-
Please checkout the new poll we will be pushing hard, and want some good stories to come out of this
result are public - you can change your vote over time, which might genuinely be the case from time to time.
Search the forum,
Quote me any BS7671 regs that specially states it isn't.
You can't condemn someone with your opinions that something is wrong without hard evidence to back it up. All of you nay sayers are severely lacking in that respect.
Stroma, you're wrong!
OP, right!
Hum ............ 2 cables at a OCPD is NOT a non compliance
The NICEIC don't write the rules so should spend their time working with the IET getting stupid anomalies resolved
As for a C3 - no way.
Disagree
And if you make this a ruling my crystal ball sees lots of wago's or choc block used within DB's - so only 1 cable runs to the OCPD
Daft.
My example was halogen. So there
So a toaster is a circuit but not an electric razor. I really don't get this definition of circuit you are using.
So rather than answer any of the questions that sparkychick asked previously , you just come out with stuff like this. Well done.
My point was that just because you think that most people have the same opinion (at least on this forum), it doesn’t make it correct. As in the example, just because 10 billion flies have the same preference for a main course, it doesn’t mean that it should be a staple diet for everyone!
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). This however is not what the OP asked in the first place.
I’ll stand by my arguments in this thread and you guys are more than entitle to stand by yours but the fact remains that the man from Stroma and the NICEIC tech dept both understand the regulation to be as I do.
A thought though, if there is doubt, which there plainly is, why risk doing it?
But that isn't the point... I'm not questioning whether that particular example is compliant or not because it is, we all know it is because we've all done it and not given it a second thought. The point of that example is it does not feature in any way in appendix 15, thus demonstrating that appendix 15 is not the be all and end all of allowable circuit topologies.
If a radial circuit fed from the middle (which is effectively what this is) contravenes a regulation, demonstrate the fact with a regulation number and an explanation as to why it contravenes it.
Because in my mind there is no doubt as I have no problem doing this, I just choose not to because I don't consider it to be good practice for things like new installations. But I would do it on existing installations... I have done it on existing installations.
However, if it does contravene a regulation I'd like to know which one so I can avoid breaking them by doing it again and if I encounter such a situation during an EICR I can provide the correct regulation when I flag it as a non-compliance.
Isn't that the point of discussing things like this?
Ok, well I don't understand your logic because if I recall you claim the origin of a circuit is the cable.
Not with you.
And you could well be right, it may not be an issue. But as the NICEIC see it, it is a non compliance and should be recorded in the EIC as such.
I don't understand how it contravenes the regulation you stated. You did attempt to explain based around the cable being the origin.
And that's when the argument petered out somewhat.
Exactly. A feed may be taken from the OCPD. Same circuit.
No it doesn't.
The pertinent part of 314.4 is: "The wiring of each final circuit shall be electrically separate from that of every other final circuit, so as to prevent the indirect energizing of a final circuit intended to be isolated. "
Meaning, in my view, that there is NO electrical connection, in any shape, form or other, to another set of wiring fed from any another OCPD.
As has been repeatably said, a circuit wiring can take almost any form you want, within reason!
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.
All because of an unnecessary risk.
No it's not and this comes up from time to time. My view is better to leave some spare... how many times have you been to a job wanting just one breaker and there is nothing
I know eventually the spares may be used, but that takes time.
I think I would have contented myself with two.
No, it wouldn't, but as I've said it's interesting to see other peoples perspectives on the regulations even if you don't agree with them.
Discuss Does this setup contravene any regs or is it ok? in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net
S
Silly Sausage
314.4.... irrelevant. The OP's circuit is perfectly safe.
Quote me any BS7671 regs that specially states it isn't.
You can't condemn someone with your opinions that something is wrong without hard evidence to back it up. All of you nay sayers are severely lacking in that respect.
Stroma, you're wrong!
OP, right!
- Reaction score
- 8,188
Well, I fail to see how combining two circuits at the consumer unit contravenes 314.4.
I'm sorry, I just don't and thus far nothing you've posted has come anywhere close to swaying my view.
I'm sorry, I just don't and thus far nothing you've posted has come anywhere close to swaying my view.
- Reaction score
- 479
you can run as many cables back to the CU as you can comfortably terminate, doesn't matter if one goes to the loft, one to the back of the house and one to the front of the house, it's as good as having a normal one dimensional radial.
I like to improve my understanding of the regs, but this thread is already 11 pages on something so simple and therefore is not a patch on the water tank earthing one which is genuinely hard to decide!
I like to improve my understanding of the regs, but this thread is already 11 pages on something so simple and therefore is not a patch on the water tank earthing one which is genuinely hard to decide!
- Reaction score
- 3,818
The same Niceic that on an assessors visit said one way of dealing with a borrowed neutral situation (lighting) on an older installation where rewiring is not possible,is to double up the 2 lighting supplies into one OCPD making it err one circuit
- Reaction score
- 236
Which would be a non compliance but if it is electrically safe it is allowed as long as you list it in the certificate.
I have never said that it’s unsafe to do this only that it does not comply with the regulations.
You guys either don’t read the full thread or you are not understanding my atguement.
IT MAY BE SAFE BUT IT IS NONE COMPLIANT!
I have never said that it’s unsafe to do this only that it does not comply with the regulations.
You guys either don’t read the full thread or you are not understanding my atguement.
IT MAY BE SAFE BUT IT IS NONE COMPLIANT!
- Reaction score
- 8,188
I've read the whole thread and I'm not understanding your argument.
- Reaction score
- 479
When assessing an installation you can only look at the current state, not imagine other designs it might have had in the past and decide if the structure of the installation was redefined in some way.
- Reaction score
- 413
Go
SC that's why he's shouting at you. If people can't understand what someone is saying to them, then they they SHOUT it at them.
SC that's why he's shouting at you. If people can't understand what someone is saying to them, then they they SHOUT it at them.
- Reaction score
- 236
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!
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!
- Reaction score
- 8,188
The closest you've come to an explanation is claiming the origin of a circuit is the cable that connects it to the OCPD that supplies it.
To go back to a point I made earlier though, much of your argument seems to stem from appendix 15 in that the radial circuits show one cable and that by virtue of this you can only comply if you have one cable in the OCPD.
You side stepped my question regarding a 20A DP switch on a ring supplying a single socket outlet (a typical grid switch scenario) saying you never said it didn't comply, completely missing (or sidestepping) the point I was making.
The example I gave is standard practice and occurs in thousands of properties. But it isn't shown in appendix 15 for ring final circuits so therefore using your logic (that appendix 15 shows the things you can do), it must not comply.
So either appendix 15 shows the only things you can do or it shows SOME possibilities (as @DPG said, the regs can't possibly show every possible implementation scenario). Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
If it shows possibilities, show me a regulation that a radial circuit supplied from the middle would contravene.
Any suggestion you can't adequately test it and record the results is nonsense because the test results are the worst case results from testing, so it can be tested along it's entire length and the worst case results recorded.
To go back to a point I made earlier though, much of your argument seems to stem from appendix 15 in that the radial circuits show one cable and that by virtue of this you can only comply if you have one cable in the OCPD.
You side stepped my question regarding a 20A DP switch on a ring supplying a single socket outlet (a typical grid switch scenario) saying you never said it didn't comply, completely missing (or sidestepping) the point I was making.
The example I gave is standard practice and occurs in thousands of properties. But it isn't shown in appendix 15 for ring final circuits so therefore using your logic (that appendix 15 shows the things you can do), it must not comply.
So either appendix 15 shows the only things you can do or it shows SOME possibilities (as @DPG said, the regs can't possibly show every possible implementation scenario). Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
If it shows possibilities, show me a regulation that a radial circuit supplied from the middle would contravene.
Any suggestion you can't adequately test it and record the results is nonsense because the test results are the worst case results from testing, so it can be tested along it's entire length and the worst case results recorded.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 26818
If we consider the information supplied in Appendix 15, then we should consider the fact that it states for both Radials and RFCs, that the circuit starts at the DB (in the case of RFCs, the circuit also finishes at the DB).
If we connect 2 circuits to a single MCB, then we are effectively connecting the middle of the circuit to the DB.
It’s all very well stating that connecting 2 circuits to one MCB makes them into one circuit as per the definition of a circuit.
However, just because something satisfies a definition in BS7671, doesn’t necessarily make that thing into what is being defined.
A fridge freezer satisfies the definition of a circuit, but I wouldn’t call it a circuit.
If we connect 2 circuits to a single MCB, then we are effectively connecting the middle of the circuit to the DB.
It’s all very well stating that connecting 2 circuits to one MCB makes them into one circuit as per the definition of a circuit.
However, just because something satisfies a definition in BS7671, doesn’t necessarily make that thing into what is being defined.
A fridge freezer satisfies the definition of a circuit, but I wouldn’t call it a circuit.
O
Octopus
Hum ............ 2 cables at a OCPD is NOT a non compliance
The NICEIC don't write the rules so should spend their time working with the IET getting stupid anomalies resolved
As for a C3 - no way.
O
Octopus
Disagree
And if you make this a ruling my crystal ball sees lots of wago's or choc block used within DB's - so only 1 cable runs to the OCPD
Daft.
- Reaction score
- 1,050
I fail to see why it poses an Electrical risk? Could you eleaborate on why?
- Reaction score
- 479
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
- Reaction score
- 1,050
- Reaction score
- 16,732
just to be an a**e they are... they are electronic circuits
My example was halogen. So there
D
Deleted member 26818
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
- Reaction score
- 16,732
So a toaster is a circuit but not an electric razor. I really don't get this definition of circuit you are using.
- Reaction score
- 6,530
At risk of adding to the fire, App 15 Fig 15A in BBB states that "an infused spur may be connected to the origin of the circuit in the distribution board". Which to me says the origin of circuits is the distribution board (no toasters need apply, sorry) and a circuit may branch from within the board.
- Reaction score
- 236
- Reaction score
- 16,732
So rather than answer any of the questions that sparkychick asked previously , you just come out with stuff like this. Well done.
- Reaction score
- 236
My point was that just because you think that most people have the same opinion (at least on this forum), it doesn’t make it correct. As in the example, just because 10 billion flies have the same preference for a main course, it doesn’t mean that it should be a staple diet for everyone!
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). This however is not what the OP asked in the first place.
I’ll stand by my arguments in this thread and you guys are more than entitle to stand by yours but the fact remains that the man from Stroma and the NICEIC tech dept both understand the regulation to be as I do.
A thought though, if there is doubt, which there plainly is, why risk doing it?
- Reaction score
- 8,188
But that isn't the point... I'm not questioning whether that particular example is compliant or not because it is, we all know it is because we've all done it and not given it a second thought. The point of that example is it does not feature in any way in appendix 15, thus demonstrating that appendix 15 is not the be all and end all of allowable circuit topologies.
If a radial circuit fed from the middle (which is effectively what this is) contravenes a regulation, demonstrate the fact with a regulation number and an explanation as to why it contravenes it.
Because in my mind there is no doubt as I have no problem doing this, I just choose not to because I don't consider it to be good practice for things like new installations. But I would do it on existing installations... I have done it on existing installations.
However, if it does contravene a regulation I'd like to know which one so I can avoid breaking them by doing it again and if I encounter such a situation during an EICR I can provide the correct regulation when I flag it as a non-compliance.
Isn't that the point of discussing things like this?
- Reaction score
- 236
It contravenes 314.4!!!!!!!!!
As both Stroma and NICEIC said!
But here we go again. Round and around!
We are not going to get to the bottom of this until someone in the Regs committee clarifies the reg.
As I said at the start of the thread. I understand it to mean what Stroma and NIC say it means. It’s not written particularly well and it needs to be clearer but I understand it’s intention. As do Stroma and the NIC.
As both Stroma and NICEIC said!
But here we go again. Round and around!
We are not going to get to the bottom of this until someone in the Regs committee clarifies the reg.
As I said at the start of the thread. I understand it to mean what Stroma and NIC say it means. It’s not written particularly well and it needs to be clearer but I understand it’s intention. As do Stroma and the NIC.
- Reaction score
- 8,188
Ok, well I don't understand your logic because if I recall you claim the origin of a circuit is the cable.
- Reaction score
- 479
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.
It's just one of those things that sounds weird when you first hear it.
- Reaction score
- 236
Not with you.
- Reaction score
- 236
And you could well be right, it may not be an issue. But as the NICEIC see it, it is a non compliance and should be recorded in the EIC as such.
- Reaction score
- 8,188
I don't understand how it contravenes the regulation you stated. You did attempt to explain based around the cable being the origin.
- Reaction score
- 16,732
And that's when the argument petered out somewhat.
- Reaction score
- 479
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.
- Reaction score
- 16,732
Exactly. A feed may be taken from the OCPD. Same circuit.
- Reaction score
- 236
Yep. I can’t go through it all again. It’s not well written but I believe the intention of the reg is as I have tried to explain.
Your argument gains ground if you take the reg literally but it is not what the schemes mentioned believe it to mean. Neither do I.
Us Sparks like to deal in black and white, we don’t like grey. It confuses us. Me included. But the regs are full of grey. And they are non statutory which clouds the grey even more.
In fact 120.3 and 133.1.3 specifically allow you to depart from BS7671 albeit with special consideration.
So you cannot take every part of BS7671 literally, although in a court of law you may well persuade the prosecutor by your argument. But then again you may not, because decisions made in a court of law are also not black and white.
I would personally err on the side of my assessing body until I’m told otherwise. I don’t see the point in the risk.
Getting back to the OP’s original decision, (which now seems an eternity away) what was wrong with having two spare ways anyway? I stand to be educated here but which reg states that there should be more than two spares on a 23 way CU?
Your argument gains ground if you take the reg literally but it is not what the schemes mentioned believe it to mean. Neither do I.
Us Sparks like to deal in black and white, we don’t like grey. It confuses us. Me included. But the regs are full of grey. And they are non statutory which clouds the grey even more.
In fact 120.3 and 133.1.3 specifically allow you to depart from BS7671 albeit with special consideration.
So you cannot take every part of BS7671 literally, although in a court of law you may well persuade the prosecutor by your argument. But then again you may not, because decisions made in a court of law are also not black and white.
I would personally err on the side of my assessing body until I’m told otherwise. I don’t see the point in the risk.
Getting back to the OP’s original decision, (which now seems an eternity away) what was wrong with having two spare ways anyway? I stand to be educated here but which reg states that there should be more than two spares on a 23 way CU?
- Reaction score
- 240
Clash of the Titans' anyone?
S
Silly Sausage
No it doesn't.
The pertinent part of 314.4 is: "The wiring of each final circuit shall be electrically separate from that of every other final circuit, so as to prevent the indirect energizing of a final circuit intended to be isolated. "
Meaning, in my view, that there is NO electrical connection, in any shape, form or other, to another set of wiring fed from any another OCPD.
As has been repeatably said, a circuit wiring can take almost any form you want, within reason!
- Reaction score
- 8,188
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 236
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.
All because of an unnecessary risk.
- Reaction score
- 8,188
No it's not and this comes up from time to time. My view is better to leave some spare... how many times have you been to a job wanting just one breaker and there is nothing
I know eventually the spares may be used, but that takes time.
I think I would have contented myself with two.
No, it wouldn't, but as I've said it's interesting to see other peoples perspectives on the regulations even if you don't agree with them.
Reply to Does this setup contravene any regs or is it ok? in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net
Similar Threads
I hope someone can help with this as I'm stumped. My landing hallway ceiling (2016-build house) has two rose pendants which I've attempted to...
Does a SPD need a dedicated way?
I need an extra way in this unit for a 3 phase car charger
As you can see its a small unit with no extra...
We are in the process of renovating our house, and would like to setup led strip-lighting throughout. of the options, this seems most attractive...
I'm after advice on how best and safely to do a friends Fuseboard upgrade.
Current setup is a Wylex 6 Way board with MCBs of 2x 6A, 2x 32A and 30A...
I’ve recently moved into house and had an electrician out to install some new lights and shaver point in an en-suite. Problem is that the house is...
OFFICIAL SPONSORS
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
YOUR Unread Posts
-
Does a SPD need a dedicated MCB?Absolutely. I have a 75 kWh Citroën ë-Dispatch. Great van.
- Latest: Risteard
-
Unreasonably high invoice bill from an electricianThis is precisely the issue. I had the HSE out with me a number of years ago to offer advice...
- Latest: Risteard
-
What is it called IR testing?One has probably licensed one from the other. All my fibre splicers are Japanese, either...- Latest: KungFuTurkeyLeg
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by untold.media Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.