Discuss Does this setup contravene any regs or is it ok? in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net
314.4.... irrelevant. The OP's circuit is perfectly safe.The Reg is 314.4.
You cannot comply with BS7671 by bunching circuits such as lighting or radials in the same OCPD. It is non compliant.
I've read the whole thread and I'm not understanding your argument.
I thought I’d put my input into this thread to rest but I had ten minutes to spare today and this was still bugging me. So I took the opportunity to call the NICEIC technical helpline about it. I have been resurrected!
Their view is that the regulation, although short on specific detail, as a re a lot of the regulations (as it is simetimes very hard to express the intended rule in writing), does in fact intend that each circuit should be connected to only one OCPD. In view of ‘what is classed as a circuit, I specifically asked about lumping circuits together with the view that they both become one circuit, and the view was that they don’t. The circuit is defined as per the wiring was intended and it should comply with BS7671. They would class this as a non compliance.
I asked, if in the event that I found this whilst doing an EICR, would I flag it and if so what would I flag it as. The view was that it should be recorded as a C3 for definite or a C2 if there was a danger of overload or other problems.
You cannot comply with BS7671 by bunching circuits such as lighting or radials in the same OCPD. It is non compliant.
It’s an assebly of electrical equipment protected at it’s origin by an OCPD.A fridge in no way satisfies any definition of a circuit. It defines a piece of current using equipment fed by a circuit.
I fail to see why it poses an Electrical risk? Could you eleaborate on why?I presume you are talking about my posts. I am not shouting. I have explained my argument numerous times to the point of being immensely frustrated.
My argument has never been about whether lumping circuits together is safe; indeed I have admitted that I have done it, albeit for a temporary stop gap solution. It may well be electrically safe and in which case it can be done (temporarily).
If it is done as a new install it should be highlighted in the EIC as a non compliance and explained as to why it was done, along the lines of a justification. (By the way, the excuse of ‘I needed another spare way because I didn’t buy a big enough CU, and don’t think that the two I have looks to be enough for possibly future expansion’ is not a justification in my view).
If it is found during an EICR it should be highlighted as a C3 or a C2 if it proposes an electrical risk.
How much clearer can I be?
If you guys still don’t agree now then I can only assume that you have been practicing this. I haven’t so I’m not bothered by it.
I will now bow out! Live long and prosper!
True, only thing is you're using the bs7671 definition but that only applies to fixed wiring. Make it an fcu and I'll agreeIt’s an assebly of electrical equipment protected at it’s origin by an OCPD.
How does that differ from the definition of a circuit?
just to be an a**e they are... they are electronic circuits (assuming the GU10 is an LED)By your definition my electric razor is a circuit. And a gu10 lamp.
just to be an a**e they are... they are electronic circuits (assuming the GU10 is an LED)
Not my definition, and no, neither of those items.By your definition my electric razor is a circuit. And a gu10 lamp.
The definition of a circuit, makes no reference to fixed wiring.True, only thing is you're using the bs7671 definition but that only applies to fixed wiring. Make it an fcu and I'll agree
Not my definition, and no, neither of those items.
A toaster perhaps, or a kettle.
Does your electric razor have a fused plug?So a toaster is a circuit but not an electric razor. I really don't get this definition of circuit you are using.
I’m glad that we have established that something that satisfies a definition in BS7671 is not necessarily the thing being defined.It's an appliance. It is current using equipment. Just like a table lamp or a fridge freezer, or anything that plugs into a 13A socket. It is NOT a circuit.
I think the majority of us share the same opinions on this issue luckily.
That’s fatuous!
Eat dog poo. 10 Billion flies can’t be wrong!
So rather than answer any of the questions that sparkychick asked previously , you just come out with stuff like this. Well done.
With regard to answering Sparkychick’s questions, I believe I have to the necessary degree. I do not feel the need to justify her argument with regs numbers, as I have no problem with a spur from a ring coming from a 20a switch (based on loads over the whole circuit).
A thought though, if there is doubt, which there plainly is, why risk doing it?
It contravenes 314.4!!!!!!!!!
Ok, well I don't understand your logic because if I recall you claim the origin of a circuit is the cable.
I think the point many of us are making is twofold. Firstly it doesn't appear to be clearly against the regs. In fact it is hard to work out how the regs could forbid it. And secondly there's no possible danger, so even if it were against the regs it couldn't possibly be an issue.
It's just one of those things that sounds weird when you first hear it.
Not with you.
I don't understand how it contravenes the regulation you stated. You did attempt to explain based around the cable being the origin.
No one has really explained how spurring at the mcb is any different from spurring anywhere else. If that appears in the regs then i would be in agreement that it wasn't allowed.
It contravenes 314.4!!!!!!!!!
Clash of the Titans' anyone?
The only section I believe that talks about future proofing is this:-
132.3 Nature of demand
The number and type of circuits required for lighting, heating, power, control, signalling, communication and information technology, etc. shall be determined from knowledge of:
(i) location of points of power demand
(ii) loads to be expected on the various circuits
(iii) daily and yearly variation of demand
(iv) any special conditions, such as harmonics
(v) requirements for control, signalling, communication and information technology, etc.
(vi) anticipated future demand, if specified.
I've always considered leaving spare ways as good practice and I usually aim for 25% of live ways as spare at the end of a job.
As have I but even from that reg, leaving spare ways in a CU is not a specific requirement.
OP has installed a massive 23 circuits CU and had 2 spare. But he decided wanted one more. It wasn’t necessary and if he’d had left it at two spares this thread wouldn’t even exist.
Reply to Does this setup contravene any regs or is it ok? in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net
We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.