More than one circuit on a breaker; what code, plz!

[topquark]

yeah....thats what i was getting at in post 23 TQ......

You know I have the attention span of a goldfish mate

 

[GaryM]

[FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]

so the board would be a 4 anyway unless the bathroom is fed from this board without any RCD protection and no supplementary bonding....then its a 2.....

[/FONT]


The board itself is a code 4 or 2 due to what the circuits supply?
I'd totally dismiss a PIR if I saw a comment like that on it.

 

[GaryM]

It's two circuits up until the point it's inserted into the breaker, that's the point in time it becomes one circuit.

So if it's a RFC with a spur fed from the origin then you consider that to be 2 circuits after the MCB/fuse?
It's one circuit.

 

[topquark]

So if it's a RFC with a spur fed from the origin then you consider that to be 2 circuits after the MCB/fuse?
It's one circuit.

No, I wouldn't. Neither is that what I said.

 

[topquark]

In case it's not clear what I'm saying, (it's probably not). The difference is in the dead versus live testing. You SHOULD dead test as two circuits and live test as one.....that'll cause some more debate!

 

[GaryM]

At what point does a single protective device supply 2 circuits, bearing in mind the definition of 'circuit'?

Edit - you posted clarity above as I was typing this.

 

[topquark]

At what point does a single protective device supply 2 circuits, bearing in mind the definition of 'circuit'?

Edit - you posted clarity above as I was typing this.

It doesn't ever, have you read what I posted yet (properly!)?

 

[GLENNSPARK]

The board itself is a code 4 or 2 due to what the circuits supply?
I'd totally dismiss a PIR if I saw a comment like that on it.

Read the post Gary.....no supplementary bonding and no RCD.......

 

[morph]

In case it's not clear what I'm saying, (it's probably not). The difference is in the dead versus live testing. You SHOULD dead test as two circuits and live test as one.....that'll cause some more debate!

Hi TQ
why would you test as two circuits for dead testing?
cheers

 

[GaryM]

It doesn't ever, have you read what I posted yet (properly!)?

Just this

It's two circuits up until the point it's inserted into the breaker, that's the point in time it becomes one circuit.

You consider a change from 2 to 1 circuit at somepoint.

 

[topquark]

Hi TQ
why would you test as two circuits for dead testing?
cheers

Because that's how they were designed in the first place, they only become one circuit when they are placed into the common breaker.

 

[GaryM]

Read the post Gary.....no supplementary bonding and no RCD.......

That's a defect for the circuit(s), not the board in general.

 

[topquark]

Just this



You consider a change from 2 to 1 circuit at somepoint.

Yes GaryM, if I was to consider the circumstances under which someone (who remains nameless) decided to put two separate circuits into one breaker, that's exactly how I would test it dead. Of course if it's say an RFC with spur then Zs etc would most likely be higher on the spur portion, but that would be derived from the live testing of the circuit (singular). Most likely this would be a temporary solution and at some point the expectation would be to separate them, hence I would test it accordingly.

 

[Goody]

Just for clarification, someone spurred off from the RFC at the breaker to install a socket in the kitchen (under the kitchen units) to feed the boiler, the pictures show the cable route. Cheers!

​

 

[GLENNSPARK]

That's a defect for the circuit(s), not the board in general.

so if extranious conductive parts in the bathroom for instance (pipework) are not given supplementary bonding in an installation being fed from a non RCD protected board thats not a 2 is it? and does the board feeding it not require improvement?...or at least put an RCD connection unit to feed the bathroom circuit/s....then the board becomes a 4.....