NIC PIR Certs

[ban-all-sheds]

a 230±10% supply

Can you confirm if ESQCR 2002 has been updated to increase the permitted tolerance to +/- 10%?

Nope.

I started out saying "So if we ever do get to the 230±10% supply" and similar, and then later did the calculations for "a 230±10% supply" - not quite the same as saying ours is, and I never meant to imply that - apologies if I caused you to infer it.

 

[holmslaw]

So if your supply company cannot confirm complete compliance with ESQCR all isolation and switching devise must comply with chapter 53. ie sp isolation unacceptable.

I bet they're all losing sleep over it.

I wondered how long it would take you lapse into your usual stupidity.

 

[FingRinal]

So if your supply company cannot confirm complete compliance with ESQCR all isolation and switching devise must comply with chapter 53. ie sp isolation unacceptable.

I bet they're all losing sleep over it.

I wondered how long it would take you lapse into your usual stupidity.

If you think a supply company will be busting a gut, or fretting over anything that will cost them money, it's you who is stupid mate.

 

[FingRinal]

a 230±10% supply

Can you confirm if ESQCR 2002 has been updated to increase the permitted tolerance to +/- 10%?

Nope.

I started out saying "So if we ever do get to the 230±10% supply" and similar, and then later did the calculations for "a 230±10% supply" - not quite the same as saying ours is, and I never meant to imply that - apologies if I caused you to infer it.

I'm sorry that I caught you out

 

[FingRinal]

Unless you're allowed ±10% on your voltage drop, like the suppliers are allowed on their supply.

 

[holmslaw]

Mods, may as well lock the thread now, as the moron fingurinal has ruined any chance of any sensible discussion.

 

[FingRinal]

That would be you, mate...you take a comment about RECs not caring and turn it into an insult...then you decide on a personal insult to get the thread locked...dear oh dear...

Perhaps it would be better that the Mods remove your insults and leave it at that

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm sorry that I caught you out

Unless you're allowed ±10% on your voltage drop, like the suppliers are allowed on their supply.

Well - it's not the end of the world - the principles remain the same- the regs clearly say that VD must be no more than x% of the nominal voltage, not the actual, and they have done for a while.

You can rework the numbers if you want, and if it makes you any happier I'll say "Unless you're allowed +10% -6% on your voltage drop, like the suppliers are allowed on their supply"

 

[FingRinal]

Well - it's not the end of the world - the principles remain the same- the regs clearly say that VD must be no more than x% of the nominal voltage, not the actual, and they have done for a while.

The principles and the facts are not the same thing. Of course it's not the end of the world in BAS7671 - nothing is unless you say so.

You can rework the numbers if you want, and if it makes you any happier I'll say "Unless you're allowed +10% -6% on your voltage drop, like the suppliers are allowed on their supply"

You can say whatever you like to wriggle out of doing things properly. Isnt this afterall the principle behind BAS7671?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh look, everyone - FR is displaying his maturity and rational debating skills again.

Is it worth asking him, do you think, to explain how using a figure of -10% instead of -6% changes the principle of a discussion about whether voltage drop is a %ge of actual or nominal voltage?

 

[GaryMo]

Not at all but then again there shouldn't really be a discussion as it's a percentage of the nominal voltage. It's quire clear in Appendix 12.

 

[FingRinal]

Oh look, everyone - FR is displaying his maturity and rational debating skills again.

Is it worth asking him, do you think, to explain how using a figure of -10% instead of -6% changes the principle of a discussion about whether voltage drop is a %ge of actual or nominal voltage?

Ah look, everyone - BAS is displaying his maturity and lying, cheating debating skills again.

Is it worth asking him, do you think, to explain why he thinks the principle of plagiarism is an acceptable form of debate?

Perhaps he missed this point whilst embarking on his 'selective' BAS7671 type crusade.

Certainly there would be no need for us to change things as the permitted tolerance stated in ESQCR 2002 would automatically mean that we comply with the wider pemitted tolerance 'proposed' for 2003 detailed in BS7671:2001.

Still, like New Labour, there's nothing like taking someone else's words, tarting them up and re-spinning them to claim them as your own.


Ahh... the inconsistencies that are consistent in BAS7671...

Of course, the truth is that if you are manufacturer or specifier of equipment, the tolerance might be very important. It might just mean that your equipment won't work correctly, or can't be specified for use in the UK due to the narrower band of tolerance declared by UK law (did I really use that word?). That's assuming, or course, that you are not working in accordance with BAS7671 - in which case you can just make it up and do anything you like.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ah look, everyone - BAS is displaying his maturity and lying, cheating debating skills again.

Will you be able to provide evidence of my cheating and lying, or will this just be yet another example of your complete disregard for any acceptable standards of behaviour?

Is it worth asking him, do you think, to explain why he thinks the principle of plagiarism is an acceptable form of debate?

Of course it is, if it's OK for me to ask you to explain why you think that mugging old ladies is an acceptable way to earn money? That would be just as relevant, as I haven't plagiarised anybody.

Perhaps he missed this point whilst embarking on his 'selective' BAS7671 type crusade.

Perhaps you would also like to explain why, after managing to discuss things properly for a while you've now decided to start behaving like this?

Ahh... the inconsistencies that are consistent in BAS7671...

My how witty you are - how fresh and original, and how mature and intelligent.

Of course, the truth is that if you are manufacturer or specifier of equipment, the tolerance might be very important. It might just mean that your equipment won't work correctly, or can't be specified for use in the UK due to the narrower band of tolerance declared by UK law (did I really use that word?).

It might be, which is why the move to a wider supply range is taking place gradually.

That's assuming, or course, that you are not working in accordance with BAS7671 - in which case you can just make it up and do anything you like.

Would you like to explain to all the people reading this why they should have to put up with you?