Is it possible to fit an rcbo in this board?

[JohnW2]

Wrong...RCD plug does not comply....

I never suggested that it was 'compliant' - I said 'sensible (if, that is, one believes in the value of RCD protection in the situation the OP described).

... as i said as soon as he replaces that mcb the whole circuit needs rcd protection.He needs to replace it with a RCBO ...

.. and as I said, I think that is debatable. If he changed the MCB to one of a different rating, then I think that most people would say that that change to the circuit was enough to invoke the need for the whole circuit to comply with current regs. However, I am personally far less convinced that merely replacing a faulty MCB with one of the same rating invokes such a requirement for the circuit.

Do I take it that you would similarly feel that replacing a faulty B6 in a non-RCD-protected lighting circuit would invoke the requirement for RCD protection to be added? If so, I would be interested to hear what others think about that.

... and then do an EIC on that circuit

What do you mean by "do an EIC" - do you mean 'undertake tests'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Wrong...

I think it debatable as well.

RCD plug does not comply....

Irrelevant really.

as i said as soon as he replaces that mcb the whole circuit needs rcd protection.

Well - the cable doesn't. That has not been altered.
The oven doesn't. No appliance does.

So, it all comes down to whether the socket must be brought up to a later regulation.
I don't think changing a faulty MCB would count as requiring that.

He needs to replace it with a RCBO

What if there are no RCBOs for the board?
New CU? That would clearly be unreasonable for one faulty MCB.
An RCD socket could be fitted if it were not the cooker switch - so... pragmatism?

and then do an EIC on that circuit

The circuit could be tested. If so, a MEIWC certificate could record the results.

 

[AndyPRK]

Bizzar. 4 pages ago the op wanted to fit an rcbo

 

[ross94]

Bizzar. 4 pages ago the op wanted to fit an rcbo

I was going to originally, but decided it was cheaper and less hassle and bought a new 32 amp normal mcb replacement, the only criticism for todays standards is merely the cooker control switch has a socket outlet, It complied at the time it was installed and it seemed very common to have cooker circuits on the non rcd side so I figured in the end why alter it? I will now use the plug in rcd for whenever I am outside (I don't particularly care if fully complies or not) it will suit our needs although we have all managed for 24 years without using one.

 

[JohnW2]

I was going to originally, but decided it was cheaper and less hassle and bought a new 32 amp normal mcb replacement, the only criticism for todays standards is merely the cooker control switch has a socket outlet, It complied at the time it was installed and it seemed very common to have cooker circuits on the non rcd side so I figured in the end why alter it?

I can't really criticise that reasoning.

In fact, if one were to take markyd1's view (which I personally don't) that replacing a faulty MCB invokes a requirement to bring the entire circuit into compliance with current regs, then even if there were no socket, it's very likely that at least some of the circuits cable is buried in a wall, in which case RCD protection of the circuit (cable) would again been needed 'to comply with current regulations'. However, as I've said, I person'ally do not take that view, and I suspect than a good few others would feel the same.

I will now use the plug in rcd for whenever I am outside (I don't particularly care if its not completely complient) it will suite our needs although we have all managed for 24 years without using one.

Fair enough. Whilst that is a reasonable approach, you should not feel too reassured that the RCD will afford you all that much 'protection'. Nearly all outdoor/garden electrical tools are 'double insulated' these days, commonly with 2-core cables, so about the only situation in which an RCD would trip would be if the cable were cut and the cut end of the live conductor came into contact with the ground- directly or through someone who was touching the cut live and also in contact with 'earth'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

For what it's worth, I would add that the OP is correct in saying (in a somewhat more personalised manner!) that it would be wrong to believe that, in the real world' "nobody works live and safe isolation is used all the time" - and, as in so many walks of life, it is quite often those who are trained/qualified and experienced (rather than amateurs, who are often much more nervous/cautious) who 'cut corners' (even corners designed to preserve their health and lives) on the basis of 'experience'.


Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/...cbo-in-this-board.529575/page-3#ixzz60dNoFZ8t

I never said we never work live. The first question in a Risk Assessment is "Do I have an option to work dead?" The OP could have left this until daytime. He went on to say that Safe Isolation is something you do in college and then forget about. I may be picky, but this is an SOP for me (occasionally working live when it is not possible to isolate the circuit). That would be subject to a proper Risk Assessment.

 

[JohnW2]

I never said we never work live. The first question in a Risk Assessment is "Do I have an option to work dead?" The OP could have left this until daytime. He went on to say that Safe Isolation is something you do in college and then forget about. I may be picky, but this is an SOP for me (occasionally working live when it is not possible to isolate the circuit). That would be subject to a proper Risk Assessment.

I can't disagree with any of that. The OP acknowledged that it all "came down to a Risk Assessment" - but you (and probably I) would probably have made a different assessment in the particularly circumstances.

Ultimately, other than in relation to some aspects of 'live testing', there will nearly always be"be an option to work dead" - so the assessment/decision will very often come down to matters of 'inconvenience' in one sense or another - in relation to which one would expect individual opinions to vary.

As a general principle, I would think that the most important thing is that the person concerned should be fully informed and fully understanding of the nature and magnitude of the risks involved. We live (many would say 'thankfully') in a society in which (in the absence of mandatory 'regulations/laws') one is allowed to make (if one so wishes) a personal decision to take a particular risk (whether by smoking, climbing mountains, jumping out of aircraft or whatever).

Kind Regards, John.