Ban the sale of twin and earth ? ?

Sponsored Links
T&E has been around for nigh on 50 years and it was introduced with absolutely no method of clamping the cable.
I think it's probably 60+ years, and therein lies the most obvious response to the question posed by this thread. It has been successfully used for over half a century and is probably present in every single one of the millions of electric installations in the UK - not a very sound reason for 'banning' anything.

As for being introduced with no method of clamping, I strongly suspect that exactly the same had been true of most forms of cable previously introduced.

The stuffing glands with oval inserts are comparatively recent, someone said they used them in 1996. And I would bet good money that if they were widely used there would be a lot of damaged cable where the cpc has been pushed into the L/N insulation.
Are you serious?

The question is why did, and why do the IET allow the use of a cable with no means of sheath clamping and an undersized cpc to be used.
As for 'why',you would obviously have to ask them, but I don't think many people other than you see the clamping issue as a problem, so perhaps teh IET don't, either. As for 'undersized CPC', I'm not really sure what criteria you are applying; if you undertake the adiabatic calculations (as accepted/prescribed by IET), I think you'll find that the CPCs of T&E are of adequate CSA by current standards, provided that the required disconnection times are being achieved.

Kind Regards, John.
 
Fact, Twin Romex has perfectly flat sides because all the cores are the same size.

Fact, T&E does not have perfectly flat sides because of the reduced cpc size, thats also another reason why it is crap cable.

Heres a pic of some BASEC approved T&E - View media item 38042
Not quite the same profile as romex, is it?
Real fact - virtually all T&E in common use does have flat sides because that's the way it's made. I've handled a fair bit of cable over the years, and seen quite a bit more, but that one is new to me - presumably cheap since it uses less plastic.
And for good measure, it too could have a stuffing gland if such a thing were considered necessary.
T&E has been around for nigh on 50 years and it was introduced with absolutely no method of clamping the cable.
I think it's probably 60+ years, and therein lies the most obvious response to the question posed by this thread. It has been successfully used for over half a century and is probably present in every single one of the millions of electric installations in the UK - not a very sound reason for 'banning' anything.

As for being introduced with no method of clamping, I strongly suspect that exactly the same had been true of most forms of cable previously introduced.
And actually, to say there was absolutely no form of clamping would be an outright lie - unless the basic saddle clamp had not been invented, which I think would be something of a wild claim to make.
The stuffing glands with oval inserts are comparatively recent, someone said they used them in 1996. And I would bet good money that if they were widely used there would be a lot of damaged cable where the cpc has been pushed into the L/N insulation.
Are you serious?
Yes, he probably is. Because it's now been demonstrated that there are clamping systems for flat cables, and were before T&E was around, he's shifting the goalposts to be "stuffing gland" type clamping systems.
The question is why did, and why do the IET allow the use of a cable with no means of sheath clamping and an undersized cpc to be used.
As for 'why',you would obviously have to ask them, but I don't think many people other than you see the clamping issue as a problem, so perhaps teh IET don't, either. As for 'undersized CPC', I'm not really sure what criteria you are applying; if you undertake the adiabatic calculations (as accepted/prescribed by IET), I think you'll find that the CPCs of T&E are of adequate CSA by current standards, provided that the required disconnection times are being achieved.
And of course the answer to the first part is "they didn't" - there were, and are, methods for sheath clamping T&E.
 
Sponsored Links
Troll food
Please don't feed the troll.

Troll food
Please don't feed the troll.

Troll food
Please don't feed the troll.

Troll food
Please don't feed the troll.

Troll food
Please don't feed the troll.

Troll food
Please don't feed the troll.

Troll food
Please don't feed the troll.
 
The regs clearly state that cables with a Live of 16mm or less shall have the same size cpc.
What the regs 543.1.1) actually clearly state is that if one can't be bothered to calculate the required CPC CSA according to 543.1.3, then one can select the CSA in accordance with 543.1.4 (i.e. use the very conservative figures in Table 54.7) - which is what you are referring to above. That 'lazy' method will nearly always result in a substantial over-estimate of the required CSA.

....so when you are rewiring using crap T&E do you do an adiabatic for every piece you install. That would take a domestic rewire into months rather than days.
Maybe it would take you that long, but it actually only requires a knowledge of the Ze, circuit design current (to ensure CCC and VD requirements are met) and the approximate length of the circuit concerned; it's then a fairly trivial matter to produce a spreadsheet, or even a program for a programmable caculator, which will give you instant answers. However, after anyone has done that a few dozen times, they are likely to learn that the calculations virtually always indicate that the current CPC CSA's in T&E sized for CCC and VD are more than enough, so probably stop wasting their time doing it every time! If you recall, the initial CPC size of 2.5mm² T&E had to be increased becasue it proved not always to be adeqaute.

Don't take the regs too seriously they are just a very badly written guide that occassionaly get revised due to criticisms such as mine.
For once we agree on something - but it's a bit ironic that you are not only taking the regs fairly seriously, but are actually failing to quote them completely, in an attempt to justify your apparent belief that T&E should not be allowed; one might be forgiven for thinking that you seem to want it both ways :)

Kind Regarsd, John.
 
SimonH2, dodgy name, a lot like JohnW2, with a very similar personna ie 'I don't what I'm talking about but that won't stop me commenting' :LOL:
Earlier you wrote that resorting to personal abuse is recognition that you've lost the argument. Now you are resporting to personal abuse to try and deflect the topic away from your lost cause.
Just explain how your imaginary clamping systems work on plastic accessories ie ceiling roses, boxes, patrices and circular junction boxes, metal boxes in stud partitions. And while your at it tell the world what size romex glands go with which size T&E cables.
On any accessory with saddle clamps then I'd simply fit it in the saddle clamp in the same way as any other type of cable. Simples.

As for the glands, I'd need to sit down and look at the sizes, and I've got more productive things to do with my time.

So once again, as is the norm for people who know they lost the argument a long time ago, I ask you how you would terminal other cables into the accessories you cite ? It's a really simple question, and you claim to have knowledge and experience, yet you refuse to answer it.
 
None of those were directed at the troll, only at those for whom the penny has not yet dropped.
That's obvious, but it seems that my penny didn't drop, either. By directing that list of repetitive comments at the rest of us you were, in fact, yourself providing very nutritious troll food!

You seem very selective and inconsistent in your approach. In many other situations, you seem to be one of the first people to feel that technically silly or incorrect assertions need to be challenged (sometimes very robustly and repetitively!). In any event, if for whatever reason you don't feel inclined to do that in a particular case, the sensible thing to do is surely to just keep quite and maybe ignore the whole thread, rather than post completely pointless messages which criticise other people's involvement in the thread?

Kind Regards, John.
 
You are spouting imaginary nonsense because you still can't explain how how your imaginary clamps are fixed to plastic accessories such as ceiling roses, boxes, patrices and circular junction boxes, metal boxes in stud partitions.

Come on its your chance to educate every spark in the uk.
No, I have no need to educate anyone but you - but then you are definitely not open to education.

I did not say that I know of the accessories you cite being available with clamps (of any sort). What I did say is that if an accessory has a saddle clamp then I'd use it in exactly the same way that I would if using round cable.

Now, when are you going to answer the question you've been dodging for so long ?

If using round cable instead of flat T&E, how would you clamp it in "plastic accessories such as ceiling roses, boxes, patrices and circular junction boxes, metal boxes in stud partitions" ?
Come along, you keep saying it's T&E that should be banned, therefore it's only logical that you have a method for (in your mind) safely using these accessories with round cable.

I've already answered your question - for any accessory, I'll use the same clamping method for T&E as I'd use with round cable. Simples.
Note that that doesn't mean I'll be using accessories with clamping facilities since, for some time now, it's been accepted that this isn't needed.
 

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

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top