Fitting consumer unit vertically

[ban-all-sheds]

Indeed. It's very often done to feed a second RCD, isn't it - in other words, it probably happens in virtually all 'dual RCD' CUs (including the several in my house).

The devices in question there are not RCBOs, they are main switches.

No matter how much, or how many, people think "Oh well - they are all the same terminals, it must be OK", and no matter how correct those personal opinions are, these are type approved units - putting a busbar and a cable into one terminal must be approved by the maker, or it simply cannot be advised.

 

[JohnW2]

But "not necessarily can't", and no being able to see a reason why not are simply not an acceptable alternative to a definitive statement from the maker. They just are not.

I have to say that I am becoming increasingly tired of this modern world in which people are apparently not allowed to think, apply knowledge, experience, intelligence and common sense and make judgements for themselves. Even though (as with most things in life) those judgements may sometimes be wrong, I don't think that everyone should be regarded as idiots, but it seems that we are always expected to look to third parties to give us permission to do virtually anything.

In this particular case, as I have implied, knowledge that the practice we are discussing has been utilised by manufacturers in millions of 'dual RCD' and 'Split Load' CUs gives me confidence that, in addition to the fact that (like EFLI) cannot I think of a good reason for not doing it, it is apparent than many large and 'reputable' manufacturers have decided that it is an acceptable technique/practice.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

No matter how much, or how many, people think "Oh well - they are all the same terminals, it must be OK", and no matter how correct those personal opinions are, these are type approved units - putting a busbar and a cable into one terminal must be approved by the maker, or it simply cannot be advised.

See what I have just written. I didn't mention the difference between RCDs and RCBOs, but that doesn't alter my judgement.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

How were/are split load CUs configured?

Edit - hadn't seen latest posts.

 

[EFLImpudence]

The devices in question there are not RCBOs, they are main switches.

...and as such have exactly the same terminals.

No matter how much, or how many, people think "Oh well - they are all the same terminals, it must be OK",

I do not think that; I think it is OK as there is NO reason for it not to be.

and no matter how correct those personal opinions are,

So, you agree it is correct.

these are type approved units - putting a busbar and a cable into one terminal must be approved by the maker, or it simply cannot be advised.

OK

That's that settled.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It is settled only in the sense that neither you nor JW2 are prepared to recognise the problem.

Everything you have said can also be said about mixing and matching different makes of MCB in a CU, and yet this is always deprecated because of the type testing issue.

The photograph above shows a configuration approved by the maker. You are advocating doing something which is not approved.

Neither you nor JW2 are prepared to accept the fact that no matter how certain you are that it will be fine, no matter how correct you are, and no matter how tiresome you find an apparent prohibition on you thinking for yourselves, you may not tell people to connect cables to the busbar of a CU in a way which the maker does not support.

If there's nothing wrong, then there is no harm in asking, for they will surely say it will be OK.

If you are worried about asking because you are worried that if you do they will say it is not OK then that ought to tell you that you should not be suggesting it.

You are prioritising your "right" to do something which is not approved because you know it will be OK and therefore what you decide can be done may be done, no matter what the maker of the equipment thinks about it.

 

[John D v2.0]

.
If there's nothing wrong, then there is no harm in asking, for they will surely say it will be OK.

Depends if you're talking to their technical designer or customer service!
Tell their sales team you'll buy 100k units if so and the answer will change pretty quickly.

 

[mattylad]

You cannot do this, because the electrons will simply fall out of the side.

 

[JohnW2]

Neither you nor JW2 are prepared to accept the fact that no matter how certain you are that it will be fine, no matter how correct you are, and no matter how tiresome you find an apparent prohibition on you thinking for yourselves, you may not tell people to connect cables to the busbar of a CU in a way which the maker does not support.

I'm not sure whether you have read this whole thread, but I have certainly not been "telling people" anything about this issue.

Most of my contribution to this thread related to the 'on topic' question in the OP about CU orientation. EFLI then showed a CU which would fit (horizontally) into the OP'#s available space, indicating that one could fit 8 RCBOs into it if one removed the main switch and had an external isolator. In response, I asked how one would connect the incoming L under such circumstances. In responding to my question, EFLI made one suggestion, which we have been subsequently been discussing/debating, and you made two other suggestions (and no-one has yet asked you whether they are 'supported by the maker', and whether utilising those methods would invoke 'type testing issues').

If there's nothing wrong, then there is no harm in asking, for they will surely say it will be OK. .... If you are worried about asking because you are worried that if you do they will say it is not OK then .... "

I'm not sure whether we live in the same world. If one asks a manufacturer or supplier about the acceptability of a slightly 'unusual' use of their product, they will very commonly just say 'no', simply because it's the easiest and quickest thing for them to do, requires no thought, knowledge or intelligence on their part, and 'covers their backsides' (or simply because it's not a question to which an answer appears in their on-screen menu).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Depends if you're talking to their technical designer or customer service!

Even that's not necessarily an answer. It was probably before you joined this forum, but I had an intriguing conversation with a "Technical Support Engineer" at MK to try to get some sense regarding their Technical Data Sheet for double sockets. He agreed that what the document said was confusing, ambiguous and quite probably wrong, but apologetically told me that the Technical Department could not do much about it because the content of their "Technical Data Sheets" was largely under the control of their marketing department!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

because it's the easiest and quickest thing for them to do, requires no thought, knowledge or intelligence on their part, and 'covers their backsides' (or simply because it's not a question to which an answer appears in their on-screen menu).

More to the point, it saves them from any liability issues that might result from the use of their products in a manner that they have no test results for.

 

[JohnW2]

More to the point, it saves them from any liability issues that might result from the use of their products in a manner that they have no test results for.

Indeed - and that's the 'covering their backsides' bit!

If they were honest and simply said what you say above (that they couldn't advise the proposed use, since they had no relevant data) that would be fair enough, but, in my experience, they have a horrible habit of giving an answer which implies/suggests that they know there is some problem with the proposed use.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Echo the husky]

After 4 pages it looks like the easiest option is to smash the wall out to make the space big enough for a CU to be installed horizontally!
What a time to be alive!

 

[JohnW2]

After 4 pages it looks like the easiest option is to smash the wall out to make the space big enough for a CU to be installed horizontally!

I think you'll find that the OP's question about CU orientation was effectively answered well before the end of page 1.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm not sure whether we live in the same world. If one asks a manufacturer or supplier about the acceptability of a slightly 'unusual' use of their product, they will very commonly just say 'no', simply because it's the easiest and quickest thing for them to do, requires no thought, knowledge or intelligence on their part, and 'covers their backsides' (or simply because it's not a question to which an answer appears in their on-screen menu).

There you go then - if they say no, then the answer is no.

You still don't seem to get it.

It matters not one iota how reasonable, how well informed, how well thought out your position is, nor how unreasonable, how uninformed or how devoid of thought theirs is.

If their answer is no, then it is no, and no amount of howling at the moon, or patient, logical argument will make any difference.

And if their answer is no, then going ahead would, I'm sure, be a contravention of the Wiring Regulations.