Borrowed neutral question.

[ezzzekiel]

the borrowed neutral on a single mcb no longer becomes a borrowed neutral and thus is no longer dangerous (loading may be an issue) which is exactly what has been said (not that a borrowed neutral is not dangerous as is being claimed was said) and it is an accepted method by all scheme providers to overcome the problem.

alternatively run in a new cable which would be the prefered method but not always available depending on the run, cost or damage to decor.

anyone claiming any different to the above two options are talking dribble.

 

[oxocube]

If you are going to use one of my quotes (#9) then at least have the decency to use the whole quote (#26) to try and attack me!

I think you're the one doing the attacking, I'm just trying to put the record straight.

This post is No 9 - Hawk81 said "I don't know where you live either but leaving a borrowed neutral is lazy and dangerous. In my book it should always be rectified."

In responce Ponty said "Can't agree with that. In what way is it dangerous?"

Thats Ponty clearly stating they are not dangerous.

Then in post No 37 Ponty said "I do agree a borrowed neutral can be dangerous"

The words in quotes are what was actually said.

 

[telectrix]

the usual scenario of a "borrowed neutral" is where the landing light takes its neutral from the upstairs lighting cct. and it's line from the downstairs cct., fed via the 2 way switching arrangement, so, in my book this is a "borrowed live" and as such, the borrowed live should be removed and replaced with a feed from the upstairs circuit. this would ental an extra conductor between the switches, either by wiring in a single, or replacing the T/E with 3core/E. customers are often unwilling to have their nice wallpaper chased, so that is the reason for the compromises outlined previously. personally, i'd mnodify the circuit, redecorate, and do without the new bog/microwave/200kW shower/iphone/overpriced stilettos/ballet lessons/horse riding (for the sprogs) etc.etc.

 

[Engineer54]

oxocube,

Why don't you just admit, that you misread what Ponty was saying?? He has never said, or implied that a shared neutral situation wasn't dangerous.... Then the thread can be left to it's natural conclusion!!

 

[oxocube]

Why don't you just admit, that you misread what Ponty was saying?? He has never said, or implied that a shared neutral situation wasn't dangerous.... Then the thread can be left to it's natural conclusion!!

It could do if people stopped telling lies.

How can you possibly argue against what I've said in post No. 42, perhaps you have a hidden agenda.

 

[oxocube]

so, in my book this is a "borrowed live" and as such, the borrowed live should be removed and replaced with a feed from the upstairs circuit.

Thats a spanner in the works. lol

 

[telectrix]

more like a monkey wrench.

 

[Engineer54]

Not I, .....

Your now twisting things, to suit your misplaced argument. No-one here has said or implied that a shared neutral isn't potentially dangerous. You have been given the reason for using a common MCB for both lighting circuits. It's not ideal at all, it's not electrically dangerous either. Unfortunately, some householders cannot be swayed or convinced to have the remedial work done. ...Everything else has been said on this subject. Whether you like the outcome or not, it really doesn't matter the householder is either willing to pay or they are not, ..end of!!

 

[topquark]

If I may add my two cents worth having just read through the thread Ponty has rectified it, he's put the two (well one and a half) circuits on the same MCB, which whilst not an ideal solution; is fine in most circumstances. The possible neutral overload has now been avoided, if it keeps taking the out the MCB, then it almost certainly wasn't safe before.

The premise of the debate seemed to be centered around an inference of Ponty saying it wasn't dangerous, if he thought it wasn't dangerous he wouldn't have rectified it.

 

[Engineer54]

Here we go again!!! This again, ....getting too silly for words!!!