This is probably one of the best videos about the topic. New installs going forward aren't going to be an isssue as installers will generally pick a design that doesn't need RCD protection or use a manufacturer that has bidirectional RCD/RCBO's going forward. Sadly if the test button on an RCD/RCBO fails that's a C2 anyway during an EICR and when feeding a PV install it' will need rectifying with a bidirectional device in future.
@@navitascpRubbish. It was free. This thing about the IET just making changes to the regs just to make money is a false myth perpetrated by poorly educated electricians that hate the IET. AM3 was a good idea and it was a good idea for safety. I challenge you to say otherwise. Secondly, the IET is principally funded by its members who pay annual membership fees. Thirdly, and you probably didn't know this, as few electricians do as they aren't high enough qualified to join the IET, the IET is a charity, it is not a profit making business. The simple fact is, the regs book is a necessary tool to enable electricians to do their job. Just as you spend £1000 on a test meter, stationary, other equipment, you should expect to pay some money for the regs book. It is just an operating cost of your business. And it is a tiny cost compared to your other assets and operating costs. Why do you think it should be produced for free? The IET incurs a cost in producing it. Why should it give it away at a financial loss? The very least the IET should do is cover its production costs. But yet most of you electricians think you should get it for free. If it's free, who is paying for it? Why should IET members pay for the regs book *_you_* use? You're all self employed. It is your business. Take responsibility for it and run it properly. If you are working for an employer, then your employer should pay for it. I have raised these points several times in electricians channels when people like you moan about paying for it, and never once has anyone had the balls to provide an answer.
Have you read the BEAMA document on this? They are stating that there could be issues with MCBs as well, with back feeding affecting the arc extinguishing / short circuit characteristics.
I will look into this but I am assuming it is indicating that not ALL MCBs are bidirectional and that again it’s down to the designer of the circuit to check the equipment they are fitting Thanks for watching, I’ll reply back if I find anything different
Just fitted a Hager RCBO board and I’ve protected the pv by a bi directional RCBO as well as the battery system in the same way as the cable is pvc through the property but the heat pump is in swa so I’ve just used a mcb as its mechanically protected. It’s like a minefield out there second guessing yourself but give it a year they’ll come up with some other doodad we’ve gotta fit as it helps feng shui I guess?😁
Kind off helpful, up to the point of your solution to your rcbos not being bidirectional, you said save £35 not fitting an rcbo and fit a new ccu with rccb and mcbs, surely this is much more expensive solution. I think the manufacturers will be pleased with this problem as it gives them a new revenue stream, we don't need a new regulation, we need the product standard updating and all the substandard products, we have been advised to fit ,replacing foc. Proteus M2 rcbos are bidirectional, so new installs are easy to spec, what do we do with all the systems already installed, how do we code them,C2 or C3? they all met the current regulations when fitted, depending on the installation method it could be expensive to resolve, who pays for the solution?
Thanks for watching. If the install already has or doesn’t need RCD protection then the simple solution is to put it on an MCB that is bidirectional. Most installs won’t need RCD protection based on the technology now available on the inverter itself. Most manufacturers of PV equipment recommend a separate board for renewable circuits anyway. This is due to the amount of DC leakage that can occur on that side of the install. Pushing people to use bidirectional RCBOs or screwing the facts to make it appear as such, you’re right is most likely due to an attempt at increased revenue. But it has been a good exercise to educate people that as standard, RCBOs, RCCBs and AFDDs are unidirectional as stand. As they are in most of the world who also fit solar 👍🏽
@@navitascp The bigger issue is not new installs, but all the unsafe existing installations, a lot of those will be controlled unidirectional devices and will need addressing, the manufacturers need to make suitable products instead of recommending older technology, they will be suggesting Bs3036 protection next.
I C2'd an install the other week because of this - it's not even 3 years old. RCD test button - doesn't work - instant C2. Cause the main M2 40amp RCD isn't bidirectional, so even though the MCB is due to the way the solar installers designed and installed the circuit it needed RCD protection. Work around - change main RCD for main switch, fit bidirectional M2 RCBO. If the RCD test button operates and the RCD operates under an RCD test even as unidirectional it'd be a C3 improvement recommended where RCD is required due to the design of the circuit. If the RCD test button doesn't operate and the RCD doesn't function under an RCD test it's a C2 - check Napit code breakers/ NICEIC technical and Guidance Note 3. That's regardless of what the invertor manufacturers instructions might state.
may be a daft question, but does the current not follow though the MCB Bidirectional thought the BUSBAR and then back though the RCD/RCBO Unidirectional back to the Grid ? so to meet the reimernet of the intended reg , requires the main RCD shown in the CU to be BiDirectional?
@@navitascp ok but how does the power get to and from the grid to the MCB ? Does it not come in through the main tail, though the up front RCD then The busbar. Out thought the MCB to the final circuit. On the return though the MCB then busbar and back though the up front RCD back tails then the grid ? Or have I missed understood how the follow and return of Bidirectional current. More understanding how would not effect the upfront RCD
@@EXFElectrician No it effects the RCD supplying the bidirectional MCB. I've just C2'd an installation over the exact fault - see thread on the Efixx video last week. It's no good having multiple devices backing each other up if the one providing additional protection fails due to being unidirectional, it has still failed. Thus if using a main RCD it must be bidirectional, or swapped for a main switch and a bidirectional RCBO if additional protection by a residual current device is required due to the design of the circuit.
good video, never heard of this before so thanks for that. Quick request, detatch the mic from the desk, i'm hard of hearing and have headphones on loud, everytime you hit the desk my brain rattles from the sonic boom ;-)
Thanks for the video. But Am I missing something or You have bi directional mcb (overload or short circuit ) protection You do not have bi directional RCD (earth leakage) protection. So the suggested solution does not in fact have bi directional rcbo protection if required.
Correct, our RCCB at navitas is however bidirectional. Most aren’t as standard. It’s why you need to check the markings.But most MCBs ARE. So if you design your circuits appropriately you may not need RCD protection. Appreciate I may have been as clear as that on the video. I didn’t want it to come across like I was flogging our RCDs 😂
@@navitascp thanks, nothing wrong with flogging a bi directional RCD. I listened to the electrician's podcast. This whole the manufacturers are dictating things is hilarious. "Proper" electricians were flat out fitting batteries and inverters into lofts as convenient for them until they had to be stopped.
Actually this is stupid. IT should not happen! It needs a change in RCD design to stop damage to itself. It does not need the REGS changed. The problem is too many manufacturers on JPEL/64!
Hold on. let's think this through. You are right, it does need a change in RCD design to prevent damage to the device. That design has already been done...it's in the product which is a bidirectional RCD! So one solution to this problem is as follows: Change the regs to prohibit the use of unidirectional RCDs. Require them all to be bidirectional. So a regs change *_is_* the answer. The problem with this solution is it prohibits the use of the cheaper unidirectional RCD. In time as sales quantities of the bidirectional RCD increase, the manufacturing cost will reduce, so in time the retail price of the bidirectional RCD will fall (not withstanding other factors increasing such as electricity costs in manufacture). But whether the bidirectional RCD will ever be on a price parity with the unidirectional variant I cannot say.
The blame for this lies at the feet of some manufacturers. IET realised that there were bad designs out there that could fry their own protection circuit, turning them back into MCBs. The are manufacturers who always provided designs without this flaw and as they used normal markings of the time (load etc) if you followed the advice of this channel then people would worry about protection devices for no reason. In fact the only meaningful way to check by looking at markings is to see if 2 (bad) or 3 lines (good) are switched-out when they trip, as indicated by the mini circuit diagram - often printed on the side. For some manufacturers this change requires new markings and not a new design of RCBO or RCD, effectively to show that they don't have this design flaw introduced by others. Shame this video didn't mention that you can use the never-tested-at-6-months-either button to see if your current RCDs or RCBOs have been fried already by an easily-forceable issue. I happen to have an original MK Sentry CU with MCBs, RCDs and a PV / generation system (and an evil plastic front cover). I'm I impacted by this 'issue'...err, no. Not at all. The RCDs will happily trip without frying the protection circuit as the 3rd line (ie on the 'Test' side) kills the power to the PCB. I feel that some manufacturers are trying to deflect the issue to the 'new' rise of PV and battery systems when in truth many standby generation systems (typical of more remote communities) have always had this issue. If your manufacturer of protection devices didn't design for this then they deserve some flack for it.
Thanks for watching but you are simply highlighting exactly what I was saying. There isn’t a need for a mass fear around needing new devices for a solution that has been present for a number of years.
Nip over to France. They had double pole busbars with double pole MCB's 25yrs ago when I lived there. Seemed a backward step when I moved to the UK and kept coming across RCD's tripping in split load boards from earth neutral faults and the customer couldn't isolate it via the MCB as its only single pole here in the UK. The manufacturers I remember making this stuff was LeGrand, Hager, Merlin G.
No, was a misrepresentation of the happened. We went on the electricians podcast a few weeks back to explain to everyone 👍🏽 but verso circuit protection is better than ever and it’s a really exciting time for us at the moment, with new products and ranges all lined up for this year
@versoelectrical that's great to do a video but the huge issues are now going to be how an electrician can over come the situation that could lead to very expensive cu changes for customers
Why would you need to do CU changes when a simple MCB is bidirectional? If you have an install in place that has incorrectly used a unidirectional rcbo for example there is a work around. Failing that you could add a small extension unit to the install at the fraction of the cost to a board change
@versoelectrical I have contacted 4 of the products I got and they have a recommendation chart and 4 of the 4 state that there products should be protected by rcd type a and the minimal of 100ma. Not 30ma. They recommend like you say an external cu. Many installs are not as per manufactures recommendations in most cases. This whole topic is a really cracker to talk about.
To have a look at other solutions we can help you with check out www.versoelectrical.co.uk/verso-solar-solutions
Really nice bit of kit actually.
@@gino2465 thanks Gino 🙌🏽
This is probably one of the best videos about the topic. New installs going forward aren't going to be an isssue as installers will generally pick a design that doesn't need RCD protection or use a manufacturer that has bidirectional RCD/RCBO's going forward. Sadly if the test button on an RCD/RCBO fails that's a C2 anyway during an EICR and when feeding a PV install it' will need rectifying with a bidirectional device in future.
Thank you glad you found it useful
You’re right, at design stage there are so many options, I think we will all be ok 👌🏽
Clear and succinct as usual. Thank you very much.
Thank you, glad you found it useful!
There just pushing through a 3rd amendment, so that then they can then push through the full 19th edition and cash in on books and courses.
I was surprised that the download for amendment 3 was free 😅
@@navitascpRubbish. It was free.
This thing about the IET just making changes to the regs just to make money is a false myth perpetrated by poorly educated electricians that hate the IET.
AM3 was a good idea and it was a good idea for safety. I challenge you to say otherwise.
Secondly, the IET is principally funded by its members who pay annual membership fees.
Thirdly, and you probably didn't know this, as few electricians do as they aren't high enough qualified to join the IET, the IET is a charity, it is not a profit making business.
The simple fact is, the regs book is a necessary tool to enable electricians to do their job.
Just as you spend £1000 on a test meter, stationary, other equipment, you should expect to pay some money for the regs book. It is just an operating cost of your business. And it is a tiny cost compared to your other assets and operating costs.
Why do you think it should be produced for free? The IET incurs a cost in producing it. Why should it give it away at a financial loss?
The very least the IET should do is cover its production costs.
But yet most of you electricians think you should get it for free.
If it's free, who is paying for it?
Why should IET members pay for the regs book *_you_* use? You're all self employed. It is your business. Take responsibility for it and run it properly. If you are working for an employer, then your employer should pay for it.
I have raised these points several times in electricians channels when people like you moan about paying for it, and never once has anyone had the balls to provide an answer.
Oh and another thing, the IET does NOT cash in on courses.
The courses are not run by the IET.
Have you read the BEAMA document on this? They are stating that there could be issues with MCBs as well, with back feeding affecting the arc extinguishing / short circuit characteristics.
I will look into this but I am assuming it is indicating that not ALL MCBs are bidirectional and that again it’s down to the designer of the circuit to check the equipment they are fitting
Thanks for watching, I’ll reply back if I find anything different
Just fitted a Hager RCBO board and I’ve protected the pv by a bi directional RCBO as well as the battery system in the same way as the cable is pvc through the property but the heat pump is in swa so I’ve just used a mcb as its mechanically protected.
It’s like a minefield out there second guessing yourself but give it a year they’ll come up with some other doodad we’ve gotta fit as it helps feng shui I guess?😁
Thanks for watching.
How much were the RCBOs if you don’t mind me asking
If you are installing an EV Home charger would this work?
Kind off helpful, up to the point of your solution to your rcbos not being bidirectional, you said save £35 not fitting an rcbo and fit a new ccu with rccb and mcbs, surely this is much more expensive solution. I think the manufacturers will be pleased with this problem as it gives them a new revenue stream, we don't need a new regulation, we need the product standard updating and all the substandard products, we have been advised to fit ,replacing foc. Proteus M2 rcbos are bidirectional, so new installs are easy to spec, what do we do with all the systems already installed, how do we code them,C2 or C3? they all met the current regulations when fitted, depending on the installation method it could be expensive to resolve, who pays for the solution?
Thanks for watching.
If the install already has or doesn’t need RCD protection then the simple solution is to put it on an MCB that is bidirectional.
Most installs won’t need RCD protection based on the technology now available on the inverter itself.
Most manufacturers of PV equipment recommend a separate board for renewable circuits anyway. This is due to the amount of DC leakage that can occur on that side of the install.
Pushing people to use bidirectional RCBOs or screwing the facts to make it appear as such, you’re right is most likely due to an attempt at increased revenue.
But it has been a good exercise to educate people that as standard, RCBOs, RCCBs and AFDDs are unidirectional as stand. As they are in most of the world who also fit solar 👍🏽
@@navitascp The bigger issue is not new installs, but all the unsafe existing installations, a lot of those will be controlled unidirectional devices and will need addressing, the manufacturers need to make suitable products instead of recommending older technology, they will be suggesting Bs3036 protection next.
I C2'd an install the other week because of this - it's not even 3 years old. RCD test button - doesn't work - instant C2. Cause the main M2 40amp RCD isn't bidirectional, so even though the MCB is due to the way the solar installers designed and installed the circuit it needed RCD protection. Work around - change main RCD for main switch, fit bidirectional M2 RCBO.
If the RCD test button operates and the RCD operates under an RCD test even as unidirectional it'd be a C3 improvement recommended where RCD is required due to the design of the circuit.
If the RCD test button doesn't operate and the RCD doesn't function under an RCD test it's a C2 - check Napit code breakers/ NICEIC technical and Guidance Note 3.
That's regardless of what the invertor manufacturers instructions might state.
may be a daft question, but does the current not follow though the MCB Bidirectional thought the BUSBAR and then back though the RCD/RCBO Unidirectional back to the Grid ? so to meet the reimernet of the intended reg , requires the main RCD shown in the CU to be BiDirectional?
No the MCB would be feeding the battery or pv that then goes back and forth to the grid.
@@navitascp ok but how does the power get to and from the grid to the MCB ?
Does it not come in through the main tail, though the up front RCD then The busbar. Out thought the MCB to the final circuit.
On the return though the MCB then busbar and back though the up front RCD back tails then the grid ?
Or have I missed understood how the follow and return of Bidirectional current.
More understanding how would not effect the upfront RCD
Or dose it only effect the protective device directly connected to the final circuit PV , battery possibly Vehical to grid
@@EXFElectrician No it effects the RCD supplying the bidirectional MCB. I've just C2'd an installation over the exact fault - see thread on the Efixx video last week. It's no good having multiple devices backing each other up if the one providing additional protection fails due to being unidirectional, it has still failed.
Thus if using a main RCD it must be bidirectional, or swapped for a main switch and a bidirectional RCBO if additional protection by a residual current device is required due to the design of the circuit.
@@navitascp ok thanks
good video, never heard of this before so thanks for that. Quick request, detatch the mic from the desk, i'm hard of hearing and have headphones on loud, everytime you hit the desk my brain rattles from the sonic boom ;-)
Thanks for watching
I’ll use the clip on rode mics next time ;)
@@navitascp Appreciate that, i've sub'd so look forward to the next one ;-)
Do you make bidirectional RCBO?
For the Australia market, which is on a dual busbar system. Not for our uk design
Thanks for the video. But
Am I missing something or
You have bi directional mcb (overload or short circuit ) protection
You do not have bi directional RCD (earth leakage) protection.
So the suggested solution does not in fact have bi directional rcbo protection if required.
Correct, our RCCB at navitas is however bidirectional. Most aren’t as standard.
It’s why you need to check the markings.But most MCBs ARE. So if you design your circuits appropriately you may not need RCD protection.
Appreciate I may have been as clear as that on the video. I didn’t want it to come across like I was flogging our RCDs 😂
@@navitascp thanks, nothing wrong with flogging a bi directional RCD. I listened to the electrician's podcast. This whole the manufacturers are dictating things is hilarious. "Proper" electricians were flat out fitting batteries and inverters into lofts as convenient for them until they had to be stopped.
Actually this is stupid. IT should not happen! It needs a change in RCD design to stop damage to itself. It does not need the REGS changed. The problem is too many manufacturers on JPEL/64!
Thanks for watching. Too many or maybe not enough. Great thought through.
Hope you enjoyed the video
Hold on. let's think this through.
You are right, it does need a change in RCD design to prevent damage to the device.
That design has already been done...it's in the product which is a bidirectional RCD!
So one solution to this problem is as follows:
Change the regs to prohibit the use of unidirectional RCDs. Require them all to be bidirectional.
So a regs change *_is_* the answer.
The problem with this solution is it prohibits the use of the cheaper unidirectional RCD.
In time as sales quantities of the bidirectional RCD increase, the manufacturing cost will reduce, so in time the retail price of the bidirectional RCD will fall (not withstanding other factors increasing such as electricity costs in manufacture).
But whether the bidirectional RCD will ever be on a price parity with the unidirectional variant I cannot say.
The blame for this lies at the feet of some manufacturers. IET realised that there were bad designs out there that could fry their own protection circuit, turning them back into MCBs. The are manufacturers who always provided designs without this flaw and as they used normal markings of the time (load etc) if you followed the advice of this channel then people would worry about protection devices for no reason. In fact the only meaningful way to check by looking at markings is to see if 2 (bad) or 3 lines (good) are switched-out when they trip, as indicated by the mini circuit diagram - often printed on the side.
For some manufacturers this change requires new markings and not a new design of RCBO or RCD, effectively to show that they don't have this design flaw introduced by others. Shame this video didn't mention that you can use the never-tested-at-6-months-either button to see if your current RCDs or RCBOs have been fried already by an easily-forceable issue.
I happen to have an original MK Sentry CU with MCBs, RCDs and a PV / generation system (and an evil plastic front cover). I'm I impacted by this 'issue'...err, no. Not at all. The RCDs will happily trip without frying the protection circuit as the 3rd line (ie on the 'Test' side) kills the power to the PCB.
I feel that some manufacturers are trying to deflect the issue to the 'new' rise of PV and battery systems when in truth many standby generation systems (typical of more remote communities) have always had this issue. If your manufacturer of protection devices didn't design for this then they deserve some flack for it.
Thanks for watching but you are simply highlighting exactly what I was saying.
There isn’t a need for a mass fear around needing new devices for a solution that has been present for a number of years.
Do you mean double ended RCBO,s
😂😂
When is someone going to make a double pole busbar and no fly leads!
Watch this space
@@navitascpfuck yes
Nip over to France. They had double pole busbars with double pole MCB's 25yrs ago when I lived there. Seemed a backward step when I moved to the UK and kept coming across RCD's tripping in split load boards from earth neutral faults and the customer couldn't isolate it via the MCB as its only single pole here in the UK. The manufacturers I remember making this stuff was LeGrand, Hager, Merlin G.
they did just went under... sbs
@AGRElectrics yes I never did get chance to use them!
What happened to verso
Still here mate, just going through a rebrand 🙌🏽 bigger and better than ever!
I thought I saw something on your LinkedIn in page about verso going into administration or similar?
No, was a misrepresentation of the happened. We went on the electricians podcast a few weeks back to explain to everyone 👍🏽 but verso circuit protection is better than ever and it’s a really exciting time for us at the moment, with new products and ranges all lined up for this year
Eould electricians if needed start fitting differant brands to cu. Normally we would keep the same brand and it would not be good practice.
Thanks for watching. You can’t cross pollinate brands due to type testing. It’s actually quite important. In fact I think we will do a video on it lol
@versoelectrical that's great to do a video but the huge issues are now going to be how an electrician can over come the situation that could lead to very expensive cu changes for customers
Why would you need to do CU changes when a simple MCB is bidirectional?
If you have an install in place that has incorrectly used a unidirectional rcbo for example there is a work around. Failing that you could add a small extension unit to the install at the fraction of the cost to a board change
@versoelectrical I have contacted 4 of the products I got and they have a recommendation chart and 4 of the 4 state that there products should be protected by rcd type a and the minimal of 100ma. Not 30ma. They recommend like you say an external cu. Many installs are not as per manufactures recommendations in most cases. This whole topic is a really cracker to talk about.
Double end
😅 what’s Jamie started lol
@@navitascp you can't deny that logo is perfect
@@AGRElectrics 🤣 not one I think we’ll go for on ours! But certainly stands out 🤣