Fitting consumer unit vertically

[EFLImpudence]

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

There is no 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.

I disagree. We are talking about connecting a conductor to an RCBO.
If you like I shall do away with the busbar and use cables to connect all the RCBOs. No pictures so not allowed?

Would you like to specify what you think the problem might be?
Poor connection? Heat? Lack of picture?

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

What about a consumer unit with Main Switch and three RCCBs? Not allowed because no picture available?

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.

You say "no matter how correct you(we) may be" so it is just the lack of picture which concerns you.
Much like something not shown in Appendix 15 which I believe you recently did agree with.

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.

Answered above.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There is no problem.

There is, and it does not magically vanish just because you pretend it isn't there.

I disagree.

I'm sure you do, but that's because you are exhibiting defective thinking.

If the maker does not allow it, then it is not allowed. How hard is that to grasp?

Answer? Incredibly easy.

Why won't you? Because you don't want it to be true.

If you like I shall do away with the busbar and use cables to connect all the RCBOs. No pictures so not allowed?

It's allowed if the maker says it is.

Would you like to specify what you think the problem might be?

The problem might be that the maker does not support that method of connection. In which case you no longer have a type-tested CU, and then what of 530.3.4

Poor connection? Heat? Lack of picture?

I don't know.

Why you find this so unpalatable that you refuse to see it, IHNI, but there really, really, is an issue that IF the maker does not specify that your method of wiring it up is OK, then it simply is not OK.

I don't know if there is a problem.

I don't know if there might be a problem.

I don't know what the candidates for potential problems are.

I do know that if you do not install a CU as the maker directs then you've probably no longer got a CU.


Oh - and stop being deliberately obtuse about the picture.

You showed a picture of something different from what you were suggesting could be done, and I pointed that out. I said nothing about any general need for there to be pictures of everything.

What about a consumer unit with Main Switch and three RCCBs? Not allowed because no picture available?

Stop being deliberately obtuse about pictures.

You say "no matter how correct you(we) may be" so it is just the lack of picture which concerns you.

Stop being deliberately obtuse about pictures.

Answered above.

That is untrue.

 

[JohnW2]

The problem might be that the maker does not support that method of connection. In which case you no longer have a type-tested CU, and then what of 530.3.4

Well, as far as my house is concerned, it is exempt from the requirements of that regulation, since I don't have a single-phase supply

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I hope in that case that your distribution boards contain 16kA devices ..

 

[stillp]

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.

Do you have extensive experience of asking manufacturers if you can use their products in a manner not detailed in their instructions then John?

 

[JohnW2]

Do you have extensive experience of asking manufacturers if you can use their products in a manner not detailed in their instructions then John?

A fair bit of experience (over the decades!) - rarely, if ever, because I wanted to use their product in a particularly unusual, let alone outrageous, way, but usually because their instructions (if any!) were very limited, and did not give guidance in relation to anything but the most common of situations.

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

What about the Wylex boards that are configurable?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I should say, BTW, that IMO both of these methods:

equally require checking with the maker.

Basically, if you want to construct your own DB, then you are perfectly entitled to do so, and you are free to use your own experience, skills, knowledge and professional judgement etc.

You are also perfectly entitled to install it in an environment where 530.3.4 does not apply.

But where that does apply, then unless you can get your self-made DB certified as compliant with BS EN 61439-3, then you may not, no matter how daft or how annoying you think it is, install it.

You also may not, ditto, start b******ng about with a type-tested CU, making your own changes to it and claim that it is still the same type-tested unit and therefore that you have complied with BS 7671.

And the same applies to advising other people to do their own b******ng about.

 

[JohnW2]

I should say, BTW, that IMO both of these methods: ....... equally require checking with the maker.

Quite so.

As I wrote before, when EFLI raised the possibility of taking the main switch out of a CU to make room for 8 RCBOs, I asked how one would then connect the incoming L conductor and, in response, EFLI made one suggestion, and you made two suggestions. Since then you have being critically going on about the unacceptability of "telling people" to use EFLI's method (without obtaining 'authorisation' from the CU manufacturer - which might well be hard to get), but seem to have forgotten to say (until now) that exactly the same should apply to your two suggestions.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes, I did forget. Or maybe "overlook".

I did remember/think "hang on..." the next day, but I thought I'd leave it to see if anybody else picked it up. To my genuine surprise, nobody did.

However you do it, if you hack a type-tested CU you no longer have one, but you might have to have one for compliance.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I do not consider the method I have suggested to be b******ng about (presumably buggering) or hacking a CU.

Using emotive words instead of offering sound reasons why it is any different than into a main switch smacks of desperation.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, I did forget. Or maybe "overlook".

Fair enough, but when you remembered you did not tell yourself off (at least not in public) for "telling people" to use your methods in the same way that you did to EFLI (and myself) in relation to his method.

I did remember/think "hang on..." the next day, but I thought I'd leave it to see if anybody else picked it up. To my genuine surprise, nobody did.

Well, I 'picked it up' in my post at 9.26 PM yesterday, but since I did not do so aggressively or confrontationally, maybe you didn't notice.

However you do it, if you hack a type-tested CU you no longer have one, but you might have to have one for compliance.

That is technically (i.e. 'actually') true - unless you get the manufacturer's agreement (which you very probably won't), just as the same for the countless CUs (probably millions) which contain at least one device not approved ny the manufacturer.

What I don't really understand, given your subsequent comments/behaviour is why, presumably knowing that your methods would very probably render a CU non-type-tested (hence, in most domestic situations, non-compliant) you were "telling people" to use those methods in exactly the same fashion as you accused EFLI (and me) of "telling people" to use EFLI's method.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

As for your two suggestions, I am not familiar with the screw and teeth thingy but I see nothing wrong with with a lug bolted to the busbar - yet I would think a tri-rated cable with a formed rectangular end made to fit cage terminals would be better.

 

[JohnW2]

As for your two suggestions, I am not familiar with the screw and teeth thingy but I see nothing wrong with with a lug bolted to the busbar ....

I'm not familiar with that thingy, either (although that doesn't prove much!). As for bolting on a lug, that would "obviously" be OK - but as BAS (and stillp) have pointed out, that would almost certainly 'invalidate' the type testing, since the manufacturer is unlikely to have undertaken tests with such a modification (and with the hole drilled in exactly the same place in the bus bar as in yours!).

Stillp will undoubtedly disagree, but I do think that a lot of this 'type tested' business is probably far more academic/theoretical than of practical importance. It's nice to be living in a house which is exempt from the requirements of 530.3.4

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

- but as BAS (and stillp) have pointed out, that would almost certainly 'invalidate' the type testing,

Would it?

since the manufacturer is unlikely to have undertaken tests with such a modification (and with the hole drilled in exactly the same place in the bus bar as in yours!).

What do you mean? Hole in mine???

Stillp will undoubtedly disagree, but I do think that a lot of this 'type tested' business is probably far more academic/theoretical than of practical importance.

I often wonder if ALL the manufacturers use the same type testing method or formula.