Are you saying, therefore, that ali-tube IS without doubt definitely suitable for burying in the ground?
Absolutely not. If you recall I objected to what I perceived was an assertion from you and John that it was.Are you saying, therefore, that ali-tube IS without doubt definitely suitable for burying in the ground?
Still going with your "read something not written and criticise it" approach. I did not mention BS8436. I referred to the manufacturers description of their cable which you specifically quoted.You may not take a term defined by a standard, give it a different meaning, and then claim that the standard says that the {whatever} has that thing.No, I'm arguing that a cable that has something which meets the dictionary definition of "a sheath", and where that "sheath" is metallic, has something which is a "metallic sheath" regardless of what the manufacturer or standards call it.
So dodging the question again. Does the description given by the manufacturer of their cable say it has an aluminium tube surrounding the cores or doesn't it ? What BS whatever says is irrelevant since 522.8.10 doesn't say "... metallic sheath complying with BS whatever".I'm arguing that the definition of the construction of a cable to BS 8436 does not give it a metal sheath.So are you arguing that aluminium is not metallic ?
Are you arguing that a "tube" enclosing the cores does not meet the definition of "sheath" ?
See above. The manufacturer states that there is an aluminium tube surrounding the cores - according to the dictionary definitions (for which you have proposed no counter definition) then that can be described as a sheath. The fact that there is then another (XLPE) sheath over the top of that does not change that.There is no sheath inside it.It also has an XLPE sheath over the top of that, but that doesn't alter the nature of the sheath inside it.
I agree that there is a slight lack of clarity, but what you are arguing goes completely against any reasonable interpretation of what is written. In part you appear to be relying on a definition of "sheath" meaning only the outermost covering - ie that there cannot be more than one layer which could be considered a "sheath" according to definitions which you have not disagreed with (let alone come up with any counter definition).I'll add you to the list of people whose only concern seems to be to argue themselves out of accepting that there is clearly insufficient clarity about the term for any claim that there is to be valid.
Quite so - and, as you have demonstrated, at least one standard English (dictionary) definition says that a sheath is a covering of an electric cable.The only compelling argument against that must be that "a sheath is not a covering".
And BS8436 is relevant in what way ?But we can do that if you want.
Their description is of a BS 8436 cable, and it fits with the terms in that.
So, if you prefer
- The maker's description does not contain the term "metal sheath".
- The cable component which is a metal layer is not described by them as a "sheath".
- The cable component they do call a "sheath" is not metal.
Again, in what way is BS8436 relevant ?And I answered that I'm arguing that the definition of the construction of a cable to BS 8436 does not give it a metal sheath.
And yet again, another attempt to distract from the question since this is no way a "when did you stop beating your wife" type question.It really doesn't matter how often you repeat your "when did you stop beating your wife" type of question, you're only going to get the same answer.
It appears to me that this is your position:
- You can see that the standard for BS 8436 cables does not require it to have a metal sheath.
- You can see that the metal layer it has is not called a sheath.
- You can see that what it does call a sheath is not made of metal.
- You can see that the maker of a BS 8436 cable does not call the metal layer a sheath.
- You can see that what the maker of the cable calls a sheath is not made of metal.
- You think that you can ignore all of that, and declare that the cable must have a metal sheath, and that it must be what BS 7671 requires, and therefore it must be compliant with 522.8.10 for direct burial, and there cannot possibly be enough doubt about that to be concerned and we must not even entertain the possibility that there might be a technical definition which applies.
Actually it is very black and white in this case. So far your objection seems to be that "the manufacturer calls the layer something different" and "some random BS not mentioned in 522.8.10 uses different terms".Far from arguing that black is white, I'm arguing that things are so grey that nobody who declares that without doubt they can see either black or white can be justified.
I'm not sure it is. The cable BAS quoted a description of was very clear that the cable included a complete metallic sheath regardless of whether BS8436 specifies a foil layer or braid or what it calls it.Continued reference to the manufacturer's description is diverting the argument from the salient points.
That, and "someone else calls it something else" - as if someone calling it a "stripey horse" somehow stops a zebra being a zebra.The only compelling argument against that must be that "a sheath is not a covering".
Not at all, when they too do not describe the cable as having a metal sheath.Continued reference to the manufacturer's description is diverting the argument from the salient points.
522.8.10 calls for a metal sheath.The point is that 522.6.204 specifically states that this BS8436 cable is suitable for burying in walls outside of the 'safe' zones without RCD coverage.
It therefore follows that for the purposes of 522.6.204 the metallic screen is considered compliant as an earthed metallic covering which complies with the requirements of these regulations for a protective conductor.
Therefore the screen is a compliant covering.
By standard English definition a sheath is a covering so how can the cable not be suitable for and compliant with 522.8.10?
Which is not the question I asked.It does not meet the definition of the sheath in BS 8436.
Actually we do - because the description of the cable is clear. Regardless of what BS something may require of the cable construction, if the cable has a completely enclosing aluminium tube then it has a metallic sheath according to any reasonable definition of sheath.Whether it meets the definition in BS 7671 522.8.10 nobody, not you, not I, not EFLI knows.
Indeed, and then we must fall back to accepted english language usage and dictionaries which document that usage.... to see that the lack of a proper definition can do nothing but create uncertainty.
Rubbish. A cable to BS something may not be REQUIRED to have a sheath to meet that standard, but unless the standard explicitly prohibits having a structure which could be described as a metallic sheath according to the definitions we have available, then you cannot say that "cables to BS something do not have blah".A cable to BS 8436 does not have a metal sheath. It really doesn't.
I've already shown you the logic behind that. You have so far failed to come up with ANY valid counter argument.A cable to BS 8436 does not have such a sheath. It really does not. If it does, show where the name of the standard, or the entries in the table of contents, or the diagrams identifying the parts, or the descriptions of the makers say that it does.
I have not claimed that it does, never. I am simply observing that the manufacturers description is clearly of a cable which does have a metallic sheath - unless you can come up with a definition of sheath that does not include an aluminium tube around the cores.Please show where the name of the standard, or the entries in the table of contents, or the diagrams identifying the parts, or the descriptions of the makers say that it does.
Actually it's quite clear. We know what "metal" means, we know what "sheath" means, so we know that it simply means a cable with a sheath which is made of metal - you're not very good at this english language stuff are you !Not necessarily, because it is not clear what 522.8.10 means by "metal sheath".
If I wanted to spend a ridiculous amount buying a standard I have no need of. And besides, as I've already explained, my statements of fact do not rely on the working of that BS - which you clearly understand since you've put so much effort into steering the discussion away from demonstrating that you are wrong.It does not meet the definition of the sheath of a BS 8436 cable. That is a matter of fact easily verified by looking at the information on the BSI website.
And again, while those 5 statements are true, they do not IN ANY WAY prove your point.It really does not matter how many more times you go around and around this loop, asking the same questions, the following will always be true:
- You can see that the standard for BS 8436 cables does not require it to have a metal sheath.
- You can see that the metal layer it has is not called a sheath.
- You can see that what it does call a sheath is not made of metal.
- You can see that the maker of a BS 8436 cable does not call the metal layer a sheath.
- You can see that what the maker of that cable calls a sheath is not made of metal.
I have not ignored those - they do not prove what you claimAnd denying that you are ignoring those
You accept that it has a metallic tube surrounding the cores, so we are down to what that metallic tube may be called. I don't really care what OTHER names it may be called, it meets the definition of "sheath" and therefore it IS a sheath. If you contend that, then please cite your official definition of sheath which does not encompass a "metal tube surrounding the cores"when you assert that the cable must have a metal sheath
Well BS 7671 requires a metallic sheath, the cable you cited a description of has a metallic sheath - the only doubt is that you refuse to accept that a metallic sheath meets the requirements for a metallic sheath., and that it must be what BS 7671 requires
So 522.8.10 requires a metallic sheath, the cable has a metallic sheath - where's the doubt about that (assuming we've covered the suitability by way of effective CSA as a CPC) ?, and therefore it must be compliant with 522.8.10 for direct burial
Please cite this mythical definition you keep relying on ? I've given citations for the definition I'm relying on, unless you have a differing defintion then you have no argument and are just being your usual belligerent self refusing to accept that you might not be right., and there cannot possibly be enough doubt about that to be concerned and we must not even entertain the possibility that there might be a technical definition which applies is just as lacking in credibility as the assertion itself.
The same WRONG answers, the same misdirections, the same bigotry.Give it up - it is going nowhere except a thread lock. If that's what you want, then keep it up, and I will keep on giving you the same answers to your same questions.
It's hard to tell amongst all the noise (particularly since I can't be bothered to read it all!), but I think that even they have conceded that the regs allow cable with earthed armour, as well as cable with an earthed 'sheath', to be buried underground!I think the numptys have declared that swa cable should not be buried below ground. We're all doomed.
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local