Cooker circuit.

[ban-all-sheds]

securespark, you're the one who started with insults - or do you suffer from short term memory loss.

Do you? Or do you not consider accusing someone of talking nonsense and putting forward mindless arguments as insults?

I'm not feeling sheepish, because I have'nt get a copy of the 17th edition.

9 working days left to get a copy and become competent to work to it...

OOI, do you think that what it says in the 17th is a complete reversal of what was allowed under the 16th, or clarification of something that was allowed but not explicitly stated?

I checked bs 60947-4-1 on the bs website, there is a section headed "contactors for use as isolators" or words to that effect, and it says "under consideration"

Can you post the link here?

 

[securespark]

securespark, you're the one who started with insults - or do you suffer from short term memory loss.

I'm not feeling sheepish, because I have'nt get a copy of the 17th edition.

I'm not complaining about being insulted- I just wondered why you were doing it.

It was clear why I called you a berk: because you were mocking Ban when he was spot on with his reply.

What is unclear is why you were insulting me.

If you want to give sound advice, rather than leading people up the garden path, you should invest in a copy of the 17th, especially as you claim to be a leading authority on the regs.

Then you will feel less of a berk!

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[securespark]

Still non the wiser? try being helpful for once.

This from the guy who claims to be knowledgeable about the regs, yet does not know what table 53.2 is.

You may not need a copy of the regs for your work, but if you're going to advise folk here, you need to know what you're talking about, or at least have the grace to accept when you're wrong.

Sorry to come here "out of the blue" and throw "insults" at you. I promise not to do it again if you don't go around thinking you're the world's leading authority on the regs & start misleading a DIY'er who came here for sound advice.

As for anger management,

 

[RF Lighting]

secure spark came here out of the blue

What, thirteen THOUSAND posts ago?

 

[securespark]

I imagine its prety much the same as the 16th.

Far from it. Believe me, there are many major changes between 16th & 17th.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[securespark]

A contactor does not constitute and should not be used as a means of local isolation. You should use the switch shown in rf's post.

I haven't run out of reasons. There was only one.

The reason why you're wrong is purely and simply because the regs allow a contactor of a particular standard to be used as a means of isolation.

Pure and simple.

I don't need to answer the points you've raised because as far as I'm concerned, my gripe with you was that you were giving the wrong advice to a DIYer, ie what you wrote above.

As to how they work, contact the manufacturer. And as far as why they are a safe form of isolation, I'm not really that concerned. As a designer & installer, all I would need to know is that it has been designed and manufactured to meet a particular standard and be up to the job it was installed to do. And that it complies with 7671.

You say you don't need any formal qualification for your job.

I don't know what your job is, but are you saying you would need to know not only that it is safe, but why the equipment you select for an installation is safe?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[securespark]

How was your advice correct?

What are these "things" to which you refer?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

securespark, you're the one who started with insults - or do you suffer from short term memory loss.

Do you? Or do you not consider accusing someone of talking nonsense and putting forward mindless arguments as insults?

Not where you are concerned, after reading your disgusting name calling on the post about the death penalty.

That has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion about wiring regulations, and whether what I wrote was or was not nonsense.

But feel free to advance a logical and rational argument, with no ad hominem fallacies, which explains why it is relevant.

Also you're doing your twisting trick again, secure spark came here out of the blue and starts with the insults and I was responding to him - MYOB.

It wasn't twisting anything. Maybe SS was the first to use insults in the exchanges between you and him, but he wasn't the first to use them in this topic.

Apart from forum discussions I have no need for a copy, and in my job I do not need any formal qualification.

Oh no - only 13 more days of your indisputable dealings in facts and regulations - how will we cope?

OOI, do you think that what it says in the 17th is a complete reversal of what was allowed under the 16th, or clarification of something that was allowed but not explicitly stated?

No, I imagine its prety much the same as the 16th.

So as the 17th explicitly states that contactors are allowed, and you think that's pretty much the same as what the 16th allowed, would you care to explain why you said that contactors were not allowed?

I checked bs 60947-4-1 on the bs website, there is a section headed "contactors for use as isolators" or words to that effect, and it says "under consideration"

Can you post the link here?

No, its a subscription site, the clause is 8.2.7 on page 48.

Fair enough - I just wondered what the date on that document was, and it's context, and whether it was talking about a new version of the standard for contactors for use as isolators (which could well be under consideration without invalidating the current standard), or if it was the whole concept of using contactors as isolators that was under consideration.

The latter would seem curious, as there is already a current BS standard which says they are permitted...

I think the straws you're trying to clutch are blowing away.

I'm not clutching at any straws.

You said that contactors were not allowed - you were wrong. Have the grace to admit it.

 

[fender]

I'm not an electrician by trade as such, but I've carried out countless large commercial coldroom installations including the wiring, where control circuits and contactors are the norm.
The only concern would be that the contactor "could" weld itself together, so although the cc switch has been turned off, there would still be power to the appliance.
Although fairly reliable, contactors can and do weld themselves together (despite being correctly rated). I've noticed this happens far more often when the load is resistive rather than inductive and as you know a cooker load is resistive.
I've only found dp switches to fail rarely. I'm not saying you can't use a contactor and a cc, but a dp switch is probably a better long term bet.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[holmslaw]

..