Yes, that would be an answer. Indeed, if BAS (well, really the regs!) were to have his way, I'd be pulling out those 'signal' cables and replacing them with ones which had Band II rated insulation, anyway - but I don't intend to comment on whether or not I'd do that
One probably wouldn't think so, but I've certainly suffered from this is the past. Don't forget that these cables I'm talking about are very small, so can easily twist (with the cord twisting around some of them them) - and one has then potentially set the scene for deep trouble (short of pulling out all the cables and starting again with a duct which is empty other than for a 'clean' cord.
Yes, that would be a viable plan.
It has got smooth walls, but I don't think I'd chance my luck with cable ties. I imagine that the flexible conduit would only need to be attached to the SWA at the leading end, wouldn't it?
I have now conducted some quick experiments, on 4-core and 8-core 'alarm cable', rated at 60V. Both have 7/0.2mm conductors (csa about 0.03mm), 0.2mm PVC insulation and 0.2mm PVC sheathing.
Whilst I could easily understand your saying that in relation to a good few other threads/posts of mine, I'm a little surprised that you say it in relation to this one - at least in terms of the main issue (the use of T&E underground). Even though, as you say, it would be an acceptable approach, I have not been suggesting a way of achieving the objective of a regulation by a means different from that actually specified in the regs. Rather, I have merely been talking about the invocation of the fact that 522.8.10 of BS7671 actually says, explicitly, that armour is not required if a cable is "installed in a conduit or duct which provides equivalent protection against mechanical damage". Hence, if one believes that the installation provides that degree of protection against mechanical damage, then using that approach would be compliant with the explicit words of the regulation, not an 'alternative means of achieving the reg's objective'. That's how I see it, anyway, and I'm not sure I can think of any sensible interpretation of 'equivalent protection' which would not be satisfied by several inches of concrete!
I don't need to do that. I already know that the 'IR' would pretty low if it were still wet and well seasoned!I just don't want you to start taking the IR reading of boiled cabbage at 1000v dc.
That's obviously very true, and I suppsoe it makes production easier and cheaper if they only have to test to 60V - but for reasons such as we're discussing, it can be a bit of a nuisance for users if the insulation is really up to much more than that voltage.
Good question; watch this space.
As you know, I haven't ever seen an issue at all, let alone a massive one, but the question relates to what would be needed to comply with regulations. Are you saying that you think that earthed SWA armour would satisfy the regs?
... or is it OK because it's not 'fixed? Thanks. I'll try to resist the temptation to say any more about 'silly'
Even once one has taken the armour material (steel) into account, I would think that smallish-sized SWAs would more than satisfy that requirement, wouldn't they?Indeed; that's what I was suggesting. I'll do the sums later to be sure.
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
