Perhaps, but I thought each taken separately might help.
Fitting consumer unit vertically
- Thread starter pilsbury
- Start date
Sponsored Links
No, I can't. I'm not a member of JPEL/64 or and expert on 7671.
I can perhaps add to the confusion, since IMO conformity to 61439-3 would seem to imply that 432.1 is met.
Of course, a skilled/instructed person might well decide that it is unwise to remove the busbar shrouds in case an ordinary person might receive an electric shock as a result. Or perhaps that fitting an MCB from a different manufacturer might introduce some risk that cannot be predicted or quantified, since that combination would not have been type-tested.
How will that happen if ordinary persons will not go inside the CU?
That may be a more valid reason but I think it is scraping the barrel.
So, is type testing nothing to do with the "working" of a device but only with protection of ordinary persons?
I'm not being awkward; I really didn't understand what type testing was and you are confusing me more.
Sponsored Links
I think I must be misunderstanding here. I thought we were talking about an installation intended to be 'under the control' of a skilled/instructed person. To me, that suggests that we are talking about an already-installed installation (usually designed and installed by someone else), so the person who comes to be "under control" of it may well not have any clue about modifications undertaken at the time of installation (which is when the sort of modifications to DBs/CUs we're talking about are likley to happen).
Kind Regards, John
Fair enough, but the regs are meant yo be read and implemented by 'mere electricians', not "members of JPEL/64 or experts on 7671" - so, do I take it that, like me, you don't really understand what 530.3.4 is try to say?
As you may have noticed, I might be about to discuss that one with BAS. Do I take it that you are implying that the breaking capacity required by the Standard is so high as to be beyond any PFC likely to be encountered in any installation?
Kind Regards, John
No they don't.
Yes, it is.
The problem there is that you don't realise that yes, exactly, I am right. For some reason you seem to think that "exactly" means that you are right.
So you are wrong about that too.
Are you on a mission to see how many times you can be wrong in one post?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=life+hacks
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ikea+hacks
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=car+hacks
p25 of BS 7671, about ⅔ of the way down.
Why didn't you say that in the first place?
Incidentally, do you think CUs are type tested on their side; i.e. installed vertically?
Incidentally, do you think CUs are type tested on their side; i.e. installed vertically?
Who said they won't?
No, as I've already posted, it is validation that some samples of the device meet the requirements of the product standard. It is the requirements of that standard that will determine whether or not ordinary persons are adequately protected.
You seem to have a very lax understanding of what being in control of something means. If the person has no knowledge of any modifications, in spite of being skilled/instructed, then they are not in control. They should, if they are competent, possess, and understand, the installation documentation.
It seems quite clear that it is saying that if you are not using a CU you must ensure that your DB conforms to 61439-3 and meets 432.1, which, in my pre-Amd3 BGB, applies where a protective device is intended to provide protection against both overload and fault current, in which case it shall have adequate breaking capacity.
No, I am implying that the breaking capacity required by the Standard will be adequate for installations that are under the control of ordinary persons, i.e. domestic installations.
... OR that it must be a "Consumer Unit" (also complying with 61439-3). That seems to imply that, if one adopts the first approach (the 'either' ratherthan the 'or'), that one's DB/CU does not necessarily have to satisfy all of the BS7671 definition of a CU, even though it has to comply with 61439 (and 432.1). Is that correct?
It didn't change in Amd3. I would imagine that in virtually all TN domestic installations (and many others) both overload and fault protection are provided by the same devices. The main effect of that statement would seem to be to exclude TT installations from the requirement of the regulation unless the devices were all RCBOs (i.e. if fault protection were by RCD and overload protection by OPD) - which seems odd to me, because I would have expected the 'breaking capacity' requirements to also apply to 'separate' RCDs and OPDs.
The point I was going to take up with BAS (who mentioned
Of course, not only is my installation seemingly exempt from 530.3.4 (because it is not a single-phase supply) but also is seemingly exempt from the requirements of 432.1 (because it does not use the same devices for overload and fault protection ... which again seems a bit odd!
Kind Regards, John
Edit: Typo Corrected
Last edited:
Yes, but 432.1 (when it applies) requires that the breaking capacity of devices has to be adequate to break the PFC in the installation concerned (without any reference to "ordinary persons") - so, again, I ask you whether the breaking capacity required by the Standard is so high that they/you are sure that it will be higher than the PFC in any installation, thereby satisfying 432.1 of BS7671?
Kind Regards, John
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
