Is it OK to...

[EFLImpudence]

NOT if it is protected against fault current.

433.2.2 ... and fulfils at least ONE of the following conditions:
(i) ...
(ii) ...

READ IT.

 

[mwatsonxx]

READ IT.

So you can't explain you're stance. Well I'll explain it for you, you start reading a reg and as soon as you find a sentence that you think suits what you wanted to do, you stop reading. Must be a big worry!

 

[EFLImpudence]

Alright, I'll humour you -
I have explained my stance but you are ignoring it or incapable of understanding.


Eric always quotes the 3m. rule whenever spurs (or reduction of csa) are mentioned.
Perhaps you haven't been here winding up people long enough to realise that.

My stance is that this is NOT so if fault conditions are met according to 434 (which they will be in such spurs (or reduction of csa)).

I'm not going to type all of 433.2.2 when you have a book (albeit an old one) to read it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So you can't explain you're stance. Well I'll explain it for you, you start reading a reg and as soon as you find a sentence that you think suits what you wanted to do, you stop reading.

So what are you doing when you start reading a reg, see that it says something along the lines of "A or B is OK", and decide to completely ignore A and tell people that B is the only way to comply?

 

[ericmark]

I am sorry to muddy the waters with the 3 meter thing, my point was we didn't have a clue when I wrote it if from a radial, or ring. There was as I saw it a problem in although likely no problem, there was a possible problem and we simply did not have the info to say if there was or not, since now we know it is from the ring final and reasonably central on the ring with a FCU we can not say yes no problem. But when I answered I did not know that.

For interest only it stated:-

433.2.2 The device protecting a conductor against overload may be installed along the run of that conductor if the part of the run between the point where a change occurs (in cross-sectional area, method of installation, type of cable or conductor. or in environmental conditions) and the position of the protective device has neither branch circuits nor outlets for connection of current-using equipment and fulfils at least one of the following conditions:
(i) It is protected against fault current in accordance with the requirements stated in Section 434
(ii) Its length does not exceed 3 m, it is installed in such a manner as to reduce the risk of fault to a minimum,
and it is installed in such a manner as to reduce to a minimum the risk of fire or danger to persons (see also Regulation 434.2.1).

434.2.1 The regulations in Regulation 434.2 shall not be applied to installations situated in locations presenting a fire risk or risk of explosion and or where the requirements for special installations and locations specify different conditions. Amended July 2008

Except where Regulation 434.2.2 or 434.3 applies, a device for protection against fault current may be installed other than as specified in Regulation 434.2. under the following conditions:

The part of the conductor between the point of reduction of cross-sectional area or other change and the position of the protective device shall:
(i) not exceed 3 m in length, and
(ii) be installed in such a manner as to reduce the risk of fault to a minimum, and
(iii) be installed in such a manner as to reduce to a minimum the risk of fire or danger to persons.
NOTE: This condition may be obtained. for example, by reinforcing the protection of the wiring against external influences

Please note amendment 2 or 3 may have changed the wording slightly. 433.2.2 was an "or" but 434.2.1 is an "and" on my copy. May be this has now changed as I don't have amendment 2 or 3. However in this case it really does not matter as the FCU is well within the 3 meters and even if it were not there seems to be some uncertainty as to if this applies to a ring final.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

433.2.2 The device protecting a conductor against overload may be installed along the run of that conductor if the part of the run between the point where a change occurs (in cross-sectional area, method of installation, type of cable or conductor. or in environmental conditions) and the position of the protective device has neither branch circuits nor outlets for connection of current-using equipment and fulfils at least one of the following conditions:
(i) It is protected against fault current in accordance with the requirements stated in Section 434
(ii) Its length does not exceed 3 m, it is installed in such a manner as to reduce the risk of fault to a minimum,
and it is installed in such a manner as to reduce to a minimum the risk of fire or danger to persons (see also Regulation 434.2.1).

Try:

433.2.2 The device protecting a conductor against overload may be installed along the run of that conductor if the part of the run between the point where a change occurs (in cross-sectional area, method of installation, type of cable or conductor. or in environmental conditions) and the position of the protective device has neither branch circuits nor outlets for connection of current-using equipment and fulfils at least one of the following conditions:
(i) It is protected against fault current in accordance with the requirements stated in Section 434
(ii) Its length does not exceed 3 m, it is installed in such a manner as to reduce the risk of fault to a minimum,
and it is installed in such a manner as to reduce to a minimum the risk of fire or danger to persons (see also Regulation 434.2.1).

Please note amendment 2 or 3 may have changed the wording slightly. 433.2.2 was an "or" but 434.2.1 is an "and" on my copy. May be this has now changed as I don't have amendment 2 or 3.

If you had you would see that the entire first sentence you quoted has gone. 434.2.1 begins "Except where Regulation 434.2.2 or 434.3 applies...."

But in any event you're still making the same old mistake - 434.2.1 is ONE OF the options allowed by 434.2. There are also 434.2.2 and 434.3

However in this case it really does not matter as the FCU is well within the 3 meters and even if it were not there seems to be some uncertainty as to if this applies to a ring final.

The circuit topology is irrelevant.

 

[charliegolf]

Blimey, I feel awful now!

 

[securespark]

It's pretty pathetic and childish to try and use gender to insult people.

 

[mwatsonxx]

..

 

[John D v2.0]

Winding up BAS is a forum pastime, she's so easy.

For you maybe, some of us want to have a constructive forum environment not just pointless insulting. Makes you look worse tbh.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Winding up BAS is a forum pastime, she's so easy.

You aren't winding me up.

But you are giving us a fascinating insight into just what a ---- person you are. What kind of person, other than a misogynist scumbag would think that addressing someone as female would be regarded by that person as insulting, or would upset them, or wind them up?

And also, it would appear, you think that it is perfectly OK to come here and tell people lies, just so long as it allows you to do what you think is winding me up.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I have explained my stance but you are ignoring it or incapable of understanding.

Either way he shouldn't be here.

 

[terryplumb]

there you go charlie ,hope thats made everything clear for you . want to buy a battery operated light ?

 

[deadshort]

Well, why don't you explain, you could cause me maximum embarrassment and maximum kudos for yourself.

You don't need help with that, you're a natural

DS

 

[Risteard]

near every other circuit is protected at the origin and what ever you do you can't over load it without a protective device disconnecting the supply

Not strictly true - that is why you are required by design to ensure that a small overload of long duration can't occur as the cable could then be unprotected.