This discussion is locked.

You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

18th question.

Former Community Member over 6 years ago

Hi all, any comments welcome on this one.
Is it still acceptable to have a socket outlet for a specific use not rcd protected under the 18th?
I fitted a single 13a socket outlet recently in a loft space for one of my regular customers, it is to supply a security camera system and the suppliers asked for a socket to be provided. It is supplied from the first floor lighting circuit which doesn't have rcd protection. (16th. ed. board) There is not the slightest chance of the socket being used to supply anything else and I would like to issue a mwc stating that the socket is only to be used for this specific purpose. If it's a major issue I could get back to the customer and arrange to fit an rcbo but I don't really think that is necessary? Thinking now about going back to change socket for an rcd protected one?

Parents

0 gkenyon over 5 years ago

Paul Skyrme:

Yes Graham, I did look up BS 7288, some time after I responded to this thread, but it had disappeared from my forum view by then so I took at as resolved.

I feel that this is an error, of some kind, in BS 7288, which has resulted in this scenario, and this upstream requirement is the reason that the standard has been omitted from BS 7671.

This does need to be resolved by BSi/the relevant committee/JPEL64 to give the industry clarity.

I'm sure that will happen, although JPEL/64 are not responsible for BS 7288, this comes under PEL23/1

At the moment devices to BS 7288 are really a device without an application, unless you really require redundant RCD protection to ensure that hopefully one goes and you don't care if the two go out in the event of a fault.

Agreed. There are a number of situations that such devices provide the best solution to Additional Protection for.

It should be noted as a final technical note, that SRCDs are not really an answer for fault protection (i.e. can't meet disconnection times) because they can't respond to an upstream fault. They can therefore only be used for additional protection - but I think most that specify them are aware of this limitation.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 gkenyon over 5 years ago

Paul Skyrme:

Yes Graham, I did look up BS 7288, some time after I responded to this thread, but it had disappeared from my forum view by then so I took at as resolved.

I feel that this is an error, of some kind, in BS 7288, which has resulted in this scenario, and this upstream requirement is the reason that the standard has been omitted from BS 7671.

This does need to be resolved by BSi/the relevant committee/JPEL64 to give the industry clarity.

I'm sure that will happen, although JPEL/64 are not responsible for BS 7288, this comes under PEL23/1

At the moment devices to BS 7288 are really a device without an application, unless you really require redundant RCD protection to ensure that hopefully one goes and you don't care if the two go out in the event of a fault.

Agreed. There are a number of situations that such devices provide the best solution to Additional Protection for.

It should be noted as a final technical note, that SRCDs are not really an answer for fault protection (i.e. can't meet disconnection times) because they can't respond to an upstream fault. They can therefore only be used for additional protection - but I think most that specify them are aware of this limitation.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

18th question.

Community Rules & Guidelines