ARW wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
charles wrote:
In article ,
ARW wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , Doctor Drivel
wrote:

[Snip]

I have!!!! Mandatory and advisory are not the same thing.

....... 314.1 Every installation shall be divided into
circuits, as necessary, to: (i) avoid hazards and minimize
inconvenience in the event of a fault ...

That, I believe, to be the key point. If there is only one
RCD hazards will be created.

I don't believe there is much of a hazard with only one RCD but
there is an inconvenience.

Not an electrical hazard, I agree - but if all the lights go out
when it's dark, there is likely be a hazard in the occupant
negotiating their way to the CU.

Similar to an MCB tripping when a bulb pops then? :-)

So all lights should have their own individual circuit then. Duh!
GU10 lamps trips MCB when they blow. Must be split!!!!!! Yep.

Where machinery is involved then there are hazards if the lights go
out.

What lathes do you have in the kitchen?

Tim Watts wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:


"ARW" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
charles wrote:
In article , Doctor Drivel
wrote:

[Snip]

I have!!!! Mandatory and advisory are not the same thing.

....... 314.1 Every installation shall be divided into
circuits, as necessary, to: (i) avoid hazards and minimize
inconvenience in the event of a fault ...

That, I believe, to be the key point. If there is only one RCD
hazards will be created.

I don't believe there is much of a hazard with only one RCD but
there is an inconvenience.

Hooray!! You are getting it.

But it causes inconvenience. Reg 314.1 (i) applies

It does not. I have explained that in another post.

If your lamp blowing takes out your home ECT and IV meds machines,
it's inconvenient for the rest of us having to listen to your babble.

Ken Dodd eat your heart out.

Doctor Drivel wrote:
ARW wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
charles wrote:
In article ,
ARW wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , Doctor Drivel
wrote:

[Snip]

I have!!!! Mandatory and advisory are not the same
thing.

....... 314.1 Every installation shall be divided into
circuits, as necessary, to: (i) avoid hazards and
minimize inconvenience in the event of a fault ...

That, I believe, to be the key point. If there is only
one RCD hazards will be created.

I don't believe there is much of a hazard with only one RCD
but there is an inconvenience.

Not an electrical hazard, I agree - but if all the lights go
out when it's dark, there is likely be a hazard in the
occupant negotiating their way to the CU.

Similar to an MCB tripping when a bulb pops then? :-)

So all lights should have their own individual circuit then. Duh!
GU10 lamps trips MCB when they blow. Must be split!!!!!! Yep.

Where machinery is involved then there are hazards if the lights go
out.

What lathes do you have in the kitchen?

None. But I do have a concrete mixer in the kitchen.

--
Adam

Doctor Drivel wrote:
ARW wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
charles wrote:
In article , Doctor Drivel
wrote:

[Snip]

I have!!!! Mandatory and advisory are not the same
thing.

....... 314.1 Every installation shall be divided into
circuits, as necessary, to: (i) avoid hazards and
minimize inconvenience in the event of a fault ...

That, I believe, to be the key point. If there is only
one RCD hazards will be created.

I don't believe there is much of a hazard with only one RCD
but there is an inconvenience.

Hooray!! You are getting it.

But it causes inconvenience. Reg 314.1 (i) applies

It does not. I have explained that in another post.

Would you not consider everthing tripping due to one fault an
inconvenience?

I would but we are talking law here. One RCD on a CU meets the 17th.
I prefer RCBOs on all circuits, butb that is just me wanting the
ultimate - not law.

Even where mains powered smoke alarms are fitted?

--
Adam

In article , Doctor Drivel
wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , ARW
wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , Doctor Drivel
wrote:

[Snip]

I have!!!! Mandatory and advisory are not the same thing.

....... 314.1 Every installation shall be divided into circuits,
as necessary, to: (i) avoid hazards and minimize inconvenience in
the event of a fault ...

That, I believe, to be the key point. If there is only one RCD
hazards will be created.

I don't believe there is much of a hazard with only one RCD but there
is an inconvenience.

Not an electrical hazard, I agree - but if all the lights go out when
it's dark, there is likely be a hazard in the occupant negotiating
their way to the CU.

ELECTRICAL HAZARD!!!! Being in teh dark IS NOT an ELECTRICAL HAZARD!!!!

never said it was. But it's still a hazard - which is why buildings open
to the public have emergency lights: To minimise that hazard.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

ARW wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:
ARW wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
charles wrote:
In article , Doctor Drivel
wrote:

[Snip]

I have!!!! Mandatory and advisory are not the same
thing.

....... 314.1 Every installation shall be divided into
circuits, as necessary, to: (i) avoid hazards and
minimize inconvenience in the event of a fault ...

That, I believe, to be the key point. If there is only
one RCD hazards will be created.

I don't believe there is much of a hazard with only one RCD
but there is an inconvenience.

Hooray!! You are getting it.

But it causes inconvenience. Reg 314.1 (i) applies

It does not. I have explained that in another post.

Would you not consider everthing tripping due to one fault an
inconvenience?

I would but we are talking law here. One RCD on a CU meets the 17th.
I prefer RCBOs on all circuits, butb that is just me wanting the
ultimate - not law.

Even where mains powered smoke alarms are fitted?

A mains smoke alarm can have its own circuit and RCBO. It is desirable to do
so.

charles wrote:
In article , Doctor Drivel
wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , ARW
wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , Doctor Drivel
wrote:

[Snip]

I have!!!! Mandatory and advisory are not the same thing.

....... 314.1 Every installation shall be divided into
circuits, as necessary, to: (i) avoid hazards and minimize
inconvenience in the event of a fault ...

That, I believe, to be the key point. If there is only one
RCD hazards will be created.

I don't believe there is much of a hazard with only one RCD but
there is an inconvenience.

Not an electrical hazard, I agree - but if all the lights go out
when it's dark, there is likely be a hazard in the occupant
negotiating their way to the CU.

ELECTRICAL HAZARD!!!! Being in teh dark IS NOT an ELECTRICAL
HAZARD!!!!

never said it was. But it's still a hazard - which is why buildings
open to the public have emergency lights: To minimise that hazard.

Charles, you should have email.


--
Adam

charles wrote:
In article , Doctor Drivel
wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , ARW
wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , Doctor Drivel
wrote:

[Snip]

I have!!!! Mandatory and advisory are not the same thing.

....... 314.1 Every installation shall be divided into circuits,
as necessary, to: (i) avoid hazards and minimize inconvenience in
the event of a fault ...

That, I believe, to be the key point. If there is only one RCD
hazards will be created.

I don't believe there is much of a hazard with only one RCD but
there is an inconvenience.

Not an electrical hazard, I agree - but if all the lights go out
when it's dark, there is likely be a hazard in the occupant
negotiating their way to the CU.

ELECTRICAL HAZARD!!!! Being in teh dark IS NOT an ELECTRICAL
HAZARD!!!!

never said it was. But it's still a hazard

You group all hazards into one group. That is why you are confused and why
many installations are over engineered with greater cost.

In article , Doctor Drivel
wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Doctor Drivel
wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , Doctor Drivel
wrote:

[Snip]

I have!!!! Mandatory and advisory are not the same thing.

....... 314.1 Every installation shall be divided into circuits, as
necessary, to: (i) avoid hazards and minimize inconvenience in the
event of a fault ...

That, I believe, to be the key point. If there is only one RCD
hazards will be created.

Hazards? One RCD creates a hazard? My oh my.

yes, if something on one circuit takes out the single RCD, then all the
lights go out. If it's dark that IS the hazard.

Being in the dark is NOT a hazard. There are battery backup lights for
being in the dark. An electrical hazard means harm by electricity.

An RCD is the last line of defence to prevent bodily harm.

314.2 goes on to say "separate circuits shall be provided .... in
such a way that those circuits are not affected by the failure of
other circuits."

A single RCD covering all circuits would not comply with this.

Tripe. A circuit may fail and the mcb trips and the RCD does not.

But if the RCD does trip?

What if a digger rips up the cable in the road!!!

I wouldn't hire you. I bet you think BS's are the regs as well.

How about BS7671:2008?

British Standards are RECOMMENDATIONS. The Building regs are LAW. Even
the building regs are full recommendations as well.

Didn't think you'd recognise that BS ;-)

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:


You group all hazards into one group. That is why you are confused and
why many installations are over engineered with greater cost.

It is because I regularly do Risk Assessments that I know they all
eventually end up as "Hazard".

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

ARW wrote:


None. But I do have a concrete mixer in the kitchen.

To make the ultimate eccles cake??

--
Tim Watts

Tim Watts wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Put the whole house on 100mA RCD and then use 30mA RCBOs for
selected sockets

That does not meet the 17th edition.

It does. All circuits are RCD protected. Splitting circuits, as
lighting is a value judgment. Would the lights be split
in a 1 or 2 bed flat? No.

But I think the snotty uni fella meant circuits not sockets.

the protection of a 30mA RCD. 100mA RCD is NOT sufficient.

The snooty uni man I am sure meant 30mA RCD. He got a lot right but
muddled.

Tim Watts wrote:
ARW wrote:


None. But I do have a concrete mixer in the kitchen.

To make the ultimate eccles cake??

The FWB asked me to move it from the lounge.

--
Adam

ARW wrote:

Tim Watts wrote:
ARW wrote:


None. But I do have a concrete mixer in the kitchen.

To make the ultimate eccles cake??

The FWB asked me to move it from the lounge.


FBW?

Lounge - is TV that bad?

I told my kids that when I was their age, we only had 3 TV channels and the
neighbour had 2 (VHF TV). I said daytime TV was so bad that sometimes, if
ill off school, I used to sit in the kitchen and watch the washing machine
go round.

I like to give them a good laugh sometimes...

But my son has concluded that 1980's arcade games (on MAME) are better than
anything he's seen that's modern.

--
Tim Watts

charles wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:


You group all hazards into one group. That is why you are confused
and why many installations are over engineered with greater cost.

It is because I regularly do Risk Assessments that I know they all
eventually end up as "Hazard".

YOU DO NOT KNOW THE MEANINGS OF "HAZARD". You are an arse coverer because
to can't understand English that well.

Tim Watts wrote:
ARW wrote:

Tim Watts wrote:
ARW wrote:


None. But I do have a concrete mixer in the kitchen.

To make the ultimate eccles cake??

The FWB asked me to move it from the lounge.


FBW?

Friend with benefits. Much better than a GF.


Lounge - is TV that bad?

The mixer is usually rented out. It will not fit in the shed due to other
stock.

I told my kids that when I was their age, we only had 3 TV channels
and the neighbour had 2 (VHF TV). I said daytime TV was so bad that
sometimes, if ill off school, I used to sit in the kitchen and watch
the washing machine go round.

I like to give them a good laugh sometimes...

It was 2 channels in the daytime. BBC2 started at (ISTR) around 5pm


But my son has concluded that 1980's arcade games (on MAME) are
better than anything he's seen that's modern.

Get him some Spectrum Adventure Games. Robin of Sherlock was my favourite.

--
Adam

Tim Watts wrote:
ARW wrote:

Tim Watts wrote:
ARW wrote:


None. But I do have a concrete mixer in the kitchen.
To make the ultimate eccles cake??
The FWB asked me to move it from the lounge.


FBW?

Lounge - is TV that bad?

I told my kids that when I was their age, we only had 3 TV channels and the
neighbour had 2 (VHF TV). I said daytime TV was so bad that sometimes, if
ill off school, I used to sit in the kitchen and watch the washing machine
go round.

I like to give them a good laugh sometimes...

But my son has concluded that 1980's arcade games (on MAME) are better than
anything he's seen that's modern.

Still can't beat Space Invaders.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Quite. But there are lots of makers just as good or better than Wylex.

Are you going to say MK?

No.

--
*Real women don't have hot flashes, they have power surges.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
I told my kids that when I was their age, we only had 3 TV channels and
the neighbour had 2 (VHF TV). I said daytime TV was so bad that
sometimes, if ill off school, I used to sit in the kitchen and watch
the washing machine go round.

Daytime TV? When I were a lad that was the test card. And more
entertaining to watch than many of today's offerings.

--
*What are the pink bits in my tyres? Cyclists & Joggers*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
I told my kids that when I was their age, we only had 3 TV channels
and the neighbour had 2 (VHF TV). I said daytime TV was so bad that
sometimes, if ill off school, I used to sit in the kitchen and watch
the washing machine go round.

Daytime TV? When I were a lad that was the test card. And more
entertaining to watch than many of today's offerings.

Bring back Mr Benn and Bagpuss.


--
Adam

wrote in message ...
On 22 Sep,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

I think two RCDs is better than one. DP RCBOs on all circuits is by far
the
best. But the point is the regs do not state two RCDs are needed or a CU
split into two: one part with an RCD and one part unprotected. NOTHING
there states that. Look at words like shall, should , would, ect. You
think they all mean shall.

Circuits should be slplit to avoid danger.

Legrand single RCD CU for sale:
http://www.screwfix.com/p/6-module-c...s-switch/60136

Note: not split.

Well you need two then, just like two combis.

You still only have one feed.
If not having lighting makes it dangerous you need to do more than fit two
RCDs.
Maybe a maintained light fitting.

In article , John
Rumm scribeth thus
On 22/09/2012 09:57, wrote:
On Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:44:08 AM UTC+1, The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote:

Surely though that would not make either of them display the
effect. I think

I'd try another rcd first in case its very over sensitive. there
could

easily be some form of interference suppressor in an applience
with a

thermostat that is causing a momentary blip.

Brian





IF there is some neutral-earth solid bonding upstream of the RCD
then

ANY earth neutral short will provide a path for neutral current
that

bypasses the RCD by using the earth instead: That unbalances the
RCD

enough to trip it on quiet small current draws.


I don't see how that can be right. Lots of properties have N&E
connected upstream (PME), the RCD only cares about the downstream L/N
current balance.

True, however if you have an *additional* N to E short *after* the RCD,
then you have a parallel neutral path around the RCD.



Just for the benefit of the OP as it seems some aren't that clued up on
RCD's...

All an RCD is, is a differential detection system.

It monitors the CURRENT flowing into the protected circuits and the
CURRENT flowing out.

So what comes IN on the LIVE wire must be the same as what goes OUT on
the NEUTRAL.

If there is a bigger difference than the rated tripping current of the
RCD or for that matter RCBO then the device will trip.

Normally this is caused by a leakage to Earth somewhere in the protected
system. This can be like a cooker element where there is a breakdown of
the insulation of the material the element is enclosed in, or say a
washing machine where the motor might be rather wet and the currents
from the live are "leaking" across to the protective earth or sometimes
thru a person who comes into contact with the live conductor.

So as long as what goes in on the Live comes out on the Neutral
sometimes referred to as the return, then all will be well unless that
current in on the live finds a path to Earth that does NOT go out on the
neutral return line.

What can cause some confusion is the Earth - Neutral short.

Now this can exist with the RCD closed and remain so as long as there is
NO current flowing in the circuits.

Consider that nothing at all is switched on in the protected system then
the LIVE incoming has nowhere to go at all hence nothing is going out on
the Neutral return so No difference in flowing currents in the RCD and
no resultant tripping.

So you can have a Earth - Neutral short and it can, as long as nothing
or almost nothing is switched on, then there will be no trip.

However if now say something is switched on then current will flow in on
the Live and it won't all go out on the neutral as there is an earth
neutral short so some of it will go out via the Earth path and not all
of it will go out thru the RCD hence there is a current unbalance set up
and out will go the trip provided that the current differential is
greater then the tip's rated current..

If the current drawn by the connected load is very very small then there
may not be sufficient differential of the currents thru the RCD and it
will stay UN-tripped but as soon as that current rises above the
tripping level out will go the trip.

Of course a resistance test/s will or should show up the earth neutral
short.


So simply the RCD or RCBO is a Current differential device which means
that the current in MUST be the same as the current out if those
currents differ by more then the rated tripping current then the trip
with do what it does best .. and trip;!...







--
Tony Sayer

.

But it causes inconvenience. Reg 314.1 (i) applies

It does not. I have explained that in another post.

Would you not consider everthing tripping due to one fault an
inconvenience?

I would but we are talking law here. One RCD on a CU meets the 17th.
I prefer RCBOs on all circuits, butb that is just me wanting the
ultimate - not law.

Even where mains powered smoke alarms are fitted?

A mains smoke alarm can have its own circuit and RCBO. It is desirable to do
so.


Not always.

Consider a house that might be in multiple occupation or where the
battery backup might not be that good or some buggers have "borrowed"
the backup batteries or not renewed them.

Isn't it better to have that on a lightning circuit which will be
noticed if its Off a lot quicker then the fire detection system as
tripped which in a lot of cases won't be noticed all that readily?...


--
Tony Sayer

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:31:14 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


Being in the dark is NOT a hazard.

Is that why hundreds more people are injured by falls in the dark than
by electrocution every year? It seems risk assessments are something
else you don't understand.

There are battery backup lights for being in the dark. An electrical hazard means harm by electricity.

Where in the regulation you refer to does it say "electrical hazard"?

"reeveer" wrote in message
...

Hi all.

New member here.

I am a qualified, registered electrician and I have a mojor problem with
a new installation and rewiring.

I have rewired 6 new flats and fitted brand new cu's (B&Q £55 ones.. at
customer choice!).

Anyway, all rewire and fitting of consumer units of 5 flats are fine...
however, the last one... did the rewire, fitted the cu, proceeded to
test and the rcd for the kitchen/bathroom is tripping, even though none
of the switches are on for the mcb's in the kitchen load of the cu.

The kitchen load comprises of, 3 double sockets, 1 radiator switched
spur (RM with sockets), 1 cooker switch and a bathroom wall heater (RM
with sockets).

When I remove the earths from the kitchen/bathroom RM, the RCD will stay
on, but as soon as I touch either of the RM earth to the earth busbar,
it will trip the RCD. Also, I can leave the RM earths in and remove the
Neutral RM cables and it will be fine...but as soon as I touch the RM
neutral to the busbar, it trips. All connections are fine... to the
correct busbars, etc.

I am miffed on this one, and any help would be greatl;y appreciated!

Check the IR of the affected RM. But first, are you sure you have the N's in
the right busbar as assuming it will be a split load dual RCD CU ?

Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:31:14 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


Being in the dark is NOT a hazard.

Is that why hundreds more people are injured by falls in the dark than
by electrocution every year?

And how many of those hundreds fell over because they had a RCD main switch
that had tripped?

It cannot be many.

In fact it more people have probably had their lives saved by a RCD main
switch than have fallen down the stairs caused by a main RCD switch
tripping. Of course the life saving RCD trips are not recorded as they are
non events.


--
Adam

On Sep 21, 9:03*pm, reeveer wrote:
Hi all.

New member here.

I am a qualified, registered electrician and I have a mojor problem with
a new installation and rewiring.

I have rewired 6 new flats and fitted brand new cu's (B&Q £55 ones.. at
customer choice!).

Anyway, all rewire and fitting of consumer units of 5 flats are fine...
however, the last one... did the rewire, fitted the cu, proceeded to
test and the rcd for the kitchen/bathroom is tripping, even though none
of the switches are on for the mcb's in the kitchen load of the cu.

The kitchen load comprises of, 3 double sockets, 1 radiator switched
spur (RM with sockets), 1 cooker switch and a bathroom wall heater (RM
with sockets).

When I remove the earths from the kitchen/bathroom RM, the RCD will stay
on, but as soon as I touch either of the RM earth to the earth busbar,
it will trip the RCD. Also, I can leave the RM earths in and remove the
Neutral RM cables and it will be fine...but as soon as I touch the RM
neutral to the busbar, it trips. All connections are fine... to the
correct busbars, etc.

I am miffed on this one, and any help would be greatl;y appreciated!

Thanks.

--
reeveer

Brilliant trolling here methinks. Got the usual suspects very hot
under the collar.

Philip

wrote:

On Sep 21, 9:03 pm, reeveer wrote:

I am a qualified, registered electrician and I have a mojor problem with
a new installation and rewiring.

Brilliant trolling here methinks.

Nah, it's a banter user, they probably forgot the name of the website
they went to in the first place ...

On 23/09/2012 03:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
On 23/09/2012 00:56, wrote:
On 22 Sep,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
What's wrong with those cheap BG CUs from B&Q? I'm tempted to replace
the CU here with one.

Get a Wylex CU, the difference is apparent. And use RCBOs on each
circuit. Far more expensive but well worth it. Far better.

Gawd save us. He's claiming to know about electrics now.

I would agree that RCBOs can offer a better solution, at a *much*
*greater*
price.

Indeed - and not often worth the expense IME. You can go for a
pragmatic middle ground with "high integrity" 17th edition style CU[1]

Put any high trip risk circuits on RCBOs, then share others around the
other two or three RCD groups.

[1]
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...gh_I ntegrity



Put the whole house on 100mA RCD and then use 30mA RCBOs for selected
sockets

That was common on TT systems under the 16th edition. The cable
protection requirements make it less workable for new installs.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Andy Burns wrote:

wrote:

On Sep 21, 9:03 pm, reeveer wrote:

I am a qualified, registered electrician and I have a mojor problem with
a new installation and rewiring.

Brilliant trolling here methinks.

Nah, it's a banter user, they probably forgot the name of the website
they went to in the first place ...

I still vot etroll, as I did 2 days ago.

If he had any sense, he would have found the IET forums - they have awhole
section for professional sparkies.
--
Tim Watts

In message , Tim Watts
writes

I still vot etroll, as I did 2 days ago.

If he is then he has done very well, 111 replies so far!!

Maybe it is time he owns up one way or the other?



--
Bill

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:31:14 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


Being in the dark is NOT a hazard.

Is that why hundreds more people are injured by falls in the dark

It is NOT an electrical hazard.

Where in the regulation you refer to does it say "electrical hazard"?

Where does say anything else?

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
.

But it causes inconvenience. Reg 314.1 (i) applies

It does not. I have explained that in another post.

Would you not consider everthing tripping due to one fault an
inconvenience?

I would but we are talking law here. One RCD on a CU meets the 17th.
I prefer RCBOs on all circuits, butb that is just me wanting the
ultimate - not law.

Even where mains powered smoke alarms are fitted?

A mains smoke alarm can have its own circuit and RCBO. It is desirable to
do
so.

Not always.

Consider a house that might be in multiple occupation or where the
battery backup might not be that good or some buggers have "borrowed"
the backup batteries or not renewed them.

Isn't it better to have that on a lightning circuit which will be
noticed if its Off a lot quicker then the fire detection system as
tripped which in a lot of cases won't be noticed all that readily?...

Good point, but the smoke alarms have an indicator light.

"ARW" wrote in message
...
Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:31:14 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


Being in the dark is NOT a hazard.

Is that why hundreds more people are injured by falls in the dark than
by electrocution every year?

And how many of those hundreds fell over because they had a RCD main
switch that had tripped?

It cannot be many.

In fact it more people have probably had their lives saved by a RCD main
switch than have fallen down the stairs caused by a main RCD switch
tripping. Of course the life saving RCD trips are not recorded as they are
non events.

Good point.

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 16:44:05 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:31:14 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


Being in the dark is NOT a hazard.

Is that why hundreds more people are injured by falls in the dark than
by electrocution every year?

And how many of those hundreds fell over because they had a RCD main switch
that had tripped?

It cannot be many.

A lot more than are killed by electrocution. A bulb fails, that
takes out the RCD and an elderly lady is left in the dark trying to
find how to rectify the situation. They find the stairs by falling
down them. I'm aware of at least a dozen cases where emergency
services responded to calls to fatalities and found lights inoperative
on arrival and that is only within one county area.

In fact it more people have probably had their lives saved by a RCD main
switch than have fallen down the stairs caused by a main RCD switch
tripping. Of course the life saving RCD trips are not recorded as they are
non events.

Actually electrocution is, and has been for quite a long time, a
non-event in domestic premises with casualties below 10 per year
throughout the UK. On the other hand falls and fires kill thousands
each year. Many occur at night and if the house is on fire the last
thing you want is for the electrical system to "protect" you by
switching everything off.

It is the failure to do joined up risk analysis which led to mistakes
like Part P which increased the number of deaths.

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 23:10:01 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 16:44:05 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:31:14 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


Being in the dark is NOT a hazard.

Is that why hundreds more people are injured by falls in the dark than
by electrocution every year?

And how many of those hundreds fell over because they had a RCD main
switch
that had tripped?

It cannot be many.

A lot more than are killed by electrocution. A bulb fails, that
takes out the RCD and an elderly lady is left in the dark trying to
find how to rectify the situation. They find the stairs by falling
down them. I'm aware of at least a dozen cases where emergency
services responded to calls to fatalities and found lights inoperative
on arrival and that is only within one county area.

In fact it more people have probably had their lives saved by a RCD main
switch than have fallen down the stairs caused by a main RCD switch
tripping. Of course the life saving RCD trips are not recorded as they
are
non events.

Actually electrocution is, and has been for quite a long time, a
non-event in domestic premises with casualties below 10 per year
throughout the UK. On the other hand falls and fires kill thousands
each year. Many occur at night and if the house is on fire the last
thing you want is for the electrical system to "protect" you by
switching everything off.

It is the failure to do joined up risk analysis which led to mistakes
like Part P which increased the number of deaths.

Sounds very plausible. And so the obvious answer is to fit emergency
lighting as a priority over worrying about RCDs, etc.

--
Rod

In message , polygonum
writes
Sounds very plausible. And so the obvious answer is to fit emergency
lighting as a priority over worrying about RCDs, etc.


I have fitted emergency lighting in all the places that I felt
necessary, main bedroom, inside windowless bathroom, landing at the top
of the stairs and utility room above the fuse box. I have never
regretted the expense of this and it has proved useful on a number of
occasions over the years.


There again I also fitted a 7.5 KVA generator in the garage, with an
emergency light above it too. My wife does mutter that the house is a
bit "industrial" but it is also relatively worry free when we have RCD
trips and power cuts.
--
Bill

In article , Doctor Drivel invalid@not-
for-mail.invalid scribeth thus

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
.

But it causes inconvenience. Reg 314.1 (i) applies

It does not. I have explained that in another post.

Would you not consider everthing tripping due to one fault an
inconvenience?

I would but we are talking law here. One RCD on a CU meets the 17th.
I prefer RCBOs on all circuits, butb that is just me wanting the
ultimate - not law.

Even where mains powered smoke alarms are fitted?

A mains smoke alarm can have its own circuit and RCBO. It is desirable to
do
so.

Not always.

Consider a house that might be in multiple occupation or where the
battery backup might not be that good or some buggers have "borrowed"
the backup batteries or not renewed them.

Isn't it better to have that on a lightning circuit which will be
noticed if its Off a lot quicker then the fire detection system as
tripped which in a lot of cases won't be noticed all that readily?...

Good point, but the smoke alarms have an indicator light.


Yes, and how many would remember to look at those especially in HMO's?.

Whereas a main lighting failure would be acted on a lot more quickly!..
--
Tony Sayer

On 2012-09-23, ARW wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:

What lathes do you have in the kitchen?


Apple peelers?

http://www.antiqbuyer.com/All_Archiv...le-archive.htm


None. But I do have a concrete mixer in the kitchen.

You must have some interesting recipes.

On 23/09/2012 16:44, ARW wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:31:14 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


Being in the dark is NOT a hazard.

Is that why hundreds more people are injured by falls in the dark than
by electrocution every year?

And how many of those hundreds fell over because they had a RCD main switch
that had tripped?

It cannot be many.

In fact it more people have probably had their lives saved by a RCD main
switch than have fallen down the stairs caused by a main RCD switch
tripping. Of course the life saving RCD trips are not recorded as they are
non events.

However, regardless of the actual stats, its easy enough to have the
best of both worlds - RCDs to save shock injury, and enough of them to
keep at least some lights on in the event of a trip.




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/