Does this look right?

[stillp]

People in this forum.

Kind Regards, John

You should know better by now!

 

[EFLImpudence]

I only have the BGB here. "The sentence is: Such circuits are deemed to meet the requirements of Regulation 433.1.1 if the current-carrying capacity of the cable is less than 20 A, and if, under the intended conditions of use, the load current in any part of the circuit is unlikely to exceed for long periods the current-carrying capacity of the cable."
(My emphasis)

Firstly, I presume you mean is not less than 20A.

That does not mention 75%.

I'm confused.

 

[stillp]

Firstly, I presume you mean is not less than 20A.

Yes, sorry. I'll edit it.

That does not mention 75%.

Should it?

 

[JohnW2]

Should it?

I don't know. Where did your "75%" come from?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Where did your "75%" come from?

Whoops, 66%

 

[JohnW2]

Whoops, 66%

Ah, the very figure I mentioned (I actually mentioned 66.7%, aka 66.666666666666666 etc.!)

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

They could (and some would say "should") have included that in the regulation.

They did, in the last sentence of it.

[EDIT]
I must learn to read the rest of a topic in case the point has already been made.
I must learn to read the rest of a topic in case the point has already been made.
I must learn to read the rest of a topic in case the point has already been made.
I must learn to read the rest of a topic in case the point has already been made.
[/EDIT]

 

[JohnW2]

They did, in the last sentence of it.

That is true, and I had forgotten that - so the point I made was incorrect. However, as for:

I must learn to read the rest of a topic in case the point has already been made.

... if you are referring to stillp's mention of "the last sentence of the regulation", I repeatedly asked him which regulation he was talking about (and I 'guessed' the wrong one!), since he was citing the BGB reg number and I only had my BYB to hand.

In passing, I would have thought/hoped that the BSI/IET could have found a way of managing regulation numbers which did not result in the number of an unchanged regulation changing from Amendment to Amendment of an edition of BS7671!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Ah, the very figure I mentioned (I actually mentioned 66.7%, aka 66.666666666666666 etc.!)

Kind Regards, John

Yes, that's what I thought I'd copied from.

 

[stillp]

In passing, I would have thought/hoped that the BSI/IET could have found a way of managing regulation numbers which did not result in the number of an unchanged regulation changing from Amendment to Amendment of an edition of BS7671

It has little do do with either of those organisations - blame the members of JPEL/64!
There is some advantage in changing numbers though, since when a regulation is quoted it should be apparent from the number which amendment is being quoted.

 

[JohnW2]

It has little do do with either of those organisations - blame the members of JPEL/64!

Fair enough.

There is some advantage in changing numbers though, since when a regulation is quoted it should be apparent from the number which amendment is being quoted.

Yes, but the vast majority don't change numbers with a new amendment, even if the regulation has been altered - and, as I said, I see little point/need in altering the number of a regulation which has not been altered (hence no concerns about which Amendment is being referred to).

Kind Regards, John