No overload protection for fixed load cable?

[ban-all-sheds]

433.3.1 (ii) applies to any situation where you have to connect to something of higher current rating and it is impractical to provide the correct size conductors or protection. But you must comply with the severe requirements of 434.2.1 (i) (ii) and (iii).

I wouldn't say that they were ["b]severe[/b]". No more than 3m long, and installed in such a way as to minimise the risks of a fault.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

... I really don't personally want to appear to be arguing in support of the arrangement BAS proposes ....

Where and what is the arrangement I have proposed?

 

[JohnW2]

I wouldn't say that they were ["b]severe[/b]". No more than 3m long, and installed in such a way as to minimise the risks of a fault.

Whatever, as I've recently written, that bit iof the regs is about fault protection, and in the scenario we've ben discussing, it is assumed that adequate fault protection (complying with all relevent regs) is in place.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And also T&E cable does not comply with regs, unlesss it has some mysterious qualities only understood by the IET.

So if you found T&E in use when doing a PIR, how would you code it?

I wouldn't code it.

Is it normally your practice, when doing PIRs, to ignore things which contravene the Wiring Regulations?

 

[JohnW2]

... I really don't personally want to appear to be arguing in support of the arrangement BAS proposes ....

Where and what is the arrangement I have proposed?

In the other thread which stimulated me to start this one - when you expressed the view (citing 433.3.1(ii)) that it was OK to have a single-fixed-wired-load circuit protected by an OPD with an In greater than the cable's (or opart of the cable's) Iz, provided that the requirements for fault protection were satisfied.

I've actually fogotten (but might remember!!) what thread it was in, but it was IIRC in relation to the mention of a 0.5mm² cable supplying a lamp on a circuit (in Germany) proteced by a 16A OPD.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[JohnW2]

the arrangement BAS proposes)....in terms of the regs, BAS is right in saying that would technically be compliant.

You must imagining things. He has'nt proposed anything ....

I'm imagining nothing. You probably need to go back to the start of this thread, which I started solely because what BAS had said/proposed in another thread (although I didn't initially name him in this thread. Take a look at this thread, starting with the last paragraph of ericmak's post at 12:27 BST on 17th June.

And 434.2 is about protection against a fault current, ie dealing with the consequences of a fault current, the exploding molten copper, excessive heat, the dangers of fire and injury to people.
And bear in mind, if you think I'm wrong, then every bus bar installation in this country is non compliant.

No, I don't think you're wrong. As I keep saying, we're discussing the situation in which fault protection, fully in compliance with all relevant regs, is in place, and debating whether, under certain circumstances, 433.3.1(ii) alows it not to have overload protection - and I'm quite sure that you must understand the difference between those two things.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

he's arguing about the regs not being specific about something he doesn't understand and is outside his amateur experience.

They aren't specific - you said so yourself.

And 434.2 is about protection against a fault current, ie dealing with the consequences of a fault current, the exploding molten copper, excessive heat, the dangers of fire and injury to people.

It's also about such a cable not being too long (434.2.1 (i)) and being installed in way which reduces the risk of a fault by as much as possible.

And bear in mind, if you think I'm wrong, then every bus bar installation in this country is non compliant.

I don't think that anybody has suggested that 434.2 can't apply to bus-bar chambers, have they?

Thats because you have absolutely no concept of what is involved.

So do you think that it is possible to install an unfused spur from a ring final or a 30/32A radial, using 2.5mm², as shown in Appendix 15, in a way which complies with the regulations?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And also T&E cable does not comply with regs, unlesss it has some mysterious qualities only understood by the IET.

So if you found T&E in use when doing a PIR, how would you code it?

I wouldn't code it.

Is it normally your practice, when doing PIRs, to ignore things which contravene the Wiring Regulations?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

OK - fair enough - you can't therefore comment on what your normal practice is.

But you were quite clear that if you were to do a PIR you would not code contraventions of the Wiring Regulations that you found.

So you should be able to explain why you wouldn't.

 

[JohnW2]

Do you really think I'm that interested.

Apologies - my mistake. Since you've contributed some 19 posts to this thread, I thought you were probably interested.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Risteard]

Another contributor who lacks basic communication skills, but has previously tried to impress with his superior electrical engineering qualifications.

So, Risteard, why is T&E approved to have a cpc of a lesser csa than any other cable.

I don't believe I mentioned my qualifications. I simply quoted a Regulation number which demonstrates how the use of T&E can comply with the Regulations.