Dodgy trade pictures for your amusement! - 1 Million Views!

[Darkwood]

Right ... Just been nudged to set this up by Paul.M and sounds a good idea following recent threads I've done in the Arms..

Rules....No Offensive material... edit if required before posting as this is the public arena.
Anything to do with the trade or in and around it ...H&S pic's welcome.



I've posted this a few times and this is at a mates house following a kitchen refirb several yrs ago. mg_smile:

 

[timhoward]

Could you explain more what the problem is because i'm not getting it. I'm a soon-to-be trainee and eager to learn.

In more detail the argument goes something like this:
There's a reg that's new in 18th edition (536.4.203) which refers to components that are used in consumer units and says they must only be those that have been declared suitable for that purpose by the manufacturer of the assembly. It goes on to say in a note that you can do what you like but you assume responsibilities of the manufacturer by doing so. (paraphrased, don't have BS7671 here)
So any time you introduce a component into a consumer unit, whether the manufacturer intended it to be there comes into play.
Furthermore in this case, while it looks as though the breakers and RCD are all friendly co-operative parts, we can't say the bus bar is definitely original and can't say that the link cables are. We can't say how the manufacturer intended the components to be arranged. For example it might be that the RCD is designed to sit at the RH end and gets warm by design on the RH side. Having it at LH end might unduly heat up an MCB. Who knows?!
CEF do sell a modern Legrand main switch which may or may not be approved and tested by Legrand to sit next to the older design breakers, one end or other.

Bottom line, there isn't a black and white answer here in my view. Some would be happy to throw it together and quantify and accept the risk. Others would understandably prefer to replace the CU with an approved configuration of certified parts according to the manufacturers instructions and have some comeback from them if it catches fire.

 

[Electrics]

In more detail the argument goes something like this:
There's a reg that's new in 18th edition (536.4.203) which refers to components that are used in consumer units and says they must only be those that have been declared suitable for that purpose by the manufacturer of the assembly. It goes on to say in a note that you can do what you like but you assume responsibilities of the manufacturer by doing so. (paraphrased, don't have BS7671 here)
So any time you introduce a component into a consumer unit, whether the manufacturer intended it to be there comes into play.
Furthermore in this case, while it looks as though the breakers and RCD are all friendly co-operative parts, we can't say the bus bar is definitely original and can't say that the link cables are. We can't say how the manufacturer intended the components to be arranged. For example it might be that the RCD is designed to sit at the RH end and gets warm by design on the RH side. Having it at LH end might unduly heat up an MCB. Who knows?!
CEF do sell a modern Legrand main switch which may or may not be approved and tested by Legrand to sit next to the older design breakers, one end or other.

Bottom line, there isn't a black and white answer here in my view. Some would be happy to throw it together and quantify and accept the risk. Others would understandably prefer to replace the CU with an approved configuration of certified parts according to the manufacturers instructions and have some comeback from them if it catches fire.

Ah right the explanation about the parts maybe malfunctioning or having undergone stress due to the current config makes sense to me. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Simon47]

... and can't say that the link cables are.

While I can agree with some, most of the rest - I think taking offence that a piece of copper cable isn't original is taking things a bit too far.

 

[GBDamo]

While I can agree with some, most of the rest - I think taking offence that a piece of copper cable isn't original is taking things a bit too far.

The key is what do you stand to gain?

Saving the customer the cost of a new CU and components, sure, but what do you gain? It's all downside risk, however small.

Now if it was a close friend or family member I may put the effort in to put it right.

But for a paying customer, who'll throw you under the bus the minute something goes wrong, then nah, stick new in.

 

[Mikegh]

There's the assembled parts being suitable individually and as a unit

And then there's the design of the assembly ,so a bad design here

 

[ipf]

Engineer is an extremely loose term sometimes

Hence the inverted commas....'engineers'.

It might be all about engineering different ways of throwing IT cables in.

 

[telectrix]

if you insure with direct line, they can get you an electricain, a plumber, and a "drainage engineer". since when did a shyte shifter deserve such a title?

 

[Mikegh]

I think I've got it...it only makes sense if there's a break in the bus bar behind the mortar though.
Otherwise the RCD would trip if the far right breaker that reverse feeds the non-protected half was on.
Special!

View attachment 89132

Theres a gap ,i think u have it right on the busbar

That's the feed terminated in bottom of 32amp mcb and looped across to RCD ?

32amp mcb feeds lighting ways and RCD is direct off supply, daft arrangement if that's it

 

[Electrics]

if you insure with direct line, they can get you an electricain, a plumber, and a "drainage engineer". since when did a shyte shifter deserve such a title?

Hey my old man was a 'glass maintenance technician'.

 

[pc1966]

In more detail the argument goes something like this:
There's a reg that's new in 18th edition (536.4.203) which refers to components that are used in consumer units and

The regs are more general, it is really a reference to any assembly of electrical parts. In the domestic world that really comes down to the CU, but beyond that it really applies to anything to put together to do a job in an installation.

Some aspects of the standards cited are only applicable to big systems (forget the details but over 100A at least) where it covers aspects like would busbars bend under huge fault currents, etc, etc. But generally the way it is interpreted is as @timhoward say - stick to a supplier's pre-assembled CU or at least the list of parts they declare as compatible.

While I am normally happy with sane and reasoned attempts to replace difficult parts instead of ripping the whole lot out, when presented with something like that I would agree with @westward10 and feel very uneasy at re-using something obviously bodged and of unknown provenance. Especailly as the cost of fixing it properly would be dominated by the skilled time, not by the likes of a budget Fusebox (or similar) CU where it is known to be as specified..

 

[James]

Hey my old man was a 'glass maintenance technician'.

in my younger days, I used to maintain glasses, plates and cutlery in our local pub.
i don't recall many of my colleagues referring to me as an engineer or technician!!!!

 

[pc1966]

i don't recall many of my colleagues referring to me as an engineer or technician!!!!

As an artist perhaps?

I could be slightly more specific...

 

[Electrics]

in my younger days, I used to maintain glasses, plates and cutlery in our local pub.
i don't recall many of my colleagues referring to me as an engineer or technician!!!!

If I listed them, most of the would look like this f*ing **

My old man had to buy hundreds of pennies worth of equipment too. He only needed 3 tools though. One was a large volume moisture retaining vessel, one was the rubber-tipped water vapour scraper and the most important tool was the multicellular water dispensing unit which could be used to effectively maintain the glass. Technical stuff.

 

[Electrics]

The regs are more general, it is really a reference to any assembly of electrical parts. In the domestic world that really comes down to the CU, but beyond that it really applies to anything to put together to do a job in an installation.

Some aspects of the standards cited are only applicable to big systems (forget the details but over 100A at least) where it covers aspects like would busbars bend under huge fault currents, etc, etc. But generally the way it is interpreted is as @timhoward say - stick to a supplier's pre-assembled CU or at least the list of parts they declare as compatible.

While I am normally happy with sane and reasoned attempts to replace difficult parts instead of ripping the whole lot out, when presented with something like that I would agree with @westward10 and feel very uneasy at re-using something obviously bodged and of unknown provenance. Especailly as the cost of fixing it properly would be dominated by the skilled time, not by the likes of a budget Fusebox (or similar) CU where it is known to be as specified..

I didn't take any of this into account. An important lesson for me going forward so thanks guys for explaining it.

 

[telectrix]

My old man had to buy hundreds of pennies worth of equipment too. He only needed 3 tools though. One was a large volume moisture retaining vessel, one was the rubber-tipped water vapour scraper and the most important tool was the multicellular water dispensing unit which could be used to effectively maintain the glass. Technical stuff.

 

[Electrics]

?

 

[littlespark]

I’m proud to be a “negative electron logistics consultant”

 

[pc1966]

I didn't take any of this into account. An important lesson for me going forward so thanks guys for explaining it.

No worries.

Though looking at that example it is not the 'modified CU' aspect that bothers me most, it is the obvious lack of knowledge/care in installing it that rings alarm bells. There are a lot of circuits coming off what looks like 4mm T&E and even without totalling up loads, etc, you start to wonder "was this actually designed at all?" from the point of view of total load and any requirements for selectivity so faults have a reasonable chance of being isolated to the circuit responsible.

So it is more than changing the CU, it is looking at the whole installation and trying to figure out what is needed and how best to do it for the client.

 

[pc1966]

I’m proud to be a “negative electron logistics consultant”

Just hope you never meet a positive electron logistics consultant!

 

[Mikegh]

The issues for me looking at that board

Supply to the board doesn't look adequate

No isolation on the board

Non standard method of wrong the breakers, dunno what the rules are on that
They may be identical top and bottom and work both ways but when i switch off an mcb I expect the top to be dead here

Probably more issues

 

[Mikegh]

And that nonsense with the load split across an RCD and a 32amp mcb

No sense to it

 

[Mike Johnson]

They may be identical top and bottom and work both ways but when i switch off an mcb I expect the top to be dead here

No chance of working in Europe then or on three phase.

 

[Mikegh]

No chance of working in Europe then or on three phase.

No but in that case

 

[Mike Johnson]

Would you dare to use patten parts on your car instead of the OM products?

 

[Julie.]

Just hope you never meet a positive electron logistics consultant!

Speaking as a consultant, I think you will find that's a positron logistics consultant.

My fee will be in the post, usual payment arrangements....