HRC fuse holder for MK Sentry II

What HRC fuse holder fits MK Sentry II?
Due to plumbing & chimney repair I might have to move a group of 8 cables later this year.
I can a) either move the 8 cables downwards 4" behind quarry tile into 4 pairs of trunking with top/bottom battens over which new oak skirting is attached with metal dowels (removeable) and MK Grid 2G unpunched backbox vertically aligned with 25mm holepunched & cover plate for zone... or b) replace all 8 cables with a 8 metres of 6mm 3c SWA, downstream CU, upstream HRC fuse.
The latter is the better solution subject to guaranteed discrimination of downstream 6A 20A Type-B RCBO - the problem is MK do not offer a type approved HRC carrier for Sentry-II (all RCBO at present).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
js.b1 wrote:

Fuse carriers seem to be getting hard to find. I can't say for sure, if the reverse is true, but I have used the Hager fuse carriers along with Sentry II RCDs interchangeably in a number of CU types. So there is a reasonable chance of them fitting. However TLC don't seem to have them any more.

Not sure I follow the "6A 20A" bit?
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I did wonder if Hager fit. If not it's go through the Schneider / Merlin-Gerin catalogs (they are mechanically interchangeable although some aesthetic differences).

Bizarre, I glanced at TLC tonight.
I suppose they expect people will use Henley blocks, but many installations simply do not have the space for a) henley blocks & associated cabling or b) henley blocks & switchfuse for remote CU (DNO do not permit their BS1361/88 fuse to protect cabling beyond 2-3 metres).

Sorry, it was not clear.
At present the run of 8 cables are protected by 8 6A-20A Type-B RCBOs, with 2 cables supplying up & down lights.
If I move those RCBO to a CU at the end of a sub-main, the sub-main cable's protection must give discrimination. Trip characteristics for quite a range of MCB Type-B & Type-C overlap, so I would prefer HRC fuse protection.
Obviously I do not want a 20A power radial trip at the end of the sub- main to take out the sub-main's protection - ignoring 314.1 for the moment it would also take out both lighting circuits. That MK do not offer a HRC fuse carrier has always been odd, their technical department must have a linking kit for two CU, henley blocks and a large open wall :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
js.b1 wrote:

Having experianced some MG stuff in the past, its not something I want to repeat! ;-) (although I expect a fuse carrier even they could make work reliably)

Indeed. Although if the total load of the downstream CU is less than the overload rating of the sub main, then you could argue its protection only needs provide fault protection for the sub main and not overload. That may allow you to increase the size of its MCB so as to be clear of an overlap.

It was the ^6A 20A" nomenclature I did not follow. Typically I would expect a rating of say something like 6B 30mA meaning Type B with 6A overcurrent with 30mA trip threshold RCD.
Or did you mean a mixture of 6A and 20A MCBs?

This doc:
http://www.mkelectric.co.uk/Documents/English/EN%20MK%20Technical%20Specifications/Circuit%20Protection/Miniatur%20Circuit%20Breaker.pdf
does actually have I^2t let through characteristics for their MCBs at the end, and they would suggest that successive sizes of device ought to discriminate, if my reading is correct. (a quick stacking operation in photoshop suggests that the curves don't overlap when plotted on the same scale)

Or they believe that their MCBs will discriminate when cascaded. (must admit I have always opted for a fused submain though)
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

MG make MK RCBO :-) Not sure if MK post Dec 2009 "aesthetic change" are also MG.
I wish MK would make a CU like Clipsal series 56 backboxes, ie, thickwall PVC rather than miserable-flimsy polycarbonate. That might be due to the need for knockouts - but they could thread-n-plug or self-seal inserts, solving the long running "IPx2 on top when regs require IPx4" issue of MK consumer units.

With 8 downstream RCBO the sub-main MCB rating would need to be the limiting factor. I think MK do 50A MCB, but not checked whether that is "B" & "C".

A mixture of 6A and 20A RCBO.

Ooo, gone to see, just "planning" at this stage - hadn't checked. - Type-B 20A trips instantly at 60-80 / 100A by chart / 5*In. - Type-B 50A would trip instantly at 150-200 / 250A by chart / 5*In. - Type-C 40A would trip instantly at 200-280 / 400A by chart / 10*In.
Thank you for digging the chart out.
I'm dubious about Type-B, but Type-C should make it possible. Taking a lazy 20A Type-B (5*In) it is 100A, taking a most sensitive 40A Type-C is 200A.
Obviously the combined Zs for 6mm SWA + Ze (TN-C-S) would need to be below 80% of the EFLI limit for a Type-C 40A (or whatever type/ rating). Cue the DNO to abandon PME because of cost and only give TN- S :-) Gas mains are being laid up neighbours driveways so anything seems to go these days.

I too have always gone for fuses at the head end as fuse trip curves are way slower than the fast electromechanical side of an MCB. I might telephone MK tomorrow and see what they say - it must guarantee discrimination.
I'm at the "Planning-2010" stage :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/01/2010 19:08, js.b1 wrote:

Discrimination applies to RCD's rather than MCB's. The overload protection is to protect the cables and equipment, and are sized accordingly.
Doesn't the Sentry have a full DIN rail though? If so then anything will fit, just clip any HRC carrier in and link the busbar across using a suitably rated link if the bottom terminal doesn't line up exactly with the existing busbar position.
--
Stuart

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lurch wrote:

No, discrimination is equally applicable for MCBs and the MCB component of an RCBO. Note that this is relation to fault currents and not overload currents.
So for example a 200A fault current would place both a 6A MCB and an upstream 16A MCB in the instantaneous part of their trip response curves.

Even then you can have difficulties with the projecting part not aligning with the other devices, and that preventing the cover going back on.
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have a suspicion the problem will be the busbar-alignment, any link strictly needs to be 25mm, bit bodgy, no type approval. Projection is usually limited for HRC carriers (no MCB toggle), but 32A is not really like enough for 8 downstream circuits. Larger than 32A might be even harder to fit. I knew I should have used Hager for this possibility :-)
Looks like option a). Move the 8 cables down 4" behind quarry tiles into 4 pieces of trunking with top/bottom battens over which new oak skirting is pushed onto dowels. Easily removed, easy to replace a cable (compared to 3 rooms under plaster). MK Grid 2G backboxes are available unpunched, use one vertical to define the Zone with 25mm Q-Max punched holes. I just realised I could at last run 3C+E to link the kitchen heat alarm to the main interlinked alarms, so some benefit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/01/2010 00:30, js.b1 wrote:

I think you can drop the CSA of the link as the load is limited. There is a regulation on this, but whether it can be used in this situation depends on how you interpret it. 433.2.2
--
Stuart

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Interesting read. Dropping CSA runs into the old problem of "sized as meter tails", but a smaller CSA may be possible based on adiabatic calculation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/01/2010 23:32, John Rumm wrote:

What I meant was, it is less likely to be a major problem in practice in the application set out in this thread. I was more concerned about Thunderbird being terrible as a newsreader TBH than proofreading my rather brief reply.

That is a minor concern, the MK and Hager range will fit any standard DIN enclosures, so are therefore the same as far as the front of the CU is concerned, so a Hager HRC should drop straight in.
--
Stuart

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/01/2010 23:32, John Rumm wrote:

Did you mean to say discrimination applies to overload currents not fault currents as per 17th Ed. Sec. 536?

Yes, but a big-time fault on (say) an electric shower is likely going to put both the 45A mcb and the 60A House Service Cut-Out fuse in the instantaneous part of their trip curves...
Of course, I may be missing the point completely. :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Lets see, the trip curve has a band of time...
B20 --- 0.01s = 114A ... 0.01-5s = 80A ... 0.01-3s = 70A B45 --- 0.01s = 257A ... 0.01-5s = 180A ... 0.01-3s = 158A C40 --- 0.01s = 480A ... 0.01-5s = 200A ... 0.01-3s = 130A BS -- 0.01s = 900A ... 0.01-5s = 270A ... 0.01-3s = 240A BS being BS1361 60A.
So a slow B20 could take as long as 3s to trip at 70A, but 0.01s at 114A.
It does show how discrimination at large values despite changing type is barely a guarantee particularly when considering EFLI.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Osborne wrote:

Well it does apply to overloads as well obviously, but the point I was trying to make is that while overload currents in cascaded sequences of MCBs will generally result in the devices discriminating without too much extra consideration, one needs to pay more attention to fault currents in the magnetic part of the trip curve.
Looking at the MK doc I linked to, it suggests that they have ensured that the let through energy on each device is less than that required to trip the next size up the range - which ought to ensure fault current discrimination as well. However when cascading devices from different manufacturers that may not always be the case. (or having a type C downstream of a type B protected submain)

Indeed it would. However the MCB will _usually_ get there first (although as people have found, that ain't always the case!)

Erm, I am not quite sure to honest! ;-)
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/01/2010 21:28, John Rumm wrote:

Setting aside the back-up issue[1], which is an absolute requirement...
The point that was confusing me slightly is that the 17th Ed doesn't care much about discrimiation for fault currents per se. It just says "Where co-ordination of series protective devices is necessary to prevent danger and where required for proper functioning of an installation..." and leaves it entirely to the installation designer to make a value judgement without giving any further guidance.
I'm struggling with criteria for "...required for proper functioning of an installation" and I don't see any particular "danger" other than the old saw of being "plunged into darkness by an unrelated fault".
Cheers, DaveyOz
[1] Where an upstream device with higher breaking capacity protects a downstream device with breaking capacity less than max. PSCC.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Osborne wrote:

yup, I can't think of an immediate example for that either... its not as if one would usually design circuits tripping on over/fault currents as a part of the normal state of operation.

Well, that one, plus any of the other cases where interruption of power to unrelated circuits in *really* undesirable (fire protection, refrigeration, life support, lifting apparatus etc).

Which amounts to "your downstream device may only be decorative!" Whether it lives or dies in its attempt to open the circuit is not our concern, since we know a device that can ;-)
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:32:46 +0000, John Rumm wrote:
<snip>

Not too much of a problem in my experience, John. We've successfully loaded all sorts of DIN compatible boxes with DIN modules and in virtually all cases we've had no problems at all. When there has been a problem it's usually been with a specialist piece of kit that, for example, needs additional insulation over its terminals for a particular project. The mechanical relationship between the DIN rail and the front cutout is part of the DIN spec, I think. Occasionally some kit does extend out slightly further than others though.
--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.