Twin and Earth

I agree with that part. Ive been on DIY sites where people haven't got a clue just wanting to hear what they want to hear. Doing anything takes education, and understanding where your skills may fall short.
Indeed - and I think that, contrary to what you seem to have been implying, giving a free copy of BS7671 to those sort of people would not make one iota of difference to the way they behaved. Those who are at all concerned about doing things properly will already have a copy or, more likely, will have one of the (very many) cheaper publications (or even free on-line material) around which give a reasonable insight into the most important principles of BS7671.

Kind Regards, John
 
I agree with that part. Ive been on DIY sites where people haven't got a clue just wanting to hear what they want to hear. Doing anything takes education, and understanding where your skills may fall short.
Indeed - and I think that, contrary to what you seem to have been implying, giving a free copy of BS7671 to those sort of people would not make one iota of difference to the way they behaved. Those who are at all concerned about doing things properly will already have a copy or, more likely, will have one of the (very many) cheaper publications (or even free on-line material) around which give a reasonable insight into the most important principles of BS7671.

Kind Regards, John


Correct, but to those like myself who are willing to do to everything to code it can be a burden. For now lets agree to disagree.


Anyway, in regards to CCC, I came across this chart. Is it based on any particular IEC installation reference; or does it apply to all installation references as it seems to be conservative (rule of thumbs)?

http://img8.bricozone.be/148194e54c78f09ea1.jpg



http://wiki.cannaweed.com/images/b/bb/Section_fusible.png
 
Anyway, in regards to CCC, I came across this chart. Is it based on any particular IEC installation reference; or does it apply to all installation references as it seems to be conservative (rule of thumbs)?
It is not a CCC table.

Avez-vous traduit?
 
Anyway, in regards to CCC, I came across this chart. Is it based on any particular IEC installation reference; or does it apply to all installation references as it seems to be conservative (rule of thumbs)? http://img8.bricozone.be/148194e54c78f09ea1.jpg .... http://wiki.cannaweed.com/images/b/bb/Section_fusible.png[/QUOTE]
Well, it really depends upon what installation method those tables refer to - depending on the method, the fuse/MCB ratings they give (which I presume relates essentially to CCC) could either be 'conservative' or the opposite in comparison with BS7671 figures. Those figures are broadly similar to BS7671 CCCs for Installation Methods 100 and 102 and Reference Method B.

Kind Regards, John
 
It says nominal value of fuse and breaker.
It does, indeed, but as I wrote ....
... the fuse/MCB ratings they give (which I presume relates essentially to CCC)...
Do you disagree? As I see it, those tabulations are essentially the same as those in App 4 of BS7671 (for whatever installation method), but with the currents 'rounded down' from actual CCC to the next higher common 'nominal fuse/breaker rating', aren't they?

Kind Regards, John
Edit: 'up' changed to 'down'; I blame the merlot :-)
 
Why would a breaker allow for more current though? Im confused...
 
Why would a breaker allow for more current though? Im confused...
If they are talking about re-wireable (like BS3036) fuses, one has (at least, per BS7671!) to apply a 0.725 correction factor to take into account the fusing current of such devices being relatively much higher (in relation to rated current) than is the operating current of an MCB. (a Type B MCB has to trip within an hour with a current 1.45 times it's rated current; with a BS3036 fuse, it's more like 2 times the rated current).

Hence, for example, if you had a cable with a tabulated (in BS7671) CCC of 20A, it could (just) be protected by a 20A MCB, but (to comply with BS7671) would require a 14.5A (or lower rated) BS3036 fuse to adequately protect it.

Kind Regards, John
 
It says nominal value of fuse and breaker.
It does, indeed, but as I wrote ....
... the fuse/MCB ratings they give (which I presume relates essentially to CCC)...
Do you disagree? As I see it, those tabulations are essentially the same as those in App 4 of BS7671 (for whatever installation method), but with the currents 'rounded up' from actual CCC to the next higher common 'nominal fuse/breaker rating', aren't they?
Don't you mean rounded down? 4mm seems particularly low, though.

I don't know, but it looks like standard circuit arrangements with the difference between fuse and breaker similar to 3036s and MCBs.
 
As I see it, those tabulations are essentially the same as those in App 4 of BS7671 (for whatever installation method), but with the currents 'rounded up' from actual CCC to the next higher common 'nominal fuse/breaker rating', aren't they?
Don't you mean rounded down?
Sorry, yes, - it's Saturday evening , so I'll blame the merlot! ... I'll edit it!
4mm seems particularly low, though.
As I said, they're quite similar to BS7671 Method 100/102 figures - that's 27A CCC (per BS7671) for 4mm² - so 25A is surely the MCB size it has to be rounded down to (and 20A not far off the corresponding 3036)?

Kind Regards, John
Edit: typo corrected
 
You may be correct about installation methods. There is no heading to the table.

It is French and from 1981 so ...
 
You may be correct about installation methods. There is no heading to the table.
Quite - but, as I said, with the 'rounding down' the figures are pretty compatible with BS7671 Methods 100/102/B. That could just be a co-incidence, but it may actually relate to what the table heading would/should have said about installation method!

Kind Regards, John
 
What about the larger conductors, 10 and up, they are method C.
They would all appear to be consistent with Method C.

It's obviously perfectly possible that the French (or whoever!) tabulate in terms different installation methods from us and/ot have different cable CCCs for similar methods. Whatever, those figures are not a million miles away from the ones we would use. Indeed, if we assumed that all related to what we would call Method C, all their figures for cables >6mm² would be consistent with ours, and those for smaller cables a bit more 'conservative' than our figures.

Kind Regards, John
 
Why would a breaker allow for more current though? Im confused...
If they are talking about re-wireable (like BS3036) fuses, one has (at least, per BS7671!) to apply a 0.725 correction factor to take into account the fusing current of such devices being relatively much higher (in relation to rated current) than is the operating current of an MCB. (a Type B MCB has to trip within an hour with a current 1.45 times it's rated current; with a BS3036 fuse, it's more like 2 times the rated current).

Hence, for example, if you had a cable with a tabulated (in BS7671) CCC of 20A, it could (just) be protected by a 20A MCB, but (to comply with BS7671) would require a 14.5A (or lower rated) BS3036 fuse to adequately protect it.

Kind Regards, John


Thanks, that clears it up now. :) So the only reason, from my understanding, is that a 20amp re-wire able fuse would hold an over current condition longer than an MCB. MCBs start their trip curve around 125%, correct?
 

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

 
Back
Top