reusing a disused shower circuit

[SUNRAY]

I am very sorry for you that you are unable to supply ALL the information required to design your hypothetical circuit.

No need to be sorry for me - the sad thing is that this has exposed your reluctance, or perhaps your inability, to reason and infer. Let's not forget that it was you who wrote that you didn't understand.

Thankyou so much for describing yourself.
Please for your own sake read before you quote, dont turn it into something else.
Now go back & read what you misquoted again. You never know you may understand it eventually.

Oh and for the record this is another example of a misquote and yes they are your words Goldberg.

I'm a tw@, a w*nker.

CC.

 

[ColJack]

Thankyou so much for describing yourself.

lets not let this deteriorate into "I know you are, but what am I?" insults..

 

[Goldberg]

Let's not forget that it was you who wrote that you didn't understand.

now lets be fair here, you deliberately misquoted him..

Yes I know that SUNRAY thought it was a deliberate misquote, but it was just an abbreviation, not a manipulation to the wording or to his meaning.

what the OP has is a 30A radial with 2 points of utilisation on it.

No, it's an 8A radial with oversized cable. And I asked SUNRAY what he would use to protect a 5A radial with 6mm² cable.

the points of utilisation are fused down by the use of FCU's.. so no differerence to a 30A radial for use with sockets..

A 30A radial for sockets would have a design load of 30A, not 8A.

Let's not forget that it was you who wrote that you didn't understand.

Please for your own sake read before you quote, dont turn it into something else.

I apologise for making it look as though I deliberately turned it into something else. My intention was to abbreviate, and the motive was pure laziness. Here's how I should have quoted you:

I dont understand the 'problem' here...
Am I missing something?

I know that you don't understand, and I suspect that you are missing something, but it's odd that you're comfortable with inventing a ring final, which by its nature is incomparible with a radial, and yet you reject the question that I posed because it doesn't fit into your framework of how-to-ask-you-a-question-about-circuit-design.

If you're trying to test my knowledge of circuit design, then, whilst I understand that, I choose to decline to play that game. If your only coping mechanism is to insult me, then so be it.

 

[Goldberg]

Why isn't 6.5 ≤ 30 ≤ 47 OK?

Are you using BS 7671 to set the selection criteria for your 30A CPD?

If so, which regulations are you using?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Are you using BS 7671 to set the selection criteria for your 30A CPD?

Yes.

If so, which regulations are you using?

The ones which say it must be no less than the load and no more than the capacity of the cable.

Why isn't 6.5 ≤ 30 ≤ 47 OK?

 

[Goldberg]

If so, which regulations are you using?

The ones which say it must be no less than the load and no more than the capacity of the cable.

In that case I suggest that you use the other ones as well.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[Goldberg]

Yes, it should be safe, provided that the existing circuit is in good condition, and there is 30mA RCD protection, note the breaker MUST be swapped to a smaller Type B one rated at 10amps.

Yes you can, you should also add 30mA rcd protection.

Assuming the original circuit was correctly designed for a 30A load, you can leave as is or reduce to any fuse size lower than 30A that will carry the new load - but it does'nt make any difference.

kai had it covered, right at the very beginning.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[Goldberg]

kai had it covered, right at the very beginning.

Some insults.

I missed out a word:

kai had it covered correctly, right at the very beginning.

 

[SUNRAY]

My intention this morning was to remove (or at least re-edit) my post of 9.55 / 10.40 last night.
Having read whats happened since and the continued misquoting, I think it will stay there for now, unless any one asks differently.

 

[Goldberg]

My intention this morning was to remove (or at least re-edit) my post of 9.55 / 10.40 last night.
Having read whats happened since and the continued misquoting, I think it will stay there for now, unless any one asks differently.

I've already apologised for appearing to deliberately turn your words into something else. As I've already said, my intention was to abbreviate, not to change the meaning.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In that case I suggest that you use the other ones as well.

Are there ones which say that 6.5 ≤ 30 ≤ 47 is not OK?

kai had it covered correctly, right at the very beginning.

Did he?

Why MUST it be reduced?

Why is 6.5 ≤ 10 ≤ 47 OK but 6.5 ≤ 30 ≤ 47 isn't?

 

[Goldberg]

In that case I suggest that you use the other ones as well.

Are there ones which say that 6.5 ≤ 30 ≤ 47 is not OK?

No. Not in those terms.

kai had it covered correctly, right at the very beginning.

Did he?

Yes.

Why MUST it be reduced?

Why don't you ask the person who wrote those words?

Why is 6.5 ≤ 10 ≤ 47 OK but 6.5 ≤ 30 ≤ 47 isn't?

Why do you believe the converse to be true for my proposed radial with a 5A loading?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No. Not in those terms.

So there are no regulations which say that 6.5 ≤ 30 ≤ 47 is not OK?

Why don't you ask the person who wrote those words?

You're agreeing with him - why can't I ask you?

You believe it to be the case - why can't I ask you?

Why do you believe the converse to be true for my proposed radial with a 5A loading?

Never mind what I believe or not about other circuits.

Will you please stop trying to answer a question by asking another one.

Will you please tell me why 6.5 ≤ 10 ≤ 47 is OK but 6.5 ≤ 30 ≤ 47 isn't, or please tell me why you refuse to answer that question?