Search results

You've forgotton about applying diversity to your cooker circuit - From Table 1A OSG, current demand to be assumed is 15.1A (without socket-outlet) therefore if clipped direct, you could get away with 1mm on a B16 for up to 16m (OSG Chap.7).

All I would add is that things change if you add spurs to such a ring. The spurs will then have to comply. Any 'high integrity cpc' is sized mainly due to robustness and not any electrical properties i.e. to increase the reliability of the cpc.

:lol: :lol: :lol: haven't laughed so much in ages :lol: :lol: :lol:

And with a Government barely able to print, let alone write in joined-up writing, I wonder if their brilliant idea to insulate, insulate, insulate, will result in more house fires due to overheated cables which in turn they can use to justify more Draconian Part P-style red tape (i.e. tax and...

Ah look, everyone - BAS is displaying his maturity and lying, cheating debating skills again. Is it worth asking him, do you think, to explain why he thinks the principle of plagiarism is an acceptable form of debate? Perhaps he missed this point whilst embarking on his 'selective' BAS7671...

The principles and the facts are not the same thing. Of course it's not the end of the world in BAS7671 - nothing is unless you say so. :lol: You can say whatever you like to wriggle out of doing things properly. Isnt this afterall the principle behind BAS7671? :wink:

I wonder how many water companies continue to consider the run from the 'mains' to the house as public...especially when they've installed a stop cock and meter at the top of the drive?

The irony is that for many TT installations, the main bonded gas and water act as better earth electrodes than the actual earth electrode.

That would be you, mate...you take a comment about RECs not caring and turn it into an insult...then you decide on a personal insult to get the thread locked...dear oh dear... Perhaps it would be better that the Mods remove your insults and leave it at that :D

:D :D :D

I'm sorry that I caught you out :D

If you think a supply company will be busting a gut, or fretting over anything that will cost them money, it's you who is stupid mate.

I bet they're all losing sleep over it. :D

She could try Ofgem, but they'll probably direct her to the thing that has just replaced Energywatch - which will probably be of no use for the type of complaint she has. The Heath and Safety Executive might be a better bet. There's nothing like a bit of danger to set these heat seeking ferrets...

Can you confirm if ESQCR 2002 has been updated to increase the permitted tolerance to +/- 10%? BS7671:2008 states not, according to App. 2. I wasn't aware that things had changed at a national level. Certainly there would be no need for us to change things as the permitted tolerance stated...

There is hardly any difference btwn calculating as a % of permitted tolerance or calculating as a % of 230V. So one has to wonder if it really matters whether you use a % of actual voltage or the figures 6.9V and 11.5V. The spread could be 246.1V to 209.3V for 3% and 241.5V to 204.7V for...

What do you think?

:roll: fair enough - let's then say 'actual voltage at the origin within the prescribed tolerance of Uo'...just seems such a mouthful and tediously long to type. Can we agree on a shorthand and call it 'Actual Uo' to save people's fingers and keyboards?

Wait for Amendment No1:2009 :D

It might not be. I've seldom (if ever) measured a nice crisp steady 230V or 400V. If you're at the last pole, Uo might well be at the lower end of the tolerance, or even below (the REC probably wouldn't care - something people actually suffer from).