Triton enlight trips out

[ban-all-sheds]

Indeed.

The question, though, was directed at Winston. I await his reply with interest. But without any expectation that he will actually do us the courtesy of replying.

Ditto the question in the post following this one.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What makes you think his supply is 230 volts? Whenever I have measured mains at various places in the UK it is around 242 volts.

If an essentially linear resistive load draws 39.58A at 240V, would you please explain why you are unhappy with someone saying that the same load would draw about 37.9A at 230V?

Alternatively, please change your avatar to an image of a seagull.

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed. The question, though, was directed at Winston.

I obviously realised that (the message you quoted was a good clue!). I was primarily questioning what you had written - since I don't think that even the authors of BS7671 would speak about 'contravening the regulations' in relation to someone having undertaken a calculation that went beyond (i.e. was 'safer than') the minimum standard required by the regs!

Kind Regards, John

 

[pinn73]

Hi,

Electricians been out. Quoted £20 for call out charge, £25 for labour and whatever a new 40a rcbo is going to cost. Wiring is okay so he's just going to upgrade it.

Does that seem alright price wise?

Thanks

 

[JohnW2]

Electricians been out. Quoted £20 for call out charge, £25 for labour and whatever a new 40a rcbo is going to cost. Wiring is okay so he's just going to upgrade it. Does that seem alright price wise?

The price sounds fine to me. I presume that ("wiring OK") the electrician was satisfied that the cable is adequate to support the 40A RCBO.

Although this work clearly needed to be done, it is not totally foregone conclusion that thsi will cure your problem. It remains just about impossible (although unlikley) that the shower itself had developed a fault which only shows itself after it has been running for a few minutes. Even if the electrician undertook some tests on the shower, auch a problem would not have showed up unless (s)he first ran the shower for a few minutes.

However, hopefully the new RCBO will cure everything!

Kind Regards, John

 

[pinn73]

The price sounds fine to me. I presume that ("wiring OK") the electrician was satisfied that the cable is adequate to support the 40A RCBO.

Although this work clearly needed to be done, it is not totally foregone conclusion that thsi will cure your problem. It remains just about impossible (although unlikley) that the shower itself had developed a fault which only shows itself after it has been running for a few minutes. Even if the electrician undertook some tests on the shower, auch a problem would not have showed up unless (s)he first ran the shower for a few minutes.

However, hopefully the new RCBO will cure everything!

Kind Regards, John

Thanks John.

Yes the wiring was adequate to support 40a. He's returning on Monday to upgrade the rcbo so will ensure he does as you suggest.

 

[phatboy]

Hi,

Electricians been out. Quoted £20 for call out charge, £25 for labour and whatever a new 40a rcbo is going to cost. Wiring is okay so he's just going to upgrade it.

Does that seem alright price wise?

Thanks

Sounds pretty good for me, especially as he will make a second trip to you within that cost and go and get a suitable replacement RCBO. RCBO would be around £30 I reckon.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't think that even the authors of BS7671 would speak about 'contravening the regulations' in relation to someone having undertaken a calculation that went beyond (i.e. was 'safer than') the minimum standard required by the regs!

No, but they might question the use of a non-compliant value for Uo.

 

[JohnW2]

No, but they might question the use of a non-compliant value for Uo.

As I said, I don't think they would question it, or call in 'non-compliant', if it were 'non-complaint' in the 'safe direction'. In other words, they do not suggest that it is 'non-compliant' to exceed the minimum safety standards they require.

Mind you, 'they can talk'. It took them goodness-knows how many decades to realise that, by requiring calculations to be undertaken using Uo (without any corrections), their requirements in relation to fault protection were leaving a substantial proportions of households 'under-protected'. They have fairly recently largely addressed that, although they haven't changed the fact that 'the calculations are based on Uo'. However, they now require Uo to be multiplied by a factor ("Cmin") which effectively (almost) reduces it to the minimum permissible supply voltage!

Kind Regards, John