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 20 replies
  • Subscribers 42 subscribers
  • Views 3802 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Borrowing a cpc from another cct for lighting cct coded C2 in PE magazine codebreakers.

hertzal123

Just read in the above February mag the sparks has  borrowed the cpc

from another cable in the process of changing a kitchen into a utility room.,because the

lighting cct had no cpc.

Thought this was allowed under 543.1.2  if the borrowed cpc was of adequate size?

The article states"the 2 circuits are no longer seperate or individually isolatable,as they are

now linked".

                                                                                        Regards,

                                                                                              Hz

Parents
  • 0

    I haven't see the article, but I agree it sounds a bit odd. I can see the logic that the two circuits are not entirely separate (especially if you had a situation where large protective conductor currents were present) but I don't that not being "individually isolatable" as being a contravention of the regulations (unless there was a particular requirement for them to be so). After all we allow single pole MCBs on TT systems that require the N to be broken for isolation - so strictly speaking we'd have to revert to the main switch or shared RCCB to isolate a final circuit.

    c.p.c.s are often linked by shared extraneous-conductive-parts or supplementary bonding anyway.

    I'd admit I have been a little uncomfortable when I've had to "borrow" a c.p.c. from another circuit - mostly because of the danger of someone working on the other circuit disconnecting the c.p.c. without realizing the it could still be in use via the other circuit - but my solution to that was just a label at the CU.

       - Andy.

Reply
  • 0

    I haven't see the article, but I agree it sounds a bit odd. I can see the logic that the two circuits are not entirely separate (especially if you had a situation where large protective conductor currents were present) but I don't that not being "individually isolatable" as being a contravention of the regulations (unless there was a particular requirement for them to be so). After all we allow single pole MCBs on TT systems that require the N to be broken for isolation - so strictly speaking we'd have to revert to the main switch or shared RCCB to isolate a final circuit.

    c.p.c.s are often linked by shared extraneous-conductive-parts or supplementary bonding anyway.

    I'd admit I have been a little uncomfortable when I've had to "borrow" a c.p.c. from another circuit - mostly because of the danger of someone working on the other circuit disconnecting the c.p.c. without realizing the it could still be in use via the other circuit - but my solution to that was just a label at the CU.

       - Andy.

Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines