Led lights

[JohnW2]

Of course. He should make an educated guess as to the likely use - that's what designers are supposed to do.

Fair enough, but (a) if we're talking about the same reg (I'm still not sure!), a ring final would be non-compliant with that reg, regardless of any considerations of 'likely load' (because of the relationship between In and Iz), were it not for the 'dispensation of 433.1.204 (BYB), and (b) I'm not sure that it's necessarily appropriate to cite a regulation to make your point when application of the reg comes down to an educated guess on the part of the designer!

For example, a row of twin 13A socket-outlets directly under the CU in a utility room likely to contain a WM and TD would not be likely to conform.

Well, I only have the one but, as I said, it's 'within range' of both WM and TD - so maybe non-compliant!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

an educated guess on the part of the designer

It might be called something like 'exercising knowledge, skill and judgement', but it's basically an educated guess.

I'm not sure that it's necessarily appropriate to cite a regulation to make your point when application of the reg comes down to an educated guess on the part of the designer!

Well, the Regulation in question implies a judgement by the designer.

 

[JohnW2]

It might be called something like 'exercising knowledge, skill and judgement', but it's basically an educated guess.

Indeed. I called it such because you were the first one to describe it as an 'educated guess'

Well, the Regulation in question implies a judgement by the designer.

I think there is an increasing need for you to clarify what regulation you are talking about!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

"Such circuits are deemed to meet the requirements of Regulation 433.1.1 if the current-carrying capacity of the cable is not less than 20 A, and if, under the intended conditions of use, the load current in any part of the circuit is unlikely to exceed for long periods the current-carrying capacity of the cable."
Use of the term "unlikely" implies a judgement by the designer, does it not?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Well, it does, but if the designer thought it was likely then, supposedly, he wouldn't do it.

 

[JohnW2]

"Such circuits are deemed to meet the requirements of Regulation 433.1.1 if the current-carrying capacity of the cable is not less than 20 A, and if, under the intended conditions of use, the load current in any part of the circuit is unlikely to exceed for long periods the current-carrying capacity of the cable."

Oh - that's the 'ring final reg' - 433.1.204 in BYB. No wonder I was confused!

Use of the term "unlikely" implies a judgement by the designer, does it not?

It does, including the designer's judgement as to how likely it is that a 'stupid person' might come to be the user of the installation. If there were doubts about this, the only safe course would be to avoid sockets within "x%" of either end of ring (if I recall, x is around 30% of ring length with Method C, CCC=27A, but much higher with CCC=20A).

Kind Regards, John