copy of 1st Amendment of 18th ed

[Julie.]

@snowhead the link did not work for me.



So given the above why would a type A not operate? It seems that EV charging needs much improvement in design. Not that I have studied the matter in any depth. So what, if any effect, would there be on SPD or AFDD just asking as a matter of idle interest.

Because a type A would be blocked by DC - it is suitable for AC and pulsating DC.

In addition, the DC throughout the system would block many of the other rcd, which as standard tend to be ac
[automerge]1580813581[/automerge]
Sorry, missed the point about spd etc.

Spd shouldn't be an issue, they either work by having a spark gap, (which the DC should be too low to jump) or a voltage dependent resistor (used to be a trade name metrasil) which drops sharply in resistance after the knee point.

As for AFDD - I doubt even the makers would know!

I agree the situation with ev charging is a mess, it appears driven by manufacturers and their wants.

I don't think it should be part of the 18th, it's a separate device, so should be treated as such, the 18th doesn't go into the ins and outs on how other devices work - they have their own specifications.

In my view the 2nd ammendment (I would have hoped the first would) should be very simple, the charge points shall be fully self contained, and not reliant on external protection devices, contain all operational and protective features for the charger, and prevent DC back into the system, detect any earth leakage (which implies an rcd), and detect or prevent an excursion of the local earth in potential (which is achieved by a local TT, or specialist devices)

Not go down a rabbit path on how it's to be done!

 

[snowhead]

@snowhead the link did not work for me.

Try this, click this link then Click on Click to view document;

Why Pod Point homechargers do not require an earth rod | Pod Point

To find out more details about why Pod Point homechargers do not require an earth rod, take a look over on our blog.

pod-point.com

 

[Midwest]

See our current government has brought forward proposals to ban petrol/diesel cars by 5 years. So all these things need sorting, sooner rather than later.

 

[Vortigern]

Because a type A would be blocked by DC

So what type of DC is EV DC and why do you think the installer trainers are recommending Type A? Anyway it all seems to be an accident waiting to happen, complex system, inexperience installers, end users all seems to equal a problem.
[automerge]1580817065[/automerge]
@snowhead that link worked. It somewhat irked me that they are sharing their knowledge with NICEIC as opposed to all CPS bodies and interested parties. As if NICEIC are the de facto, go to authority and final arbiter. Seems to me this just gives them advantages that other cps schemes are not benefiting from.

 

[Julie.]

So what type of DC is EV DC and why do you think the installer trainers are recommending Type A?.......

Under normal operation an ev charger could produce pulsating DC - so it needs to have type A or above.

Under certain circumstances - a failure of the charger could inject continuous DC - type A and below would be blocked.

Therefore the point needs to protect against continuous DC (the RDC-DD) to prevent this failure mode.

And there needs to be rcd protection for earth fault just like any other circuit, but because of the pulsating DC which may be present it needs to be type A or above.

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

Which is why I can sit back and say manufacturers recommendations when asked about fitting type a upfront. To complicate things some chargers have them built in- the pre smart Rolec units had type a rcbo now they are separate and upfront to fit the smart bits inside. Other makes telyou to source one elsewhere and don't even recommend one but say fit in accordance with BS7671! It seems as @Julie. Says that charger companies are all doing there own thing.

 

[Julie.]

Which is why I can sit back and say manufacturers recommendations when asked about fitting type a upfront. To complicate things some chargers have them built in- the pre smart Rolec units had type a rcbo now they are separate and upfront to fit the smart bits inside. Other makes telyou to source one elsewhere and don't even recommend one but say fit in accordance with BS7671! It seems as @Julie. Says that charger companies are all doing there own thing.

Absolutely.

I think there ought to be a standard for the chargepoints produced that makes the responsibility totally with the charge point manufacturers - fully self-contained and not reliant on external protection devices to provide the appropriate functions for the bits of their functionality they decided to omit for their own convenience!

Your example of the Rolec is spot on, if I fit an older unit - I shouldn't provide an rcbo or rcd as there is already one in the unit, two years down the line a householder has a fault, so gets a replacement - it's a simple like for like same manufacturer, same range just newer version so they change it.

Unfortunately, now there is no protection as the newer versions don't have an rcd internally!

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

The best way to achieve uniformity would be for Olev to stipulate it in scheme rules to get the grant. When they stipulated smart. Functionality the manufacturers brought online the smart features. If you don't get the grant then you won't likely go for the chargers. It's a carrot and stick approach

 

[Vortigern]

Which is why I can sit back and say manufacturers recommendations

Maybe not. If as you say

I had this conversation with the technical folks at Andersen

who say Type A, if the above is to be believed/accepted then Type A may fail and anyone saying what you did above will hardly mitigate someone electrocuted in the shower. It may of course cover your derriere legally but should we not take into account such as the above and act accordingly? I am not sure what to believe on this matter @Julie or the manufacturers/technical support for the units, as effectively @Julie is telling us the manufacturers are wrong. And what @Julie has said does seem plausible. Although the link @snowhead gave did actually talk about type B being used especially in light of the 1st amendment.