Discuss Does this setup contravene any regs or is it ok? in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net
.very good point
Bit random: When designing an installation, should the distribution board/consumer unit have 25% spare capacity when installation completed?
So, you believe this set up is a contravention of regulation 314.4 (I believe that's what the OP stated as being the reg that Mr. Assessor was citing as the reason this arrangement was non-compliant)... care to explain how it contravenes the regulation?
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.
Final circuit. A circuit connected directly to current-using equipment, or to a socket-outlet or socket-outlets or other
outlet points for the connection of such equipment.
Circuit. An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected against overcurrent by the same protective device(s).
To answer your question... have you never put two circuits of any kind together onto a single breaker as a temporary stop gap solution? I have, and would do it again in a heartbeat providing there is a suitable breaker available...
I'm not stupid enough to put a lighting circuit on a 16A breaker (although technically a lot of lighting circuits could handle that) or stick a ring final socket circuit on a 20A breaker onto a 32A breaker with another RFC because there is probably a very good reason the one is limited to 20A
Personally, I would not have wired the lobby and the attic as one circuit. If I were to come across such an installation, I’d be wondering what the original installer was thinking of.
The origin of any final circuit is the DB/CU.
These are in fact two circuits and I will explain this later, and assuming this, these are not now electrically separate as they have been connected together.
You seem to be conflicted.
Yes I have ‘lumped’ two circuits together as ‘temporary stop gap solution’.
I did it as a temporary stop gap solution knowing that, in my view and yours presumably as you have inferred, it’s ok as a temporary fix. But if its ok as a temporary fix, by definition it isn't meant as a permanent solution.
Therefore the man from Stroma is correct. It doesn’t comply with the intention of the regulation. It is electrically safe taking into consideration the anticipated loads on those circuits but is does not comply. My temporary fix was not left like it.
Theres nothing wrong with having a lighting circuit on a 16a breaker as long as the cable is sufficient.
I'm not sure what you mean by the ring on a 20a breaker though.
My question is would you wire two ring circuits into one 32a breaker allowing of course for the loads anticipated on those circuits and leave it like it permanently and sign a completion certificate saying that it fully complies with BS7671.
Fundamentally, yes they are two circuits... or more precisely, they were two circuits as they were originally designed, installed and connected to two different protective devices at the origin.
To address your question about the origin, since there is no definition of origin for a circuit, it seems sensible to base it on that of 'origin of the installation' i.e. the point of supply of electrical energy, which in this case is the protective device the circuit is connected to.
The definition of 'final circuit' is there to differentiate it from a distribution circuit and in this context is largely a red herring I believe.
It isn't the cabling that defines a circuit, it's the origin. The cable is not a point of supply of electrical energy for the circuit, the protective device it is connected to is.
Taking your argument that the cables are the origin to the extreme, you're saying you can't have a spur off a ring final circuit that originates at the device that protects the ring conductors because they aren't the same cables, which I think you'll agree is a nonsense.
Would I do it? No. But based on 433.1.204, providing the cabling complies, it's questionable whether it would contravene any regulations.
I feel it's better than a standalone circuit for the smoke alarm.
It doesn't matter how it branches and at what points
However that would only be against the regs in the same way a lollipop would be, and could probably be a deviation.
Either on here or elsewhere their was a spark, who also worked part time for fire brigade. He said of some of the sights he'd seen and the damage to human life he'd seen, and how working smoke alarms could have prevented it. Part of his thinking was smoke alarms on commonly used lighting circuit could have prevented it. It's a logic and approach I agreed with then, and still do now.Why?
Either on here or elsewhere their was a spark, who also worked part time for fire brigade. He said of some of the sights he'd seen and the damage to human life he'd seen, and how working smoke alarms could have prevented it. Part of his thinking was smoke alarms on commonly used lighting circuit could have prevented it. It's a logic and approach I agreed with then, and still do now.
You can't help stupid though - if they pull smoke alarm heads off and throw them in the bin with no intention of repairing them, nothing we can do, whether separate circuit or on with the lighting.
In a nutshell, yes.But I don't see why the smokes are better being fed with another circuit. Is it because people are not likely to switch of a lighting circuit if there smokes are beeping?
Reply to Does this setup contravene any regs or is it ok? in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net
We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.