Increase mcb capacity. Notifiable?

[Risteard]

They may have higher breaking capacity, but as MCB's breaking capacities is at least 6KA it is not a problem is it. I was really referring to wylex 3036 / 1361 type as there would be no RCD present (unless add on or an upfront... which is crap either way)

Not saying there is a problem with the breaking capacity of circuit breakers. But there is a lot to be said for fuses, e.g. for discrimination. (60898s in series won't discriminate.) And my installation with 1361s has RCD protection.

 

[Meggerman]

Not saying there is a problem with the breaking capacity of circuit breakers. But there is a lot to be said for fuses, e.g. for discrimination. (60898s in series won't discriminate.) And my installation with 1361s has RCD protection.

In my experience MCB discrimination is not an issue in houses. A home owner being able to reset an MCB after a lamp blows instead of replacing fuses is a real plus. Have you got a front end RCD for the whole install at home or what set up do you have?

 

[GMES]

Yeah good old Jamie I will give him one thing, he could take a good bashing and hold is own, fair play to him I say.

 

[Risteard]

No, not a front-end. Just split board with not all circuits RCD-protected. Wouldn't have a problem with a front-end though if necessary. The only time it has ever tripped is with water under the kettle lol.

 

[Meggerman]

No, not a front-end. Just split board with not all circuits RCD-protected. Wouldn't have a problem with a front-end though if necessary. The only time it has ever tripped is with water under the kettle lol.

Ok mate. At a guess is that Hager or MEM out of interest?

 

[Rockingit]

1. it's not notifiable as it's not a new circuit. 2. it's optional whether or not you fit RCD> personally i would prefer to fit one if the customer was happy to pay.

Disagree. If you change the CPD then you have fundamentally changed the operating characteristics of that circuit which makes it notifiable. Otherwise, if it wasn't notifiable then logically neither would a CU change - it's not different!

 

[Andy78]

Disagree. If you change the CPD then you have fundamentally changed the operating characteristics of that circuit which makes it notifiable. Otherwise, if it wasn't notifiable then logically neither would a CU change - it's not different!

As much sense as your logic makes, that's not the scope of part P and it would not be notfiable.

 

[davesparks]

But where do you draw the line?
If changing one MCB is not notifiable, is changing two notifiable?
How about 4? Or changing all of the MCBs in a board? Or changing an mcb for an RCBO?

 

[Andy78]

But where do you draw the line?
If changing one MCB is not notifiable, is changing two notifiable?
How about 4? Or changing all of the MCBs in a board? Or changing an mcb for an RCBO?

You draw the line where part P says you draw the line which, wrong or right, is there in black and white.

 

[Meggerman]

But where do you draw the line?
If changing one MCB is not notifiable, is changing two notifiable?
How about 4? Or changing all of the MCBs in a board? Or changing an mcb for an RCBO?

The Line is drawn. It is not a new circuit, it is not notifiable. However is does require certification.

 

[Plonker 3]

It is not a new circuit,.

But what if the OP is converting 2 radials to a RFC? That would be creating a new circuit.

 

[davesparks]

How is a circuit defined in terms of an installation?

 

[Meggerman]

But what if the OP is converting 2 radials to a RFC? That would be creating a new circuit.

I can see where you are coming from, but me personally, a new circuit that I sign of as new is new cable from the DB. I would consider it a modification and in this case it maybe a broken ring but OP has not confirmed rn & r2 yet AFAIK. Out of interest, would you genuinely notify on this.... really?

 

[Meggerman]

Dave, I can see your point too, but is it really new? Also, out of interest, would you personally notify on this one?

 

[davesparks]

Yes I would notify and have in similar circumstances.

To be specific when finding a fault on a ring and converting to 2 x radial ccts by disconnecting the damaged cable where raplacement was not feasable. I converted it to 1x20A radial and 1x 16A radial, as far as I am concerned that is 2x new ccts.

 

[Meggerman]

Yes I would notify and have in similar circumstances.

To be specific when finding a fault on a ring and converting to 2 x radial ccts by disconnecting the damaged cable where raplacement was not feasable. I converted it to 1x20A radial and 1x 16A radial, as far as I am concerned that is 2x new ccts.

Ok, fair enough. If OP's situation turns out to be broken ring and he rectifies break and installs 32A MCB, would you notify that?

 

[Plonker 3]

If it's a like for like replacement no, same route same size cable . But the OP hasn't confirmed anything yet.

 

[Meggerman]

If it's a like for like replacement no, same route same size cable . But the OP hasn't confirmed anything yet.

We need to wait for OP to get back or this thread is gonna be longer than UKSparks and his Gas Pipe

 

[Rockingit]

Yes, I would notify. Because:

Section 0, Table 1 (Work that need NOT be notified)

Notes -
(a) On condition that the replacement cable has the same current-carrying capacity and follows the same route
(b) If the circuit's protective measures are unaffected

By reconnecting the two cables to create a RFC you directly affect (a) and in changing the OCPD you affect (b).

Now, before you all jump on the bandwagon and make comments about the specific lines those notes refer to, I think it's fairly clear what is actually meant, even though as badly worded as you'll usually find in any Government document.

 

[Rockingit]

If it's a like for like replacement no, same route same size cable . But the OP hasn't confirmed anything yet.

It's not like for like! It's changing a 20A OCPD for a 32/30A OCPD with completely different Zs limits to comply with ADS.