Nuts for RCDs!

[Dan23584]

Has anyone else experienced other sparks going nuts for RCD's and thinking they are required for pretty much everything?

I recently did the installation at my local CEF branch and had another spark telling me I should have fitted a dual RCD board! I reminded him that the install was in trunking and conduit ( no less than 50mm issue) and also not in a domestic situation. All sockets were in The office, apart form an outside RCD socket and a couple of sockets in the warehouse that were on an rcbo ( they were near the door to outside).

He still said "well I think it's good practice to fit them in most situations for optimising protection". I just bot my tongue told him to check his regs book and went on about my merry way.

 

[Jimmy Boy]

an employee , whilst in the work place , is not an ordinary person but an instructed person , under the supervision of the duty holder.
but i get your drift JB. ;-)

Why Biff ? Under definitions in the regs 'instructed Person' is A person adequately advised or supervised by skilled persons, to enable him/her to avoid dangers which electricity may create.

A 'Skilled' person is someone that has technical knowledge of or sufficient knowledge of electricity to avoid dangers that electricity may create.

How many employees fall in to either category ? Not many I bet ! LOL
J

 

[UNG]

Reading this, Makes me wonder how we have all survived without RCD devices over all these years... We should all be dead or frightened to switch a light or socket on...lol!!

I'm with Dan on this one, far too much reliance on the all singing, all dancing ''Cover All'' RCD devices these day's. They are NOT always required on every circuit and in every situation...

I was thinking the same, I was taught that an RCD (ELCB as they were then) was a secondary protection device and I still consider them as secondary protection seen too many of these things not trip when they should to put total faith in them

Myself yes I would.

Do the items plugged in need PAT? That makes them portable.

What happens when the manager is off work, out of the office etc ? Too many variables in a office to say only one person has to be competant.

Not sure what PAT has got to do with RCD's or are we just trying to cover up for the bad PAT testing that appears to be the norm these days

 

[Guest55]

why ?
because the duty holder does not have to be electrically skilled to supervise users of his installation - just to be aware of the potential risks.
because the duty holder is governed by the Electricity at Work Regulations , not bs7671.

 

[Jimmy Boy]

why ?
because the duty holder does not have to be electrically skilled to supervise users of his installation - just to be aware of the potential risks.
because the duty holder is governed by the Electricity at Work Regulations , not bs7671.

I agree Biff in this case the statutory document takes precedent over the non statutory, not sure it makes them 'Instructed' tho..
but I get your drift
J

 

[Guest55]

not sure it makes them 'Instructed' tho..
but I get your drift
J

well if you , the installing electrician and a skilled person , instructs the duty holder in how to safely manage use of his sockets then he becomes instructed doesnt he ?
:-D

 

[johnboy6083]

When I installed the Dado sockets for the our companies office before the staff moved in, I decided to have them on MCB,s and not under RCD protection. There were already existing RCD protected sockets lower down on the wall which I designated dirty sockets, for heaters, fans and the cleaner. All circuits in the kitchen are RCD protected ect.

Obviously we definately have skilled persons looking after the installation, but I'd there weren't, then I would still install in the same way.

 

[Jimmy Boy]

well if you , the installing electrician and a skilled person , instructs the duty holder in how to safely manage use of his sockets then he becomes instructed doesnt he ?
:-D

Possibly lol..I can't say I remember seeing that in the EAWR or are we back to 7671 this time ? LOL !

J

 

[Guest55]

well i'd expect a "competant" designer to consider any and all regulations that may apply to the use of his planned installation , not just bs7671.
im bowing out of this thread now JB , i cant make my explanations any clearer can i ?

 

[Jimmy Boy]

I think you have made a valuable contribution Biff thanks
J

 

[shagbite]

Did you use a Proteus board then lol

you want to see the last proteus board that i took out. i've no idea how the place didn't burn to the ground. if i knew how to upload photo's i'd show you. got any tips?

 

[sparks1973]

Has anyone else experienced other sparks going nuts for RCD's and thinking they are required for pretty much everything?

I recently did the installation at my local CEF branch and had another spark telling me I should have fitted a dual RCD board! I reminded him that the install was in trunking and conduit ( no less than 50mm issue) and also not in a domestic situation. All sockets were in The office, apart form an outside RCD socket and a couple of sockets in the warehouse that were on an rcbo ( they were near the door to outside).

He still said "well I think it's good practice to fit them in most situations for optimising protection". I just bot my tongue told him to check his regs book and went on about my merry way.

suppose its a `cure all`...1667 n all that lot...lol...

 

[Jimmy Boy]

suppose its a `cure all`...1667 n all that lot...lol...

'Eh ? I don't think so ! Not on this installation !

 

[malcolmsanford]

'Eh ? I don't think so ! Not on this installation !

Zs value for a 30mA RCD is 1667 .................on any installation

 

[Jimmy Boy]

Zs value for a 30mA RCD is 1667 .................on any installation

Yep ! Not on any installation only those circuits in an installation that has RCD protection, the 1667 thing is often 'qouted' as a max, if you look at table 41.5 it is clear for any professional to see that this figure relates to a TT system where a satisfactory Zs cannot be achieved, and with the warning that a value> 200 ohms may be unstable,the 1667 should never be used as an excuse to circumvent table 41.3

J

 

[Dan23584]

That's for all the input guys, sorry but I'm now on holiday with limited/unreliable Internet so have had a little trouble reading all the posts.