Bright Sparks

[ban-all-sheds]

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

Here's a question to all you bright sparks out there. I've made it up so you won't find the question or answer on google.

Oh, I see.

So if he'd written

R1+R2 = 0.40
R1+Rn = 0.34

then people could have googled for the answer?

I doubt it.

 

[JohnW2]

The only way to calculate the length of each length is to as spark123 has done, by using simultaneous equations. Here's the BBC bitesize website for GCSE simultaneous equations which you might find useful :

Although BAS is somewhat of an enigma (we know he's not an electrician, even if we don't know quite what he is), it is very apparent from many previous posts of his that maths (way above GCSE level) is far from being one of his weak points ... and, whatever BAS's position, some of us here have qualifications in maths, or mathematical subjects, way way above GCSE level!!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What did you do, take a look at which poster I "thanked" and then regurgitated stuff like you always do?

No - I worked it out, and got those answers.

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.

Which I can do, and you apparently cannot.

Perhaps you'd like to practice some.

Why should I need to - it's not me who has ****** up, is it?

This is a made up question, and as people have noticed, it doesn't make sense with the original numbers I gave

Indeed not.

So the point of it, and all your subsequent spasms was what? To show that you can invent scenarios involving cables of negative length?

Is that meant to impress people?

So all that - 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?

Me?

I thought the question was aimed at everybody?

That's how it was worded.

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!

Sorry - have I missed the bit where it says I am at your beck and call?

.. 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.

You know you really should learn not to try and engage in a battle of wits when you are unarmed.

 

[SimonH2]

Did you actually mean STFU until I had something to say which you wanted to hear?

No, I really did mean "until you had something useful" to say. Others managed useful contributions, you did not.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well - whatever it was it was almost certainly the case that you equated "useful" with "what I want to hear", and vice-versa.

 

[dizz]

The only way to calculate the length of each length is to as spark123 has done, by using simultaneous equations. Here's the BBC bitesize website for GCSE simultaneous equations which you might find useful :

Although BAS is somewhat of an enigma (we know he's not an electrician, even if we don't know quite what he is), it is very apparent from many previous posts of his that maths (way above GCSE level) is far from being one of his weak points ... and, whatever BAS's position, some of us here have qualifications in maths, or mathematical subjects, way way above GCSE level!!

Kind Regards, John.

Thanks John - This post was really directed at BAS - I really wanted to see whether he had the balls to put an answer forward, which he didn't - but I bet there are loads of scraps of paper where he'd had a go ... Unfortuntaley if took another poster to show him the answer before he "knew" how to do it.

Some of us here have qualifications in maths, or mathematical subjects, way way above GCSE level!!

Of that I'm sure and that is not in question.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Thanks John - This post was really directed at BAS - I really wanted to see whether he had the balls to put an answer forward, which he didn't - but I bet there are loads of scraps of paper where he'd had a go ... Unfortuntaley if took another poster to show him the answer before he "knew" how to do it.

You just don't know when to stop digging do you?

One false, pitiful, anything-to-distract-attention-from-your-ignorance-and-incompetence allegation after another.

Of that I'm sure and that is not in question.

Neither is the fact that I'm one of those with a maths qualification above GCSE.

Not that it matters - you have become so blinded by your obsessive need to somehow "prove" that I couldn't answer your question (which I could), that you can't see anything any more.

You can't even see what an idiot you are to think that even if I couldn't answer it that would not change in the slightest the fact that you are too ignorant to be competent to issue EICs.

You didn't ask your question about EICs because I can't work out cable lengths given their resistances, you asked it because you don't know what you're doing.

 

[JohnW2]

Thanks John - This post was really directed at BAS - I really wanted to see whether he had the balls to put an answer forward, which he didn't - but I bet there are loads of scraps of paper where he'd had a go ... Unfortuntaley if took another poster to show him the answer before he "knew" how to do it.

I think that's nonsense. Much as I have many differences with BAS, I have considerable respect for his mathematical knowledge/abilities (which I suspect may well be reflected in his education/qualifications), which may well considerably exceed yours.

Some of us here have qualifications in maths, or mathematical subjects, way way above GCSE level!!

Of that I'm sure and that is not in question.

Well, you have effectively been questionning it in relation to BAS - and, as above, I think you're wrong - certainly in terms of abilities/knowledge, and quite probably also in terms of qualifications ... and, yes, I'm one of them as well. Coupled with your apparent (incorrect) belief that he is an electrician, this suggests that you have not researched your victim very well!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[EFLImpudence]

something

Have you just thanked John for disagreeing with you?

Your question, which was quite interesting, would have been better if it had had a logical,apparent and solvable solution.

By posting the measurements of a length of 2.5/1.5 and pretending it was something else was just pointless.

2. The "In" rating of the MCB on the test results - Is this 30mA

Nuff sed

 

[JohnW2]

something

Have you just thanked John for disagreeing with you?

I was wondering about that, too!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Coupled with your apparent (incorrect) belief that he is an electrician, this suggests that you have not researched your victim very well!

I'm sure that some research into dizz's past posts would be enlightening, but as he seems to be so keen on establishing whether people are "qualified" to give opinions, perhaps he could make that unnecessary by telling us what qualifies him to be able to say

I being the person responsible for the Design, Construction, Inspection & Testing of the electrical installation (as indicated by my signature below), particulars of which are described above, having exercised reasonable skill and care when carrying out the Design, Construction, Inspection & Testing, hereby CERTIFY that the said work for which I have been responsible is to the best of my knowledge and belief in accordance with BS 7671:2008, amended to .............(date) except for the departures, if any, detailed as follows.

 

[EFLImpudence]

By posting the measurements of a length of 2.5/1.5 and pretending it was something else was just pointless

By the way, dizz, do you see any relationship between the above numbers and your original question?

 

[JohnW2]

- amazing isn't it? It's called maths. ... Here's the BBC bitesize website for GCSE simultaneous equations which you might find useful :

Since you seem to like applying maths to electrical problems, perhaps you would like to try this one....

• Given a supply with an off-load voltage of 230V and a PSSC (acronym means "peak short circuit current") at the point of connection to the load, of 1150A, what is the maximum power that can be delivered into a resistive load by that supply?

If you know the answer, or know an 'easy' way of calculating it, I'm not interested. What I'd like to see is your mathematical working to solve the problem 'from first principles' - or, at least, a prose description of the working (since it might be tedious to give the actual working in a forum message) - and it will probably take a bit more than you'll find on the GCSE website.

...and, other folks, please be fair to dizz and give him a chance to respond before you jump in!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ebee]

The figure 0.4 ohms gives a length of 20.4918 metres for two conductors (R1 + R2) 12.1/1000 + 7.41/1000 = 19.52/1000 ohms per metre.

Read more: //www.diynot.com/forums/electrics/bright-sparks.330336/page-3#ixzz20LS8AZrW


Whoops 19.52 ? I shoulda said 19.51, silly me early in the morning .
gives 20.5023.



Now where has -1.08m and 21.32m come from then ?

I will get it eventually

 

[JohnW2]

The figure 0.4 ohms gives a length of 20.4918 metres for two conductors (R1 + R2) 12.1/1000 + 7.41/1000 = 19.52/1000 ohms per metre.Whoops 19.52 ? I shoulda said 19.51, silly me early in the morning . gives 20.5023.

Your arithmetic is correct, but I'm not sure what you think you're doing by adding together the resistivities of the two CSAs.

Kind Regards, John.