two radials into an RCBO

[John-SJW]

No spare ways in the consumer unit. There are two low current radials on their own RCBOs. Do the regs forbid putting the two radials onto the same RCBO - that is two L wires into the one RCBO?

 

[Lucien Nunes]

I believe the point is to specify the general configuration and function of a distribution board-based system rather than to define how many cables comprise each circuit. For example, it prohibits the 'tree system' where one main cable runs through every room in the house, with a fuseholder in each room tapping off that room's supply. This was popular in the early days of wiring. It also prohibits final circuits being paralleled up with distribution circuits and other random topologies.

 

[littlespark]

I’ve just been in the BBB, looking at fig 15A and B, Spurs and fused spurs off ring and radial circuits. Although doesn’t mention 1.5mm on a 6A, but it does say……

 

[DPG]

Weve been here before John. You've asked a question, received lots of good responses saying it's OK, and ow seem to want to argue the ---- using lots of bold writing and accusing people of not understanding English.

 

[DPG]

I’ve just been in the BBB, looking at fig 15A and B, Spurs and fused spurs off ring and radial circuits. Although doesn’t mention 1.5mm on a 6A, but it does say……

View attachment 86831

Absolutely, nothing wrong with that. Same circuit, just a spur.

 

[westward10]

Weve been here before John. You've asked a question, received lots of good responses saying it's OK, and ow seem to want to argue the ---- using lots of bold writing and accusing people of not understanding English.

I don't think it's okay?

 

[DPG]

I don't think it's okay?

Ah, fair point. Sorry.
Would you never connect a 2nd cable to the OCPD od a radial circuit then?

 

[westward10]

Ah, fair point. Sorry.
Would you never connect a 2nd cable to the OCPD od a radial circuit then?

No your honour ?

 

[DPG]

No your honour ?

Ah well, at least you didn't use bold text to tell me ?

 

[GBDamo]

I’ve just been in the BBB, looking at fig 15A and B, Spurs and fused spurs off ring and radial circuits. Although doesn’t mention 1.5mm on a 6A, but it does say……

View attachment 86831

Well that clears it up.

I know that refers to a ring but it confirms the principle of a spur at source is approved but the Bible.

 

[John-SJW]

The crux of this lies in whether its acceptable to spur from the supply source of the final circuit to extend the circuit.
Consider this, would it be acceptable to spur off the circuit cable inside the CU using an appropriate junction connection?

What you are saying is that two final circuits can be joined, with one being a spur or sub of the other. The spur point just happens to be at the source - the way. Sorry the text is clear on that. No ambiguity. I even underlined the words.

 

[John-SJW]

Both sides of this debate are, after all, opinions.

No opinions involved. The text is abundantly clear. I advise many to swot up on English.

 

[DPG]

No opinions involved. The text is abundantly clear. I advise many to swot up on English.

I advise you speak to people with respect, rather than repeatedly asserting that your opinion is gospel and that other people don't understand English.

If you know the answer already then why ask the question? Or was it just to create an argument?

 

[nicebutdim]

To paraphrase Father Jack; this appears to be an ecuminical matter.

 

[John-SJW]

Weve been here before John. You've asked a question, received lots of good responses saying it's OK, and ow seem to want to argue the ---- using lots of bold writing and accusing people of not understanding English.

As a university graduate who had to extensively use and read English in studying and professionally all my life, I know simple English. I have written reams of technical documents and edited many others. It appears many cannot grasp something so fundamentally simple. Those who do not know English too well will ride along with the mob.

The text is abundantly clear - two final circuits cannot be connected to one way in and CU.

 

[Lucien Nunes]

We have two loads, A & B connected electrically in parallel to a DB way. The cables connecting them in parallel can run either [A-DB-B] or [DB-A-B]. The electrical implications of the two configurations are plain to see and don't seem to be in dispute. The argument is whether these two configurations have different textual descriptions, and therefore whether one of them is prohibited by a regulation.

In the meantime, people are connecting showers to RFCs, leaving CU busbar screws loose, running switch lines down the bare core of T+E, and being paid for it.