Two rings into one 32A mcb

I would say no the spark was not correct - although the design is far from ideal.

 

I agree with JP, whilst not ideal there's nothing really wrong with it.

 

if you've got both ends of the two rings in the CU why not make them into one large ring with connectors. no need for two circuits then

 

You can bet your bottom dollar that the spark didn't mark which pair of wires belongs to each circuit nor which wire is paired with which. Same goes for the neutrals and the cpcs. It is all well and good saying this is safe but it isn't compliant with the regulations. It is extremely poor installation practice and doesn't comply with minimizing inconvenience in the event of a fault. It is not compliant to have one circuit for all sockets in the property, nor is it compliant to share a fuse in this manner, for the same reason. It can only be considered at best as a bodge. No disrespect to other posters saying its safe. I agree it is safe, but not good for other reasons.

 

There's nothing wrong with that either Walter, bs7671 states that a spur can be taken from an accessory or from the mcb so no problem, (although no doubt someone will disagree with me)!

 

The post says that the ring for the downstairs and the kitchen are on one fuse it doesn't say one ring for the whole property, what exactly would making it into one ring for the downstairs do to make it non compliant? its not an ideal situation putting through connections in the CU and you wouldn't do it on a new installation but that is not the case here it is correcting the fact that you effectively have a figure of 8 ring. if it is tested and properly connected into a single large ring for downstairs it would be like the majority of properties in the UK.

 

To connect 2 rings into 1 MCB was an easy get out to gain another MCB for the new wiring . If someone had done that to one of my jobs I would not be best pleased. It is also good practice when changing consumer units to have spare ways available rather than fitting one fully loaded if at all possible. Also when filling in a form how do you enter the measurements of 2 ring mains when on the same MCB, each circuit would need to be identified by tape or writing & both rings would need to be identified by 2 same number circuits on the form. Total rubbish if you ask me & it would also restrict power requirements. If the C/U is located central to a house I have in the past took 2 lighting circuits on the same MCB & same floor level , 1 to the left, the other to the right with about 10 lights in total, less voltage drop & see nothing wrong with that, not the same as 2 rings on same circuit. I don't always agree with you un but I am with you on this one.

 

Spot on Unphased, spot on Wally ah we meet again Unphased.

 

ESC Best Practice Guide No.4 Issue 3 is what most people go by when deciding what should and should not be considered as satisfactory. http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/use...y/best_practice/BestPracticeGuide4-Locked.pdf we have:-
Code C1
‘Danger present’. Risk of injury.
Immediate remedial action required.
Code C2
‘Potentially dangerous’.
Urgent remedial action required
Code C3
‘Improvement recommended’.
It could only be considered as a C3 and reading through the examples I find nothing which could be used to give a C3 to this. I agree not best practice but it is not an item which should be coded. It can be referred to in notes but it's not regarded as unsatisfactory. However all electrical installation condition reports are personal and some of the items in the Best Practice Guilds I don't agree with. To my mind extension leads are outside my remit when doing an EICR but Best Practice Guild tells me to issued a C2 or C3 if extension leads run through doorways, walls or windows, or under carpets, or are otherwise being used in an unsafe manner. So although from your report it would seem it should not have been given a code there is nothing you can really do about it other than get another electrician to do the report.

 

Two RFC s in one cb,Heysus Christos I would have failed it, ask yourself the question it aint righ

 

Would you like to explain why Pete?

 

Too make 1 RFC for the downstairs, with the two you already have is a very simple thing to do,providing the floor area covered by these RFCs is less than 100m2. Take 1 leg from 1 RFC and 1 leg from the other RFC and using through crimps crimp these legs together, the other two legs are connected as a larger RFC, freeing up a 32a cb, sorry to be so pointed I was just trying not to be correct in my assumption. But the best option IMHO would be to install a larger CU, appreciate customers don't want to spend extra, thy perhaps need a bit of education in electrical safety. Sorry 2 RFCs in one 32a cb is a no no AFAIC.
In answer to your question, wouldn't jamming 4 2.5s into a 32a cb make the final circuit a figure of 8 and as we all know, that is exactly what you are trying to find out when you do an R1=R2 test on RFCs

 

In answer to your question, wouldn't jamming 4 2.5s into a 32a cb make the final circuit a figure of 8 and as we all know, that is exactly what you are trying to find out when you do an R1=R2 test on RFCs[/quote]

With ref to ''jamming'' - how does jamming 4 x 2.5's into one Mcb make the circuit/s a figure of 8 Mr Jones? - ok it might look like a figure of 8, but its not really is it tbqh..

 

No it wouldn't make it a figure of 8 Pete unless the 2 "circuit's" were connected together somewhere else along their length. I've put the word circuit's in inverted commas as I know it's really all one circuit if coming from a common mcb.