Fixed Appliance RCD Protection

[lozarus]

Thanks all. Yes not domestic, FP200 above suspended ceiling. Will review instructions on arrival - it's a violently expensive thing made in England so fingers crossed with the instructions !

 

[loz2754]

FP200 would have an earthed shielding too so RCD unnecessary unless as said installation instructions require one.

Not so, see this post:
Post in thread 'Fire Alarm Circuit RCD Protection TT System' Fire Alarm Circuit RCD Protection TT System - https://www.electriciansforums.net/threads/fire-alarm-circuit-rcd-protection-tt-system.192171/post-1679373

 

[ipf]

FP200 would have an earthed shielding too so RCD unnecessary unless as said installation instructions require one.

Never heard that one. How do you earth that stuff?....except with a bear earth conductor maybe touching it.

 

[DefyG]

Prysmian cable spec - 'Features and Benefits' - 'Full size CPC in direct contact with screen'!

I wasn't suggesting using the screen as a cpc but know from its construction it will provide a pretty reliable earth path in event of a fault, and whilst it isn't specifically listed in 522.6.204(i), [The list isn't all inclusive], its use isn't prohibited and is compliant with 133.5.

 

[westward10]

FP200 Gold would require additional rcd protection in the eyes of BS7671.

 

[lozarus]

Not so, see this post:
Post in thread 'Fire Alarm Circuit RCD Protection TT System' Fire Alarm Circuit RCD Protection TT System - https://www.electriciansforums.net/threads/fire-alarm-circuit-rcd-protection-tt-system.192171/post-1679373

The shield has no connection at either end to earth so I'd always deduce it's not an earthed outer shield

 

[DefyG]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but the spec'n clearly says "In direct contact with the CPC".

Cant say I've tested every one but those cables I have tested have proved to be a reliable connection between the cpc and shield and in my opinion provide adequate protection for compliance to 522.6.204(i)

in the eyes of

Do the 'Eyes' have a reg No.?

 

[westward10]

It is not manufactured to any of the British Standards in the Regulation you have quoted.

 

[Rockingit]

I think he knows what he is doing, and it probably is already safer as he's found the breaker.
My only thought is it would be good to improve on the "floating around on suspended ceiling".

Ah. That time I was nearly killed, you mean? Shop refit, lifted a tile to chase a cable run, laying on top of the tile was the aluminium tumble dryer style hose of a cheap AC job from a nearby vent, rolling around and floppy like it does, it rolled into the curve of my neck/shoulder and bit. HARD, right on all the bits of you that really don't want a belt, on bare sweaty skin. Steps went from under me which interrupted the belt. Later investigation, some absolute ******* had in the past simply snipped a live cable and left it loose up there, the hose had rolled onto it.

 

[DefyG]

Thought the bit that said BS as in BS 7629-1 was British Standard and funnily enough it is listed and recognised on page 434 of the regs.