1. Visiting from the US? Why not try DIYnot.US instead? Click here to continue to DIYnot.US.
    Dismiss Notice

Bright Sparks

Discussion in 'Electrics UK' started by dizz, 10 Jul 2012.

  1. ebee

    ebee

    Joined:
    14 Aug 2005
    Messages:
    1,714
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Location:
    Lancashire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    He understands and researches well.
    He is often right (almost always I think)
    He changed my mind once - got me thinking.
    We agreed to differ once.
    Apart from that I can`t think of a time that to my knowledge he was wrong.
    He encourages folk to think for themselves rather than let other think for them and believe urban myths.
    He does not take fools gladly and I think that makes some folk think he is a tadd too abrasive.

    I can`t pretend that I`ve read all threads, however I would trust him to do a job right or not at all , more than I would trust some "time served & qualified electricians"
     
  2. Sponsored Links
  3. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds

    Joined:
    27 Aug 2003
    Messages:
    69,782
    Thanks Received:
    2,858
    Location:
    London
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Dear God you really are pathetic, childish and desperate, aren't you.

    What I posted was a reply to this:

    and I did it without quoting it, i.e. just a reply.

    But by the time I hit Submit, ebee had already posted his reply, so mine didn't read well, looking like a reply to his, and wasn't needed, so I simply got rid of it.

    But you, in your interminable thrashing around just had to seize on it as "proof" that I couldn't answer your pointless question.

    Not only is that yet more b****cks from you, it's also showing that you are still thinking (if what goes on inside that defective brain of yours can really be called thinking) that the outcome of your little test has some bearing on whether someone so ignorant as to think that where a form asks for an per-circuit figure in amps it means a not per-circuit figure in mA is competent to issue certificates of compliance.

    As I said earlier - I just couldn't be bothered to play your daft little game.

    I note that you haven't attacked anybody else here who has also not "solved" it. I note that chapeau expressed the same opinion as I, that ebee's initial answer was it's "a lemon", and I note that those who have given answers have given different ones, so they can't all be correct.

    But you aren't having a go at any of them, only at me.

    And do you know why?

    It's because you didn't like it when I said that the ignorance you displayed when you wrote this:
    made you incompetent to be designing, testing and certifying, and you thought you could distract attention via this charade.

    As I said, pathetic, childish and desperate.
     
  4. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds

    Joined:
    27 Aug 2003
    Messages:
    69,782
    Thanks Received:
    2,858
    Location:
    London
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    You're getting very close to an ad-hominem fallacy....


    Did I really?

    Which one was that, then?
     
  5. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds

    Joined:
    27 Aug 2003
    Messages:
    69,782
    Thanks Received:
    2,858
    Location:
    London
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Your loss - ignoring people means that you don't get the benefit of their advice and corrections when you are wrong.
     
  6. stillp

    stillp

    Joined:
    21 Sep 2009
    Messages:
    4,496
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Location:
    West Midlands
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I agree with most of the above, except that I have noticed occasions when he is wrong - unlike some other posters, he then has the balls to admit he made a mistake. Shame his uncompromising attitude lets him down.
     
  7. EngStudent

    EngStudent

    Joined:
    8 Jan 2011
    Messages:
    591
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I think BAS is alright. He knows his stuff and he, IMO, correctly pulled you up on not knowing how to fill in an EIC.

    And dizz - you haven't posted the solution.
     
  8. EFLImpudence

    EFLImpudence

    Joined:
    7 Jul 2010
    Messages:
    37,481
    Thanks Received:
    4,208
    Location:
    Retired to:
    Country:
    Portugal
    But it is.

    The only way R1+R2 can be 0.1Ω greater than R1+Rn is as I have stated; leaving no 'room' for the 2.5/2.5 cable.
    Any other figures at a ratio of 1:1⅔ don't result in a difference of 0.1.

    Although, as ebee said, perhaps the 2.5/2.5 cable pokes out of the cu for a such a short distance its resistance is negligible.
     
  9. SimonH2

    SimonH2

    Joined:
    4 Nov 2010
    Messages:
    5,848
    Thanks Received:
    596
    Location:
    Cumbria
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    He is sometimes just plain wrong, but I've not observed him admit the possibility
    No, he does exactly the opposite of that. He presents "Here's the regs, stop thinking past them". He has set views on some things and won't accept that it's valid for people to disagree with him.
    From my observations, I wouldn't let him do any actual installation or testing. Whether I trust "time served" leckys (some are really good, some are really bad) is another question altogether.


    I speak as I find.

    You know exactly which one. Another thread where once you'd been shown to be wrong, you suddenly went quiet. Mind you, it was a relief as I'd been asking you to STFU until you has something useful to add but you wouldn't.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  10. Sponsored Links
  11. JohnW2

    JohnW2

    Joined:
    28 Jan 2011
    Messages:
    48,673
    Thanks Received:
    3,191
    Location:
    Buckinghamshire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I guess it's just the way you expressed it, since I more-or-less agree with everyone's bottom lines. Straight calculation gives (using dizz's restivity figures) answers close to Spark123's back on the first page - original length ~21.32m and calculated added length ~ -1.079m. In other words, it's an impossible situation. The way I would express the qualitative explanation is this (which I think is very close to what you're saying):

    We know from the R1+Rn that R1=0.3Ω/2 = 0.15Ω
    Hence, given that (R1+R2)=0.4 Ω , R2=0.25Ω
    Even if all the CPC were 1.5mm², this would give R2 of about 0.2449 - i.e. fractionally below 0.25Ω (i.e. R1+R2 fractionally below 0.4Ω). If any of the CPC were 2.5mm², R2 would be even lower, hence R1+R2 could not possibly be as high as 0.4Ω.

    As above, it's actually impossible, unless you have a way of realising a negative (tiny) length of cable!

    Kind Regards, John.
     
  12. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds

    Joined:
    27 Aug 2003
    Messages:
    69,782
    Thanks Received:
    2,858
    Location:
    London
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    You must have very poor powers of observation.

    And you can prove that can you? (Except when "thinking past them" actually means "ignoring and contravening them").

    Untrue.

    People are perfectly entitled to disagree with me, and to be wrong to do so, but the latter I will challenge.


    In what way is that a justification for criticising what someone says, not because it's wrong but because you don't like them or don't think they should say it?


    No, really, I don't.


    Did you actually mean STFU until I had something to say which you wanted to hear?
     
  13. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds

    Joined:
    27 Aug 2003
    Messages:
    69,782
    Thanks Received:
    2,858
    Location:
    London
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    -1.08m and 21.32m


    Mathematically it is.


    But as he said
    i.e. was positing those actual readings from an actual test, I'd say it has indeed backfired.
     
  14. JohnW2

    JohnW2

    Joined:
    28 Jan 2011
    Messages:
    48,673
    Thanks Received:
    3,191
    Location:
    Buckinghamshire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Kind Regards, John.
     
  15. securespark

    securespark

    Joined:
    11 Jan 2004
    Messages:
    37,157
    Thanks Received:
    1,290
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Well, I've nipped out for a bag of popcorn, but the interval is still on....

    When is he going to post his solution?

    Should have bought two bags.... :cry:
     
  16. dizz

    dizz

    Joined:
    19 Jun 2009
    Messages:
    274
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    What did you do, take a look at which poster I "thanked" and then regurgitated stuff like you always do?

    The reason I gave you this dumb ass question was because it's something I came across in real life - a length of cable unknown in pre-wired conduit in a property which had been extended in modern cabling. The only way to calculate the length of each length is to as spark123 has done, by using simultaneous equations.

    Imagine that BAS, you just connect one end of the cable, and do two tests at the other, and you can evaluate the length of cable of the old pre-wired conduit and new cable - amazing isn't it? It's called maths.

    Here's the BBC bitesize website for GCSE simultaneous equations which you might find useful :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/maths/algebra/simultaneoushirev1.shtml

    Perhaps you'd like to practice some.

    This is a made up question, and as people have noticed, it doesn't make sense with the original numbers I gave - I hadn't gone through the maths because it was hastly posted and intended to prompt you to do some work for a change rather than just shout people down or refer to regs - but you couldn't could you?

    You had plenty of time to either quote the number spark123 has quoted or say it was not realistic - you did neither - you're dangerous!

    ... oh but you managed to state the answer in the end - by how? Oh yes - by referencing someone else - AGAIN. So you cannot think on your feet, you can only regurgitate other people work - brilliant - well done.
     
  17. EngStudent

    EngStudent

    Joined:
    8 Jan 2011
    Messages:
    591
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I dare say BAS, like most here, can quite easily do simultaneous equations.

    What you've done is invent some figures, not bother to work out the solution to check that it makes sense, then go 'HA! You didn't answer the question BAS, you're dangerous!'

    To be honest dizz, you come out of this looking far worse than BAS does.
     
Loading...

Share This Page