Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 438 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

AMD 2 - high protective conductor currents

AJJewsbury
It looks like the DPC is suggesting a number of changes to section 543.7 - the bit about having to deal with protective conductor currents between 3.5mA and 10mA seems to have gone, likewise 543.7.1.202 (ii) (b) which allowed small c.p.c.s in flexes provided there were no smaller than that of the line conductor.


The bit I found most surprising though was the deletion of 543.7.1.204 - which required duplicate c.p.c.s to be terminated independently of each other - as I always thought that a very sensible requirement as terminations seem to be the source of the majority of problems and there seemed little point to me in having duplicate c.p.c.s if they can both be disabled by the same loose connection. Does anyone have any insight into why such a change is being proposed?


   - Andy.
Parents
  • 0
    I guess it depends whether you were of the opinion that the original requirements were OTT for the most part, or rendered unnecessary.


    Considering Regulation 411.3.3 (or 522.6.203) combined with 531.3.2 (ii), we're probably talking about very few circuits these days where two independent protective conductors are required - probably in the specialist arena, and many where other provisions to achieve the requirements (such as earthing to BS EN 50310).


    Personally, I worry that the requirements for RCDs, and the protective conductor currents permitted by product standards, are not necessarily aligned. However, the evidence from years of using split-load CUs, is that perhaps I'm worrying unnecessarily for the most part - and of course use of RCBO's improves on that situation.
Reply
  • 0
    I guess it depends whether you were of the opinion that the original requirements were OTT for the most part, or rendered unnecessary.


    Considering Regulation 411.3.3 (or 522.6.203) combined with 531.3.2 (ii), we're probably talking about very few circuits these days where two independent protective conductors are required - probably in the specialist arena, and many where other provisions to achieve the requirements (such as earthing to BS EN 50310).


    Personally, I worry that the requirements for RCDs, and the protective conductor currents permitted by product standards, are not necessarily aligned. However, the evidence from years of using split-load CUs, is that perhaps I'm worrying unnecessarily for the most part - and of course use of RCBO's improves on that situation.
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines