On 10/03/2022 06:39, Roland Perry wrote:

> It *has* been rewired. With grey T&E. But it's a mess, with cables going
> off in various directions under the floor, downstairs and upstairs) none
> of them tidily cut to length. Which might be a blessing, if there's some
> spare length to re-route them all to one replacement box.

LoL! It's like this place, built in 65/66, so spanning the date when
lighting didn't/did require an earth. Half the lighting circuit has T
only, half has T/E. There is the odd length or two of green wire
crossing the loft which, I assume, was added as an earth. Half-under the
loft insulation in a couple of places there is a veritable bird's nest
of T and T/E; one previous owner obviously did some additional wiring
and wasn't exactly tidy.

When we bought the place ten years ago we had to have a new CU (the old
one couldn't be upgraded). Fortunately, after installation, a full check
showed all the wiring was ok.

--

Jeff

On 09/03/2022 17:17, Andrew wrote:
> Big firms have big overheads that means they are always more
> expensive.

So why pay for their overheads if you can avoid it? And why should their
overheads be more per worker than those of a one man band?

Far too many one-man bands resort to lies and
> bullshit, especially when dealing with older people.

Big firms resort to lies and bullshit. Oner man bands often rely on
their local reputation.

Bill

In article <sOlOFHOv0ZKiFAGY@perry.uk>,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> >The pre war one, unless the circuits have been rewired at some point

> It *has* been rewired. With grey T&E. But it's a mess, with cables going
> off in various directions under the floor, downstairs and upstairs) none
> of them tidily cut to length. Which might be a blessing, if there's some
> spare length to re-route them all to one replacement box.

I'd say it most unusual to re-wire, but leave the original fuse box. Early
fuse boxes were often double pole. No earth busbar, etc. Much more common
to have a later CU with earlier wiring. As at re-wire time, most will want
more circuits than original.

--
*Santa Claus has the right idea. Visit people only once a year.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 10/03/2022 15:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <sOlOFHOv0ZKiFAGY@perry.uk>,
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> The pre war one, unless the circuits have been rewired at some point
>
>> It *has* been rewired. With grey T&E. But it's a mess, with cables going
>> off in various directions under the floor, downstairs and upstairs) none
>> of them tidily cut to length. Which might be a blessing, if there's some
>> spare length to re-route them all to one replacement box.
>
> I'd say it most unusual to re-wire, but leave the original fuse box. Early
> fuse boxes were often double pole. No earth busbar, etc. Much more common
> to have a later CU with earlier wiring. As at re-wire time, most will want
> more circuits than original.
>

'er indoors rewired to an old Wylex BS3036 in 1982: she wanted shot of
the old cable (some looking very dodgy) and a lot more sockets and
outlets on the rings but saw no need for more circuits. Roland's
description matches how she left the CU - but it was a *safe* mess.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In message <59c70c70c4dave@davenoise.co.uk>, at 15:41:46 on Thu, 10 Mar
2022, "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> remarked:

>In article <sOlOFHOv0ZKiFAGY@perry.uk>,
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>> >The pre war one, unless the circuits have been rewired at some point
>
>> It *has* been rewired. With grey T&E. But it's a mess, with cables going
>> off in various directions under the floor, downstairs and upstairs) none
>> of them tidily cut to length. Which might be a blessing, if there's some
>> spare length to re-route them all to one replacement box.
>
>I'd say it most unusual to re-wire, but leave the original fuse box.

But there's two [old] fuse boxes. Most of the new circuits go into the
more recent (six-fuse Wylex, bakelite with a wire going through what
looks suspiciously like an asbestos holding cartridge).

And a couple remaining through the vintage one (wooden box, six
porcelain holders). MEM Kantark Junior.

The very original round-socket wiring only had perhaps four sockets
[front room, master bedroom, upstairs hall, and maybe the original
kitchen].

Looking online, the MEM boxes seem to have three or six positions, so no
doubt this house (which is a little higher status than the typical two
up to down terrace houses nearby) probably did have four sockets, and
maybe two for lighting?

Like many houses built at the time, the pendant fittings in the upstairs
rooms and hall are positioned adjacent to the windows, so that the
electric light simulates the cast of the natural light.

>Early
>fuse boxes were often double pole. No earth busbar, etc. Much more common
>to have a later CU with earlier wiring. As at re-wire time, most will want
>more circuits than original.
>

--
Roland Perry

In message <K9C352tzuiKiFAwV@perry.uk>, at 16:47:47 on Thu, 10 Mar 2022,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>In message <59c70c70c4dave@davenoise.co.uk>, at 15:41:46 on Thu, 10 Mar
>2022, "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>In article <sOlOFHOv0ZKiFAGY@perry.uk>,
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> >The pre war one, unless the circuits have been rewired at some point
>>
>>> It *has* been rewired. With grey T&E. But it's a mess, with cables going
>>> off in various directions under the floor, downstairs and upstairs) none
>>> of them tidily cut to length. Which might be a blessing, if there's some
>>> spare length to re-route them all to one replacement box.
>>
>>I'd say it most unusual to re-wire, but leave the original fuse box.
>
>But there's two [old] fuse boxes. Most of the new circuits go into the
>more recent (six-fuse Wylex, bakelite with a wire going through what
>looks suspiciously like an asbestos holding cartridge).
>
>And a couple remaining through the vintage one (wooden box, six
>porcelain holders). MEM Kantark Junior ^H^H Minor.

Fuseholders like this (never seen that style before). I wonder if it
helps date the installation:

<https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/284690284822?hash=item4248dd0116:g:HJAAAOSw
DsVhyfpR>

>The very original round-socket wiring only had perhaps four sockets
>[front room, master bedroom, upstairs hall, and maybe the original
>kitchen].
>
>Looking online, the MEM boxes seem to have three or six positions, so
>no doubt this house (which is a little higher status than the typical
>two up to down terrace houses nearby) probably did have four sockets,
>and maybe two for lighting?
>
>Like many houses built at the time, the pendant fittings in the
>upstairs rooms and hall are positioned adjacent to the windows, so that
>the electric light simulates the cast of the natural light.
>
>>Early
>>fuse boxes were often double pole. No earth busbar, etc. Much more common
>>to have a later CU with earlier wiring. As at re-wire time, most will want
>>more circuits than original.
>>
>

--
Roland Perry

williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote
> Andrew wrote

>> Big firms have big overheads that means they are always more expensive.

> So why pay for their overheads if you can avoid it?

Why indeed. But you do get some advantages like
you don't see the bugger on holiday when you need
him as you can do with one man operations.

> And why should their overheads be moreper worker than those of a one
> man band?

Because the one man operation can do everything by
mobile and doesn't need to pay someone to field calls.

>> Far too many one-man bands resort to lies and
>> bullshit, especially when dealing with older people.

> Big firms resort to lies and bullshit. Oner manbands often rely on
> their local reputation.

But can tell lies to make their deficiencys due to one
person doing everything less obvious to the stupid.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 04:41:48 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote
>> Andrew wrote
>
>>> Big firms have big overheads that means they are always more expensive.
>
>> So why pay for their overheads if you can avoid it?
>
>Why indeed. But you do get some advantages like
>you don't see the bugger on holiday when you need
>him as you can do with one man operations.
>
>> And why should their overheads be moreper worker than those of a one
>> man band?
>
>Because the one man operation can do everything by
>mobile and doesn't need to pay someone to field calls.
>
>>> Far too many one-man bands resort to lies and
>>> bullshit, especially when dealing with older people.
>
>> Big firms resort to lies and bullshit. Oner manbands often rely on
>> their local reputation.
>
>But can tell lies to make their deficiencys due to one
>person doing everything less obvious to the stupid.

It's deficiencies, you bloody ignoramus.

R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote
>>> Andrew wrote

>>>> Big firms have big overheads that means they are always more
>>>> expensive.
>>
>>> So why pay for their overheads if you can avoid it?
>>
>> Why indeed. But you do get some advantages like
>> you don't see the bugger on holiday when you need
>> him as you can do with one man operations.
>>
>>> And why should their overheads be moreper worker than those of a one
>>> man band?
>>
>> Because the one man operation can do everything by
>> mobile and doesn't need to pay someone to field calls.
>>
>>>> Far too many one-man bands resort to lies and
>>>> bullshit, especially when dealing with older people.
>>
>>> Big firms resort to lies and bullshit. Oner manbands often rely on
>>> their local reputation.
>>
>> But can tell lies to make their deficiencys due to one
>> person doing everything less obvious to the stupid.
>
> It's deficiencies, you bloody ignoramus.

How many arseholes have you got, arseholes ?

In message <BN211X1itEKiFAz4@perry.uk>, at 06:38:26 on Wed, 9 Mar 2022,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:

>>> Do you know if the circuits are in good order (eg from EICR before
>>>purchase)?
>>
>>Yup, the subtext here is expect to uncover a few additional bits that
>>might need fixing...
>>
>>Equipotential bonding might not be up to scratch. Circuits might not
>>text successfully (ring continuity etc), requiring extra
>>investigation. There might be shared neutrals between circuits (will
>>cause RCD trip), or circuits might fail insulation resistance checks.
>
>We'll have to take that as it comes. However a Smart Meter was fitted
>in 2017 by previous owners, so maybe it was checked out then (I will
>look for paperwork at time of house purchase, later).

Have a certificate for the most recent work (3rd consumer unit I'm not
keen to replace unless it's essential) and wiring to kitchen/extension).

Which would tend to suggest that upstream of there is also OK, or would
that be too much of an assumption?

Nothing for the remainder, but I was always expecting to replace those
two older CUs, and they appear to have wiring consistent in age with
that transferred to the certified CU (and whose wiring must have tested
OK). The only newer wiring attached to the certified CU is a cooker
spur.
--
Roland Perry

On 09/03/2022 10:17, Theo wrote:
> Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Precisely. There's a lot to be said for letting sleeping dogs lie as far
>> as existing circuits are concerned, and installing a new CU to current
>> regs for any additional circuits.
>
> It seems like that's already been done: the geriatric CU remains, a
> secondary CU has been added for the extension. At some point the
> installation is unsafe and somebody has to bite the bullet and be prepared
> to rectify anything that may be lurking. While a 'sleeping dogs' approach
> might be fine if the installation is actually OK, just not up to current
> regs, from the description I'm not convinced this installation is OK.
>
> Theo

Fair enough, if you have safety concerns. But things like borrowed
earths will work fine for decades with no serious safety issues - but as
soon as you fit RCDs, all hell is let loose!
--
Cheers,
Roger

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <K9C352tzuiKiFAwV@perry.uk>, at 16:47:47 on Thu, 10 Mar 2022,
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
> >But there's two [old] fuse boxes. Most of the new circuits go into the
> >more recent (six-fuse Wylex, bakelite with a wire going through what
> >looks suspiciously like an asbestos holding cartridge).
> >
> >And a couple remaining through the vintage one (wooden box, six
> >porcelain holders). MEM Kantark Junior ^H^H Minor.
>
> Fuseholders like this (never seen that style before). I wonder if it
> helps date the installation:
>
> <https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/284690284822?hash=item4248dd0116:g:HJAAAOSw
> DsVhyfpR>

The internet suggests 1930s-1950s. I guess you've seen John Ward's
collection?
https://flameport.com/electric_museum/old_equipment/mem_wooden_double_pole_fusebox.cs4
Apparently it hasn't been permitted since 1950s:
https://flameport.com/electric_museum/old_equipment/index.cs4
https://flameport.com/electric_museum/danger_and_doom/ancient_dangerous_installation.cs4

Either way it's seriously weird to install new wiring into an old box like
that - even in the 1970s there were better options available. Which is why
I would get an EICR done to confirm there's nothing dodgy going on.
(in his pic somebody has slapped a post-2006 'mixed wiring colours' label on
the wooden fusebox, when they really should have refused to work on the
installation)

At mine I spotted a panoply of DIY bodges but the EICR was reassuring that
everything was essentially sound. Well there was a C1 but it wasn't
actually problematic in practice - it's now gone, as well as most of the
C3s (and RCD protection is now present).

Theo

In message <0ii*BdSIy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 08:08:12 on Fri,
11 Mar 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <K9C352tzuiKiFAwV@perry.uk>, at 16:47:47 on Thu, 10 Mar 2022,
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>> >But there's two [old] fuse boxes. Most of the new circuits go into the
>> >more recent (six-fuse Wylex, bakelite with a wire going through what
>> >looks suspiciously like an asbestos holding cartridge).
>> >
>> >And a couple remaining through the vintage one (wooden box, six
>> >porcelain holders). MEM Kantark Junior ^H^H Minor.
>>
>> Fuseholders like this (never seen that style before). I wonder if it
>> helps date the installation:
>>
>> <https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/284690284822?hash=item4248dd0116:g:HJAAAOSw
>> DsVhyfpR>
>
>The internet suggests 1930s-1950s. I guess you've seen John Ward's
>collection?

>https://flameport.com/electric_museum/old_equipment/mem_wooden_double_po
>le_fusebox.cs4

Yes, but not being able to find an exact match there, is why I asked
here.

>Apparently it hasn't been permitted since 1950s:
>https://flameport.com/electric_museum/old_equipment/index.cs4
>https://flameport.com/electric_museum/danger_and_doom/ancient_dangerous_
>installation.cs4

The cloth-covered rubber wire is (for the umpteenth time) something
which is notably not present here, rather than T&E.

It's my turn to be flabbergasted, that they'd even consider wiring up a
modern meter to it.

>Either way it's seriously weird to install new wiring into an old box like
>that - even in the 1970s there were better options available.

You mean like the way in the link above they've wired a new meter into a
generation older's wiring than mine?

>Which is why I would get an EICR done

I'll ask him to quote for that, too.

>to confirm there's nothing dodgy going on. (in his pic somebody has
>slapped a post-2006 'mixed wiring colours' label on the wooden fusebox,
>when they really should have refused to work on the installation)
>
>At mine I spotted a panoply of DIY bodges but the EICR was reassuring that
>everything was essentially sound. Well there was a C1 but it wasn't
>actually problematic in practice - it's now gone, as well as most of the
>C3s (and RCD protection is now present).
>
>Theo

--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 06:40:07 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote
>>>> Andrew wrote
>
>>>>> Big firms have big overheads that means they are always more
>>>>> expensive.
>>>
>>>> So why pay for their overheads if you can avoid it?
>>>
>>> Why indeed. But you do get some advantages like
>>> you don't see the bugger on holiday when you need
>>> him as you can do with one man operations.
>>>
>>>> And why should their overheads be moreper worker than those of a one
>>>> man band?
>>>
>>> Because the one man operation can do everything by
>>> mobile and doesn't need to pay someone to field calls.
>>>
>>>>> Far too many one-man bands resort to lies and
>>>>> bullshit, especially when dealing with older people.
>>>
>>>> Big firms resort to lies and bullshit. Oner manbands often rely on
>>>> their local reputation.
>>>
>>> But can tell lies to make their deficiencys due to one
>>> person doing everything less obvious to the stupid.
>>
>> It's deficiencies, you bloody ignoramus.
>
>How many arseholes have you got, arseholes ?

Well done for confirming your ignoramusness.

R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote
>>>>> Andrew wrote

>>>>>> Big firms have big overheads that means they are always more
>>>>>> expensive.
>>>>
>>>>> So why pay for their overheads if you can avoid it?
>>>>
>>>> Why indeed. But you do get some advantages like
>>>> you don't see the bugger on holiday when you need
>>>> him as you can do with one man operations.
>>>>
>>>>> And why should their overheads be moreper worker than those of a one
>>>>> man band?
>>>>
>>>> Because the one man operation can do everything by
>>>> mobile and doesn't need to pay someone to field calls.
>>>>
>>>>>> Far too many one-man bands resort to lies and
>>>>>> bullshit, especially when dealing with older people.
>>>>
>>>>> Big firms resort to lies and bullshit. Oner manbands often rely on
>>>>> their local reputation.
>>>>
>>>> But can tell lies to make their deficiencys due to one
>>>> person doing everything less obvious to the stupid.
>>>
>>> It's deficiencies, you bloody ignoramus.
>>
>> How many arseholes have you got, arseholes ?

<reams of the shit from your arseholes flushed where it belongs>

Whoops, nothing left, wota surprise, arseholes.

On 10/03/2022 07:06, Roland Perry wrote:

> About five years ago I needed a few breeze blocks, which are
> surprisingly difficult to buy 'retail'. And eventually found them in a
> branch of Homebase 50 miles away, so reserved them to collect. When I
> turned up, they denied they even sold the item at all.
>

Can't understand the difficulty. You buy as many or as few breeze blocks
required in Wickes and the biggest B&Q's.

Any decent builders merchant will sell you what ever number you want,
just don't go in on a SAturday morning or you will may be regarded as
rich pickings.

On 10/03/2022 22:37, Roger Mills wrote:
> On 09/03/2022 10:17, Theo wrote:
>> Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Precisely. There's a lot to be said for letting sleeping dogs lie as far
>>> as existing circuits are concerned, and installing a new CU to current
>>> regs for any additional circuits.
>>
>> It seems like that's already been done: the geriatric CU remains, a
>> secondary CU has been added for the extension.  At some point the
>> installation is unsafe and somebody has to bite the bullet and be
>> prepared
>> to rectify anything that may be lurking.  While a 'sleeping dogs'
>> approach
>> might be fine if the installation is actually OK, just not up to current
>> regs, from the description I'm not convinced this installation is OK.
>>
>> Theo
>
> Fair enough, if you have safety concerns. But things like borrowed
> earths will work fine for decades with no serious safety issues - but as
> soon as you fit RCDs, all hell is let loose!

Or even borrowed neutrals ?. Don't all earths go to a common point
anyway ??

On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 05:16:15 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote
>>>>>> Andrew wrote
>
>>>>>>> Big firms have big overheads that means they are always more
>>>>>>> expensive.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So why pay for their overheads if you can avoid it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why indeed. But you do get some advantages like
>>>>> you don't see the bugger on holiday when you need
>>>>> him as you can do with one man operations.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And why should their overheads be moreper worker than those of a one
>>>>>> man band?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the one man operation can do everything by
>>>>> mobile and doesn't need to pay someone to field calls.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Far too many one-man bands resort to lies and
>>>>>>> bullshit, especially when dealing with older people.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Big firms resort to lies and bullshit. Oner manbands often rely on
>>>>>> their local reputation.
>>>>>
>>>>> But can tell lies to make their deficiencys due to one
>>>>> person doing everything less obvious to the stupid.
>>>>
>>>> It's deficiencies, you bloody ignoramus.
>>>
>>> How many arseholes have you got, arseholes ?
>
><reams of the shit from your arseholes flushed where it belongs>
>
>Whoops, nothing left, wota surprise, arseholes.

How does it feel to be the group's favourite object of ridicule?

R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Andrew wrote

>>>>>>>> Big firms have big overheads that means they are always more
>>>>>>>> expensive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So why pay for their overheads if you can avoid it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why indeed. But you do get some advantages like
>>>>>> you don't see the bugger on holiday when you need
>>>>>> him as you can do with one man operations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And why should their overheads be moreper worker than those of a
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>> man band?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because the one man operation can do everything by
>>>>>> mobile and doesn't need to pay someone to field calls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Far too many one-man bands resort to lies and
>>>>>>>> bullshit, especially when dealing with older people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Big firms resort to lies and bullshit. Oner manbands often rely on
>>>>>>> their local reputation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But can tell lies to make their deficiencys due to one
>>>>>> person doing everything less obvious to the stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's deficiencies, you bloody ignoramus.
>>>>
>>>> How many arseholes have you got, arseholes ?

<reams of the shit from your arseholes flushed where it belongs>

Whoops, nothing left, wota surprise, arseholes.

In message <t0g6el$vpp$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 19:03:47 on Fri, 11 Mar
2022, Andrew <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> remarked:
>On 10/03/2022 07:06, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> About five years ago I needed a few breeze blocks, which are
>>surprisingly difficult to buy 'retail'. And eventually found them in a
>>branch of Homebase 50 miles away, so reserved them to collect. When I
>>turned up, they denied they even sold the item at all.
>
>Can't understand the difficulty. You buy as many or as few breeze blocks
>required in Wickes and the biggest B&Q's.

The difficulty (at the time, about five years ago) was that most of
those didn't list breeze blocks at all. Have they now added them to the
catalogue?

Believe me, I tried every one within 50 miles.

>Any decent builders merchant will sell you what ever number you want,

Most have nationally-set "computer says no" filters. So they won't for
example normally split palettes up, because there's little demand for
95% of a palette of things from other buyers. And in any event the order
processing system often only accepts integers, not fractions (of a
palette). Just like they won't sell you ten screws from a box of 100.

>just don't go in on a SAturday morning or you will may be regarded as
>rich pickings.

Mid-morning mid-week is best. I did find a distant Travis Perkins to
sell me some other groundwork piece parts, despite the much nearer one
not listing them at all (moral here is that not every one in a chain
stocks everything the others do).
--
Roland Perry

On 11/03/2022 19:05, Andrew wrote:
> On 10/03/2022 22:37, Roger Mills wrote:
>> On 09/03/2022 10:17, Theo wrote:
>>> Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Precisely. There's a lot to be said for letting sleeping dogs lie as
>>>> far
>>>> as existing circuits are concerned, and installing a new CU to current
>>>> regs for any additional circuits.
>>>
>>> It seems like that's already been done: the geriatric CU remains, a
>>> secondary CU has been added for the extension.  At some point the
>>> installation is unsafe and somebody has to bite the bullet and be
>>> prepared
>>> to rectify anything that may be lurking.  While a 'sleeping dogs'
>>> approach
>>> might be fine if the installation is actually OK, just not up to current
>>> regs, from the description I'm not convinced this installation is OK.
>>>
>>> Theo
>>
>> Fair enough, if you have safety concerns. But things like borrowed
>> earths will work fine for decades with no serious safety issues - but
>> as soon as you fit RCDs, all hell is let loose!
>
> Or even borrowed neutrals ?. Don't all earths go to a common point
> anyway ??

Sorry - borrowed neutrals was what I meant. Put it down to brain fart!
--
Cheers,
Roger

On 11/03/2022 22:40, Roger Mills wrote:
> On 11/03/2022 19:05, Andrew wrote:
>> On 10/03/2022 22:37, Roger Mills wrote:
>>> On 09/03/2022 10:17, Theo wrote:
>>>> Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Precisely. There's a lot to be said for letting sleeping dogs lie
>>>>> as far
>>>>> as existing circuits are concerned, and installing a new CU to current
>>>>> regs for any additional circuits.
>>>>
>>>> It seems like that's already been done: the geriatric CU remains, a
>>>> secondary CU has been added for the extension.  At some point the
>>>> installation is unsafe and somebody has to bite the bullet and be
>>>> prepared
>>>> to rectify anything that may be lurking.  While a 'sleeping dogs'
>>>> approach
>>>> might be fine if the installation is actually OK, just not up to
>>>> current
>>>> regs, from the description I'm not convinced this installation is OK.
>>>>
>>>> Theo
>>>
>>> Fair enough, if you have safety concerns. But things like borrowed
>>> earths will work fine for decades with no serious safety issues - but
>>> as soon as you fit RCDs, all hell is let loose!
>>
>> Or even borrowed neutrals ?. Don't all earths go to a common point
>> anyway ??
>
> Sorry - borrowed neutrals was what I meant. Put it down to brain fart!

I knew what you meant.

BTW although it will not find a borrowed neutral I have often run a fuse
box via a 30mA RCD as a test before swapping it for a RCD CU. It saves
all the trouble of meggering the circuits.

ARW <adamwadsworth@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I knew what you meant.
>
> BTW although it will not find a borrowed neutral I have often run a fuse
> box via a 30mA RCD as a test before swapping it for a RCD CU. It saves
> all the trouble of meggering the circuits.

OOI, I wonder if we are seeing more borrowed neutrals work with RCDs these
days. If an LED lamp is 2W, at 230V that's 8.6mA - below RCD rated tripping
current. Obviously many RCDs are sensitive below the nameplate 30mA, and if
you turn on lots of lights it's going to trip, but maybe there are cases of
isolated lights (like toilets and such) which get away with a borrowed
neutral when there's an LED in there.

Theo

On 12/03/2022 10:20, Theo wrote:
> ARW <adamwadsworth@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> I knew what you meant.
>>
>> BTW although it will not find a borrowed neutral I have often run a fuse
>> box via a 30mA RCD as a test before swapping it for a RCD CU. It saves
>> all the trouble of meggering the circuits.
>
> OOI, I wonder if we are seeing more borrowed neutrals work with RCDs these
> days. If an LED lamp is 2W, at 230V that's 8.6mA - below RCD rated tripping
> current. Obviously many RCDs are sensitive below the nameplate 30mA, and if
> you turn on lots of lights it's going to trip, but maybe there are cases of
> isolated lights (like toilets and such) which get away with a borrowed
> neutral when there's an LED in there.
>
> Theo

Presumably also a way of basic testing an RCD. Wire up a bulb that takes
just over 30mA via an MCB intentionally connected to the 'wrong' neutral
and see how long it takes for the RCD to trip ?.

On 12/03/2022 11:28, Andrew wrote:
> On 12/03/2022 10:20, Theo wrote:
>> ARW <adamwadsworth@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I knew what you meant.
>>>
>>> BTW although it will not find a borrowed neutral I have often run a fuse
>>> box via a 30mA RCD as a test before swapping it for a RCD CU. It saves
>>> all the trouble of meggering the circuits.
>>
>> OOI, I wonder if we are seeing more borrowed neutrals work with RCDs
>> these
>> days.  If an LED lamp is 2W, at 230V that's 8.6mA - below RCD rated
>> tripping
>> current.  Obviously many RCDs are sensitive below the nameplate 30mA,
>> and if
>> you turn on lots of lights it's going to trip, but maybe there are
>> cases of
>> isolated lights (like toilets and such) which get away with a borrowed
>> neutral when there's an LED in there.
>>
>> Theo
>
> Presumably also a way of basic testing an RCD. Wire up a bulb that takes
> just over 30mA via an MCB intentionally connected to the 'wrong' neutral
> and see how long it takes for the RCD to trip ?.

Or just use the test switch which is just a resistor that does the same
thing.