Does this setup contravene any regs or is it ok?

[SparkyChick]

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.

 

[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.

 

[DPG]

A fridge in no way satisfies any definition of a circuit. It defines a piece of current using equipment fed by a circuit.

 

[Octopus]

I thought I’d put my input into this thread to rest but I had ten minutes to spare today and this was still bugging me. So I took the opportunity to call the NICEIC technical helpline about it. I have been resurrected!

Their view is that the regulation, although short on specific detail, as a re a lot of the regulations (as it is simetimes very hard to express the intended rule in writing), does in fact intend that each circuit should be connected to only one OCPD. In view of ‘what is classed as a circuit, I specifically asked about lumping circuits together with the view that they both become one circuit, and the view was that they don’t. The circuit is defined as per the wiring was intended and it should comply with BS7671. They would class this as a non compliance.

I asked, if in the event that I found this whilst doing an EICR, would I flag it and if so what would I flag it as. The view was that it should be recorded as a C3 for definite or a C2 if there was a danger of overload or other problems.

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.

 

[Octopus]

You cannot comply with BS7671 by bunching circuits such as lighting or radials in the same OCPD. It is non compliant.

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.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

A fridge in no way satisfies any definition of a circuit. It defines a piece of current using equipment fed by a circuit.

It’s an assebly of electrical equipment protected at it’s origin by an OCPD.
How does that differ from the definition of a circuit?

 

[MFS Electrical]

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!

I fail to see why it poses an Electrical risk? Could you eleaborate on why?

 

[johnduffell]

It’s an assebly of electrical equipment protected at it’s origin by an OCPD.
How does that differ from the definition of a circuit?

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

 

[DPG]

By your definition my electric razor is a circuit. And a gu10 lamp.

 

[MFS Electrical]

By your definition my electric razor is a circuit. And a gu10 lamp.

just to be an a**e they are... they are electronic circuits (assuming the GU10 is an LED)

 

[DPG]

just to be an a**e they are... they are electronic circuits (assuming the GU10 is an LED)

My example was halogen. So there

 

[Deleted member 26818]

By your definition my electric razor is a circuit. And a gu10 lamp.

Not my definition, and no, neither of those items.
A toaster perhaps, or a kettle.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

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

The definition of a circuit, makes no reference to fixed wiring.

 

[DPG]

Not my definition, and no, neither of those items.
A toaster perhaps, or a kettle.

So a toaster is a circuit but not an electric razor. I really don't get this definition of circuit you are using.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

So a toaster is a circuit but not an electric razor. I really don't get this definition of circuit you are using.

Does your electric razor have a fused plug?

 

[DPG]

It's an appliance. It is current using equipment. Just like a table lamp or a fridge freezer, or anything that plugs into a 13A socket. It is NOT a circuit.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It's an appliance. It is current using equipment. Just like a table lamp or a fridge freezer, or anything that plugs into a 13A socket. It is NOT a circuit.

I’m glad that we have established that something that satisfies a definition in BS7671 is not necessarily the thing being defined.
So does this mean you are stating 2 circuits connected to the same MCB are 2 circuits or 1?

 

[Ian1981]

Deleted on the grounds of I can’t be bothered to comment on ridiculous comments

 

[Wilko]

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.

 

[DPG]

I think the majority of us share the same opinions on this issue luckily.