Absolutely no need. Even a 60A supply would be more than ample. In fact you need advance permission from the DNO to exceed 60A/phase with an EVSE.
80A PME Fuse
- Thread starter chivers67
- Start date
Pay attention
I also mentioned 542.3.1, and that says that, when there is PME, Earthing conductors also have to satisfy the requirements for bonding conductors with PME (i.e. comply with Table 54.8)! ...
That may be true for the OP but, in the more general case, 60A would not necessarily be 'more than ample', unless one were perhaps prepared to accept very slow EV charging - it all depends upon the 'other loads'.
I think that one who used to contribute to this forum got something right about my question in a thread when, indeed, I myself got it wrong, after a while I realised he was correct (Some of you will remember dear old Ban-All-Sheds)Pay attention
I also mentioned 542.3.1, and that says that, when there is PME, Earthing conductors also have to satisfy the requirements for bonding conductors with PME (i.e. comply with Table 54.8)! ...
Yes, many of us remember
However, you now seem to be talking/writing in what I might uncharitably describe as 'riddles' - does what you've just written (about my post you quoted) mean that EFLI and/or I "got it right" and/or "got it wrong"?
If you can afford to pull more than 60A constantly through the night then you should probably just rapid charge your EV rather than fit a chargepoint, and heat your house by burning banknotes in an open fire.
If that means what you state then it must be one of the worst worded regulations.
Surely it should state instead rather than and.
The conductor cannot do both comply with 543 and then do something else.
Also above when explaining, you write "even with a 'PME' (TN-C-S) supply" but they are not the same plus these days we have to treat all apparent TNS supplies as PME and, as you know, the 'M' might only be two.
Do you really think that nearly all 16mm² Main Earthing conductors could be changed to 10mm² and if so why?
In other words, do you really think your interpretation - which I do not recall having seen anywhere else nor can find any agreement anywhere - is correct or could it be counteracted by a more obscure part of a different regulation.
Well I never; just found this (which I don't remember).
I can't post a link to the thread without a lot of unwanted stuff appearing.
What else can it mean, other than 'what it says'?
What would that change (in terms of the point I was making)? It would still surely mean that (with PME) Earthing conductors have to comply with 544.1.1 ('as if' they were bonding conductors), wouldn't it? It's surely not for us (or anyone) to invent a reg which says what we believe it should say (even though it doesn't), is it?
Why not? It's surely often the case that there is a requirement for something to comply with more than one reg. "Complying with 543" means things like being shown to be adiabatically adequate (or compliant with Table 54.7) - but that is not incompatible with an additional requirement to comply with 544.1.1 ('as if' they were bonding conductors), it it?
I wrote that deliberately since I personally felt that they probably 'got it wrong', since it would seem to me that it is TN-C-S (not PME) that could impact on the required size of bonding (or earthing) conductors.
As above, I don't think that whether or not there is 'PME' has any bearing on requirements for bonding/earthing conductors. As you say, when a supply enters a house as TN-S one has to consider the possibility that the earth path involves a PEN conductor - and that could be relevant in terms of requirements for bonding/earthing conductors.
Well, unless you're going to invent your own version of what you believe the regs 'should' have said, if the bonding conductor satisfies 543 (adiabatic adequacy etc.) and if the (any?) PEN in the supply has a CSA no greater than 35mm², how else are you going to interpret the regs in terms of what they actually say?
You tell me. In terms of what is actually written in the regs I've mentioned, and any other potentially relevant regs I can think of, I can't see how else to interpret the regs - can you?
Sorry No, I was neither correcting nor approving what either of you had said I was merely attempting to point out that it seems that the DNO etc has the final say in what the want us to have in place and that could be over and above what the regs state.Yes, many of us remember
However, you now seem to be talking/writing in what I might uncharitably describe as 'riddles' - does what you've just written (about my post you quoted) mean that EFLI and/or I "got it right" and/or "got it wrong"?
I did take me a "little while to see the light" eventually from my original stance though a few years ago.
Right, so I had exactly the same thoughts over a decade ago
Yes, we've always acknowledge that they have their own 'rules', and work to different regs (which may differ from regs in BS7671) - which I suppose is their prerogative.
However, I don't think it's always 'over and above' BS7671. For example, it seems that they have (at least in the past) sometimes used cables whose CSAs would not be compliant with BS7671.
My I remind us that when some rule or reg or law states some particular thing - in this case being the csa of a particular conductor - it does not invarably mean you may not use something better by some reason - in this case a conductor exceeding the cas required "The LA officer said he used the wrong cable!" , "No he did not, he merely said it need only be 2.5mm sq and he has used 4.0mm sq, he has improved upon that minimum"
DIYnot Local
Staff member
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
