two radials into an RCBO

[DPG]

Circuit not ring. It says so in the text.

The text:
314.4 Where an installation comprises more than one final circuit, each final circuit shall be connected to a separate way in a distribution board

Point out what you do not understand.

You edited your post. Look at where I quoted you - you can't edit that to cover up your mistake.

 

[John-SJW]

.

The text:
314.4 Where an installation comprises more than one final circuit, each final circuit shall be connected to a separate way in a distribution board

Point out what you do not understand.

 

[brianmoooore]

Maybe you're confusing cables with circuits.
A circuit can consist of more than one cable connected to the source.

Looking back through all the posts so far, l think this one probably illustrates best where you are misinterpreting the wording.

 

[littlespark]

My final input to this is a repeat of what I said earlier…

“An unfused spur may be connected to the origin of the circuit in the distribution board”

Straight out the book. Plain English.

 

[westward10]

No opinions involved. The text is abundantly clear. I advise many to swot up on English.

Can you knock it on the head. I have already asked to keep this friendly however you don't seem to be able to do this.

 

[DPG]

The text:
314.4 Where an installation comprises more than one final circuit, each final circuit shall be connected to a separate way in a distribution board

Point out what you do not understand.

You know full well which of your posts I was replying to. I even quoted it. You are doing your usual ducking and diving to turn things back on people.

I'm out - it's too much hard work trying to converse with you. I should have learnt my lesson after the other threads.

 

[John-SJW]

.

The text:
314.4 Where an installation comprises more than one final circuit, each final circuit shall be connected to a separate way in a distribution board

Point out what you do not understand.

 

[timhoward]

The text:
314.4 Where an installation comprises more than one final circuit, each final circuit shall be connected to a separate way in a distribution board

Point out what you do not understand.

The regs are an imperfect painting-by-numbers scheme that if followed ought to result in an installation that complies with the statutory requirements of other legislation. They aren't statutory in and of themselves though. Not following one is not always breaking the law.

I would happily stand up in court and defend two typical lighting circuits in an RCBO as being electrically safe, especially given the considerably lower loadings of many LED infested lighting circuits these days, usually considerably lower than the original design anticipated.

I'd never stand up in court and defend a boiler radial in with a sub main as we're mixing final and distribution, wrong OCPD for boiler, and wildly different functions which could lead to incorrect isolation attempts.

The 2nd sentence in that reg says "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"

I can understand anyone saying this is black/white and choosing not to do it.
I can also understand anyone saying "the spirit of that reg is grouping functions together for clarity and safe isolation".
If you can summarise a circuit easily e.g. "Lighting 1st/2nd Floor" and the loading is suitable there is no reason why they can't be combined. Where they are combined is really not worth this degree of argument/upset.

 

[brianmoooore]

As a university graduate who had to extensively use and read English in studying and professionally all my life, I know simple English. I have written reams of technical documents and edited many others. It appears many cannot grasp something so fundamentally simple. Those who do not know English too well will ride along with the mob.

The text is abundantly clear - two final circuits cannot be connected to one way in and CU.

As another university graduate, with a smattering of law amongst the technical stuff, who had to extensively use and read English in studying and professionally all my life, I also know simple English, and you are misinterpreting this.

 

[John-SJW]

My final input to this is a repeat of what I said earlier…

“An unfused spur may be connected to the origin of the circuit in the distribution board”

Straight out the book. Plain English.

So if we had 10 circuits with unfused spurs only, they can all go back to one way.

The text:
314.4 Where an installation comprises more than one final circuit, each final circuit shall be connected to a separate way in a distribution board

Point out what you do not understand.

 

[timhoward]

Point out what you do not understand.

As a fellow university graduate, please can you stop saying this bit as it doesn't come over well.
"Can you help me understand how a final circuit can be interpreted this way?" might be more appropriate.

 

[John-SJW]

As a fellow university graduate, please can you stop saying this bit as it doesn't come over well.
"Can you help me understand how a final circuit can be interpreted this way?" might be more appropriate.

I feel like I am talking to a bunch of 7 year olds in how to get a grasp of English.

 

[John-SJW]

As another university graduate, with a smattering of law amongst the technical stuff, who had to extensively use and read English in studying and professionally all my life, I also know simple English, and you are misinterpreting this.

The text:

314.4 Where an installation comprises more than one final circuit, each final circuit shall be connected to a separate way in a distribution board.

Show where your are stuck in the above text?

 

[John-SJW]

The regs are an imperfect painting-by-numbers scheme that if followed ought to result in an installation that complies with the statutory requirements of other legislation. They aren't statutory in and of themselves though. Not following one is not always breaking the law.

I would happily stand up in court and defend two typical lighting circuits in an RCBO as being electrically safe, especially given the considerably lower loadings of many LED infested lighting circuits these days, usually considerably lower than the original design anticipated.

I'd never stand up in court and defend a boiler radial in with a sub main as we're mixing final and distribution, wrong OCPD for boiler, and wildly different functions which could lead to incorrect isolation attempts.

The 2nd sentence in that reg says "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"

I can understand anyone saying this is black/white and choosing not to do it.
I can also understand anyone saying "the spirit of that reg is grouping functions together for clarity and safe isolation".
If you can summarise a circuit easily e.g. "Lighting 1st/2nd Floor" and the loading is suitable there is no reason why they can't be combined. Where they are combined is really not worth this degree of argument/upset.

The second sentence says each circuit must be fully independent, that's all.

Spirit does not matter, only hard words, which say:

314.4 Where an installation comprises more than one final circuit, each final circuit shall be connected to a separate way in a distribution board.

 

[westward10]

I feel like I am talking to a bunch of 7 year olds in how to get a grasp of English.

You cannot help yourself thread closed.