Dangers from the neutral

[La Poste]

I can't decide if I'm being overly paranoid but I just like the idea of double pole isolation.

Single pole RCBO's just don't seem right to me but then I am a bit of a novice so maybe I am worrying about nothing.

 

[i=p/u]

well they ,ake them available like that so you isolate whole board and DO NOT WORK LIVE.....

 

[oldtimer]

Thats it I am unsuscibing from this post

 

[La Poste]

Thats it I am unsuscibing from this post

Was it something I said?

 

[La Poste]

I have trawled through the regs and I believe that only 1 pole protection is required.
However 2 pole isolation IS required in the regs.

Why do you think this is?
Why is double pole isolation necessary?

Is it because of the potential danger within the domestic installation arising from shared or crossed neutrals or is it because of some danger from outside of the installation, a potential danger imported from the network by not isolating the neutral?
If that makes sense?

Why is double pole isolation necessary when single pole circuit breakers are said to be safe?

As you can see my knowledge of the network is very limited.

Thanks.

 

[ackbarthestar]

Thats it I am unsuscibing from this post

Yes, Friday can be a bit of a shock to the initiated :45: arty:

 

[netblindpaul]

In a TT system, the N is not considered to be tied to true enough E, so you must 2 pole isolate.
In a TN system, you must isolate all live conductors is unskilled persons are likely to work on the install basicallt.
Check in the old red book, regs group 537.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Double pole isolation is required, to guard against reverse polarity.
It is also guards against a difference in potential where there is a high resistance between the earth and the neautral.