However, I don't see what that has got to do with the Variac "introducing an inductive component"
The oscillatory circuit will affect to some extent the operation of the variac
However, I don't see what that has got to do with the Variac "introducing an inductive component"
I understand what you are suggesting, but what I am struggling to to get my head around is the question of why the Variac (which, after all, is just a type of {auto} transformer) should differ in this respect from the DNO's transformer.The oscillatory circuit will affect to some extent the operation of the variac
... or, to put it another way, what would be different if you replaced the Variac in your diagram with the secondary of the DNO's tranny?I understand what you are suggesting, but what I am struggling to to get my head around is the question of why the Variac (which, after all, is just a type of {auto} transformer) should differ in this respect from the DNO's transformer.
@ericmark ... I realise that my post was extraordinarily brief by my (or your!) standards (maybe so brief that you missed it!), but I was hoping that you would be able to help me understand your statement which I quote above.Eh?The volt drop has also impacted on the loop impedance, we have to now allow an extra 5% to allow for volt drop.
Just noticed this one!I have questioned PAT testing limits where a house is all RCD protected, an extension lead is safe even when rather long with RCD protection but the permitted 2.42 Ω for 13 amp and 16.4 Ω for 3 amp (BS 7671:2008) for a BS 1362 fuse still is required where not RCD on the sockets.
Whilst what you say makes sense, it also means that, as you say, passing a 'PATest' can be pretty meaningless - particularly give that the "P" of "PAT" means "Portable".My point was simply that any PAT test includes the environment the item is tested for use in, so we could pass an item for office use, but it would fail for use on the factory floor, as there could be loads of water on factory floor. Be it the RCD or water, or even chance of impact, once you move items around the PAT testing pass sticker becomes meaningless.
Totally off-topic, but I suspect the truth is (and probably always has been) that, if the situation arose in anger, then if no alternative were available, then most of us probably would use water (cautiously/judiciously), rather than 'do nothing'. As you say, if RCDs were present, then the water would probably make them operate - but I suspect that the official line might be that even if some/all RCDs operated, there would still be some 'live electricity' upstream, of those RCDs which could pose a threat to those fighting the fire if there was water all over the place. As for ....... We had a course on fire fighting, and we were told should not use water on an electrical fire, however in real terms in this house using water would have a duel affect, one it would put out fire, and two it would trip the RCD automatically removing the source of fire. So is not using water still good advice, I would say yes as can't rely on the RCD working, however now not so cut and dried.
You seem to be suggesting that 'removing the source of the fire' would achieve something. However, as I've often said, even if a fire was 'cause by' something electrical, by the time there is a fire sufficiently established that it needs to be 'fought', I don't think that de-energising the electrical system would make any difference to the fire, although it would reduce risks to those fighting the fire.... it would trip the RCD automatically removing the source of fire.
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