think your saying then its no different than a spur at the origin which is in brb somewere.

 

[bluetobits]

if its what i think your saying then its no different than a spur at the origin which is in brb somewere.

appendix 15 page 362

 

[kme]

if its what i think your saying then its no different than a spur at the origin which is in brb somewere.

appendix 15 page 362

Disagree; and here`s why:

You don`t have a ring and a spur, you have 2 radial ccts, on 2.5mm, protected by a 32A OCPD.

It doesn`t comply. Pure & simple. Sorry, I`m with the technical dept. on this one.

Even if it didn`t contravene a reg, I`d consider it bad practice.

KME

 

[Lee321]

Disagree; and here`s why:You don`t have a ring and a spur, you have 2 radial ccts, on 2.5mm, protected by a 32A OCPD.

It doesn`t comply. Pure & simple. Sorry, I`m with the technical dept. on this one.

Even if it didn`t contravene a reg, I`d consider it bad practice.

KME

agree. doing a pir you'd spot that a mile off

i'd say its an issue as someone may add to the circuit. yes strictly anyone who did should ascertain its suitability but you know what goes on behind closed doors

 

[green-hornet]

+1 with KME i am afraid.

 

[steptoe]

Im with KME on this,

you have 2 radial circuits wired in cable that can only carry 27A and protected by a device that is larger.

cable > protective device > design current

basic stuff really

 

[Andy™]

Im with KME on this,you have 2 radial circuits wired in cable that can only carry 27A and protected by a device that is larger.

cable > protective device > design current

basic stuff really

but its allowed. overload can be omitted at start if its provided elsewhere or the load cannot create an overload.

still not good practice (and something that i wouldnt do), but its not against the regs

 

[steptoe]

its not really the same as taking a 1m spur off a ring in 1.5 for a FCU to the alarm though is it,

the circuit has been designed in a poor manner to start with.

I would almost go as far as to say the design does not comply with BRB.

 

[Andy™]

its not really the same as taking a 1m spur off a ring in 1.5 for a FCU to the alarm though is it,the circuit has been designed in a poor manner to start with.

I would almost go as far as to say the design does not comply with BRB.

this has nothing to do with a ring. the fact is, the cable is protected against fault current by RCBO. its protected against overload by SFCU. it does not contravene any regs. the design is fully compliant with 7671

 

[batty]

Poor workmanship and poor design get more ways on cu and do it properly.

 

[kme]

The cable isn`t protected against overload if someone adds a double socket to it.

chapter 1. BRB

 

[Andy™]

The cable isn`t protected against overload if someone adds a double socket to it.chapter 1. BRB

neither is a ring main with a spur when someone adds another outlet

or a 4mm radial with a 2.5 branch, and than another outlet on that

 

[Lee321]

to the letter i agree with andy however good practice does work.

andy is in agreement with us its wrong from a on-site practicing sparky point of view. but pedantically its allowed

 

[wozz]

Thanks for those who inputed without criticizing me for thinking aloud and considering doing something not in the normal fashion.

The bloke at NAPITS response was similar told me it didnt comply, but couldnt tell me why, shortly before hanging up on me.

I cant see how the design effects usability or safety personally.