Two cables connected to mcb

[Jay89]

Evening All

Im sure this will have been discussed at some point (if so please point me to a relevant thread)

I have been to look at some remedial work where a previous inspector has flagged up on multiple circuits 'DBx Cx has two cables in mcb, need separating - C2'

These circuits are either lighting or radial power circuits supplying a small amount of sockets. All suitably rated and with decent R1+R2 readings.

I have never seen this to be worthy of a mention let alone a C2 code, i have spoken to my CPS technical and they said they cant see an issue. Just looking for anyone else's opinion

Thanks in advance!

 

[westward10]

Old argument and my mind is not swayed, I agree with the Report the OP has but not the Coding.

 

[davesparks]

Old argument and my mind is not swayed, I agree with the Report the OP has but not the Coding.

Yes an old argument, and one where you persistently ignore the bs7671 definition of a circuit, and have yet to provide the definition of a circuit which you work to.

 

[westward10]

Yes yes yes heard all this and 314-01-04 refers to final circuit, I will not be swayed by sideway interpretations.

 

[Andy78]

Yes yes yes heard all this and 314-01-04 refers to final circuit, I will not be swayed by sideway interpretations.

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

 

[Octopus]

This is literally the extent of it, code 2 because as they put it two circuits supplied by one MCB.

I would C3 it, two final circuits require individual circuit protection.

Me thinks westward10 did the EICR.....

 

[Octopus]

Why aren't you soaking up the sun, and drinking those lite beers the Yanks favour, instead of wasting your time on here. Holiday of a life time you said!!

Yup... Very true, but there's good wifi in the parks and there's time in the queues....

It's 32 here now and we've just got back to the villa..... And I've just had a dip in the pool. It'll be beer o'clock very soon, not rubbish yank beer though....

 

[davesparks]

Yes yes yes heard all this and 314-01-04 refers to final circuit, I will not be swayed by sideway interpretations.

I don't think my interpretation is sideways, the definition of a circuit is clear, as is the regulation I think you are referring to, For the sake of avoiding ambiguity lets just call it the whole of 314.

You still have not provided any clear definition of a circuit which you are referring to, nor any clear regulation which prohibits a circuit having two branches, or two legs, being fed from the middle of the circuit, etc.

As it stands, if you were carrying out an eicr on an installation I had designed with a circuit of this nature then I think my lawyers would be ripping you a new one by now.

 

[westward10]

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

 

[Deleted member 9648]

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.

 

[telectrix]

fight ! handbags at dawn.

 

[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?