Up front 100mA s type Rcd on a TT system.

[raysheehan]

Hi all,
Can anyone clarify whether it is O.k to remove a 100mA type s (time delay) Rcd which is upfront of a ammendment 3 splt load 30mA Rcd protected db, and replace it with a isolator? I can't seem to find a reference in the regs book. Any help would be great.
Thanks.

 

[telectrix]

why do you want to remove it. it is there to protect the tails both external and internal to the metal CU.

 

[Midwest]

Have a shufty, in the yellow OSG page 33.

 

[raysheehan]

Thanks guys, that's the kind of info I am after.

 

[Bobster]

If you use the search function within the forum. There are tons of threads on this subject you can pick information on.

 

[raysheehan]

OK thanks Rob. I wont bother posting any more threads, I'll just spend hours looking for the answers! my thread was responded to in less than 10 mins. Hmm!

 

[bigspark17]

Its great to have the answe posted to you but you need to search this yourself.

Why do you think the time delay is there?
Many will say yes aslong as you use correct gland ect to ensure the tails dont come in contact with enclosure but i strongly belive it should be kept in place for fault protection on sometimes poor electrode readings.

 

[Bobster]

OK thanks Rob. I wont bother posting any more threads, I'll just spend hours looking for the answers! my thread was responded to in less than 10 mins. Hmm!

Real great attitude you have there.

Yes you got your question answered, it was in case you fancied looking up the whys and hows.

 

[D Skelton]

I can hear the sound of hooves...

 

[Midwest]

Its great to have the answe posted to you but you need to search this yourself.

Why do you think the time delay is there?
Many will say yes aslong as you use correct gland ect to ensure the tails dont come in contact with enclosure but i strongly belive it should be kept in place for fault protection on sometimes poor electrode readings.

The propriety gland won't prevent accidental contact of the inner single insulated manufactures tails inside a dual RCD CU. Just saying.

 

[Midwest]

Easy chaps, thought this forum was for asking questions and advice, albeit OP could of not been a bit more conciliatory

 

[raysheehan]

Thought this forum was for discussion and help. I must have come to the wrong place, as for some, it's a chance to beat their Chest and let the rest of the electrical world know they know more! Thanks for your help.
I'm gonna get on my horse and get well away from this site/

 

[Midwest]

 

[Ian1981]

Hi all,
Can anyone clarify whether it is O.k to remove a 100mA type s (time delay) Rcd which is upfront of a ammendment 3 splt load 30mA Rcd protected db, and replace it with a isolator? I can't seem to find a reference in the regs book. Any help would be great.
Thanks.

Leave it as the time delay will protect the internal manufacturers tail links between rcds and main switch if they short out on the metal enclosure.

 

[Rpa07]

@raysheehan, sorry that you took the replies wrongly - on the archives, there is every possible answer to most questions.
If you indeed did the search first then I'm sure apologies will come but if you posted the question before any search then it's often said, "we don't do people's homework for them".
Stay on the forum - it's worth it.

 

[bigspark17]

The propriety gland won't prevent accidental contact of the inner single insulated manufactures tails inside a dual RCD CU. Just saying.

Could be an all rcbo cu

 

[Midwest]

Could be an all rcbo cu

OP said 'split load 30mA Rcd protected db', which I take to be dual RCD. But I'm not here to split hairs, unlike some

 

[7029 dave]

Beat my guest.!