type fitted breakers

[MG201]

i see that in the 18th edition there is now a coding for type fitting , i have been coding any mix and match breakers as code 2 , after contacting lots of manufacturers there guidance is always that they have not type tested any other manufacturers products for there boards, as we know many breakers are manufactured in the same factories and then branded afterwards so they are the exact same product except for branding, when this is the case i code it as a code 3 , would this be the correct logic or shouyld it be code 2 all the way ?

 

[westward10]

Where does the 18th state this?

 

[Octopus]

Why would you give a C2 for a different manufacturers MCB?

 

[westward10]

Depends on how it fits or is fitted there is no single way to define a Code.

 

[Pete999]

Where does the 18th state this?

I believe the OP is correct, but I have no reg number to quote you, as I don't have a copy yet.

 

[sham]

Then that means that it fails if it is a c2, if not replaced for like for like mcb. I have to say being a electrician now is more pain than it's worth. Some mcbs are hard to get a hold of.

 

[westward10]

I believe the OP is correct, but I have no reg number to quote you, as I don't have a copy yet.

Be interesting to know where in the 18th there is a Coding for it.

 

[sham]

Be interesting to know where in the 18th there is a Coding for it.

I do not think the Reg books work in that way, unless 18th is different.
More likely be mentioned in Guidance note 3, Inspection and Testing.

 

[Pete999]

I do not think the Reg books work in that way, unless 18th is different.
More likely be mentioned in Guidance note 3, Inspection and Testing.

If it's a new regulation then it should be in the BS not an inspection and test guidance, imo, just saying.

 

[Octopus]

I do not think the Reg books work in that way, unless 18th is different.
More likely be mentioned in Guidance note 3, Inspection and Testing.

Which very few people actually buy

Not a reg unless its in the big book

 

[westward10]

I know of only one piece of Coding advice in the 17th which remains for the 18th that when reporting for an EICR you are advised to give the absence of additional rcd protection for older installations the minimum of a Code 3. I am pretty sure I know what he is alluding to though.

 

[sham]

If it's a new regulation then it should be in the BS not an inspection and test guidance, imo, just saying.

Sorry, I mean there is a 18th edition updated guidance note 3. To match the new Regs. I can't imagine it says in the new blue Regs book, codes for different mcbs. The Wiring Regs don't do things like that.

 

[sham]

Sorry, the OP wrote it in the question that there is coding in the 18th. He must have a book and as I do not. So there must be more coding relating topics in the Electricians Bible. An expensive Bible, give it 6 months for a new amendment. £95

 

[Pete999]

I know of only one piece of Coding advice in the 17th which remains for the 18th that when reporting for an EICR you are advised to give the absence of additional rcd protection for older installations the minimum of a Code 3. I am pretty sure I know what he is alluding to though.

No mate I think he is referring to the statement that came out of the NIC presentation that you shouldn't mix makes of OCPDs in the same board.

 

[camerabloke]

Yeah Darren Staniforth said in the ill fated cinema trip. He spent about all of a minute on it. But he did quote a regs number