Does this setup contravene any regs or is it ok?

[markythesparky]

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!

 

[DPG]

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.

 

[markythesparky]

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?

 

[SparkyChick]

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).

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.

A thought though, if there is doubt, which there plainly is, why risk doing 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?

 

[markythesparky]

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.

 

[SparkyChick]

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.

 

[johnduffell]

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.

 

[markythesparky]

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.

 

[markythesparky]

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.

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.

 

[SparkyChick]

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.

 

[DPG]

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.

 

[johnduffell]

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.

 

[DPG]

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.

Exactly. A feed may be taken from the OCPD. Same circuit.

 

[markythesparky]

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?

 

[Marcus Vaughan]

Clash of the Titans' anyone?

 

[Silly Sausage]

It contravenes 314.4!!!!!!!!!

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!

 

[SparkyChick]

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.

 

[Silly Sausage]

Clash of the Titans' anyone?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=Lvcnx6-0GhA&usg=AOvVaw01S1ATxuoj_SOJVSsL-oIu

 

[markythesparky]

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.

All because of an unnecessary risk.

 

[SparkyChick]

As have I but even from that reg, leaving spare ways in a CU is not a specific requirement.

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.

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.

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.