Two cables connected to mcb

[Deleted member 9648]

fight ! handbags at dawn.

Ooher!
No handbags but I think Westwards needs to bear in mind that the type of code he is suggesting may result in a needless DB change just to gain ways.....

 

[westward10]

You must be on a wind up quoting reg numbers from the 16th

Wrist slapped, I was quoting from the top of my head which is generally empty.

 

[westward10]

Westward your argument has as much logic as the neutrals in switches argument. Some people just seem to stick their head in the sand and ignore facts.
You seem to admit that it complies with 7671 and yet insist on coding it!
You need to remember that coding can cost the occupier money, a lot of money. Unless you can justify a safety issue or a departure you CANT code.
Coding because of your personal views is simply unacceptable.

Don't recall suggesting it complied with BS7671 nor is it a personal view. I read Reg 314.4 that each final circuit should be given individual circuit protection that is it which I C3.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Ok. No point in going round in circles.

 

[charlie76]

I am of the same opinion as @davesparks on this. It is one circuit no matter where the circuit is supplied from. If you have 2 radials in one MCB it is still one circuit with the supply to that circuit in the middle rather than at the end. If you consider the practicality of it, it actually is also safer. Consider you loose earth continuity on on leg of the circuit for whatever reason, the other leg of the circuit maintains its earth continuity. Also reduced loading if having 2 radials to the circuit means the overall length is reduced.

My interpretation of 314 and specifically in this case 314.4 is that for example you had 2 circuits, say upstairs lighting and downstairs lighting, these should not be connected to one MCB.

I would say it is down to the design and interpretation as to whether they should be separate circuits. If in the OP's case both radials in the MCB served a defined area (lets say downstairs) and the breaker is labelled so then I would personally say that is the downstairs lighting circuit. If one radial served the downstairs and the other radial served a light in the loft I would perhaps code it as C3 as there is a risk here of indirectly energising a final circuit intended to be isolated.

On a tangent: Why does a BRITISH standard have an American spelling of energising?

 

[GMES]

...........

 

[ChrisElectrical88]

I note it on the certificate as for example in conductor sizes 3x1.5 3x1.0 and note that in some cases more than one conductor is terminated into one protective device and this is how it can be noticed.

I know a lot of people who C3 this

 

[ChrisElectrical88]

Never a C2, someone was after a dist board change.

However if I am changing a CU for other reasons I will ensure there is enough ways to seperate these out.

Also as Westward says, this is normally cause someone has lashed a extra circuit in and can't be arsed

 

[andyb]

Don't recall suggesting it complied with BS7671 nor is it a personal view. I read Reg 314.4 that each final circuit should be given individual circuit protection that is it which I C3.

So 2 rooms with say 3 sockets in each room,

Each room fed from it's own mcb ok (1 conductor in mcb)
Both rooms wired on the same ring ok (2 conductors in mcb)
Room 1 wired as a radial with room 2 spurred from any socket in room 1 ok (1 conductor in mcb)
Both rooms on same circuit but wired independently back to the same mcb not ok (2 conductors in mcb)

 

[davesparks]

Final circuit, and yes I will still C3 it lawyers or no lawyers.

You can't just state 'final circuit' without giving a definition for it.
How do you define what constitutes a final circuit and, crucially to this debate,what does not constitute a single final circuit.

At the moment it appears that your definition includes a requirement that a final circuit must only have one conductor at the ocpd.

If there is a 1' piece of cable connected from the ocpd to a JB and then two cables leave that JB to each serve two sockets, is that one circuit or two?

 

[davesparks]

Don't recall suggesting it complied with BS7671 nor is it a personal view. I read Reg 314.4 that each final circuit should be given individual circuit protection that is it which I C3.

I read the reg exactly the same, it is not that reg which is at debate, it is the definition of a circuit.

If the two cables were not both serving sockets, lets say one feeds sockets and the other a pillar drill, then I would be inclined to agree with you. But when both cables are serving sockets, and if there is no overload as a result of the number of sockets, then I see nothing to comment on.

 

[westward10]

You can't just state 'final circuit' without giving a definition for it.
How do you define what constitutes a final circuit and, crucially to this debate,what does not constitute a single final circuit.

At the moment it appears that your definition includes a requirement that a final circuit must only have one conductor at the ocpd.

If there is a 1' piece of cable connected from the ocpd to a JB and then two cables leave that JB to each serve two sockets, is that one circuit or two?

See "definitions".

 

[westward10]

I read the reg exactly the same, it is not that reg which is at debate, it is the definition of a circuit.

If the two cables were not both serving sockets, lets say one feeds sockets and the other a pillar drill, then I would be inclined to agree with you. But when both cables are serving sockets, and if there is no overload as a result of the number of sockets, then I see nothing to comment on.

Your latter statement is somewhat contradictory and why you keep harping on about definition of circuit whilst it is the Reg to which I debate I have no idea.

 

[Bobster]

See "definitions".

"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."

 

[Deleted member 9648]

As far as I'm concerned if you take two separate lighting circuits on two separate mcb's, and connect them together into one mcb then they become a single circuit. As long as the schedule and board are correctly labelled and identified there is no issue. It may be claimed that this could result in confusion, anyone confused by a correctly identified circuit consisting of two radials linked at the OCPD shouldn't be touching it in the first place.

 

[DPG]

How would you code an RFC which also has a spur fed from the same MCB, ie. at the consumer unit? Refer to on-site guide and and Appendix 15 regs before answering.
The answer is: nothing wrong with it - it's one circuit.

 

[Tuttle]

The On Site Guide (page 71) says you can connect a non-fused spur from a ring final circuit "at the origin of the circuit in the distribution board", which I think would mean three conductors in the MCB and would look like a ring and a radial connected to the same protective device.

If spurring off a ring final inside a consumer unit is allowed then surely having a radial go off in two or more different directions from a consumer unit is ok as well.

What if you add a light or a socket in an under stairs cupboard near the consumer unit, surely you can connect that to an existing lighting or socket circuit in the consumer unit.

 

[Tuttle]

How would you code an RFC which also has a spur fed from the same MCB, ie. at the consumer unit? Refer to on-site guide and and Appendix 15 regs before answering.
The answer is: nothing wrong with it - it's one circuit.

You beat me to it

 

[davesparks]

Your latter statement is somewhat contradictory and why you keep harping on about definition of circuit whilst it is the Reg to which I debate I have no idea.

What are you debating about the reg? The reg requires that each circuit be fed from a separate way. It does not make any mention of the number of cables which can be connected to an ocpd, merely the number of circuits.
In order to comply with this reg you must have a definition of what a circuit is, otherwise the reg is meaningless.

In definitions a circuit is defined as:
"An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected against overcurrent by the same protective device(s)"
A final circuit is defined as:
"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."

Neither of these makes any mention of the number of cables which make up a circuit.

 

[westward10]

Sounds like there is a lot of lashing on going on.