Unlooping supply

[jelliottelectrical]

0.0225 is the imperial equivalent (or near enough) of 16mm2. Normally Pilc cable which can be run at slightly higher loadings

I seem to remember something about it not being the cables that are the issue, but the practice of using the cutout to loop as they often are. The old EON network manual (which is still online) banned the practice of looping from three phase cutouts due to thermal rating. And a recent thread on here, a member had his looped service altered, and all the dno did was to joint the two service cables together in the ground below the meter box rather than in the cutout.

 

[SUNRAY]

0.0225 is the imperial equivalent (or near enough) of 16mm2. Normally Pilc cable which can be run at slightly higher loadings

I seem to remember something about it not being the cables that are the issue, but the practice of using the cutout to loop as they often are. The old EON network manual (which is still online) banned the practice of looping from three phase cutouts due to thermal rating. And a recent thread on here, a member had his looped service altered, and all the dno did was to joint the two service cables together in the ground below the meter box rather than in the cutout.

I should have done the calcs before as that comes up at 14.5mm². My assumption has always been the cable limit and didn't understand the reasoning in that post, thanks for the explanations.

 

[JohnW2]

I should have done the calcs before as that comes up at 14.5mm². ....

It does, but I don't think that in any way undermines what you wrote. When you wrote ..

... initially look at the cable plans and the cable size, if it's over (but not including) 16mm² or 022 (I assume that's 0.022²") they often leave it looped unless both properties require EV points.

I assume that he/you meant was:

"... if it's at least the next-larger available cable size than 16mm² or 022 (I assume that's 0.022²") they often leave it looped....... "​

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

I should have done the calcs before as that comes up at 14.5mm². My assumption has always been the cable limit and didn't understand the reasoning in that post, thanks for the explanations.

And suddenly I remember a cut out being replaced due to damage and the 2 cables from the ground jointed to one on the wall below the meter box, I'd assumed it was to extend the length of the damaged cables, suddenly it makes me wonder if there was another reason.

 

[SUNRAY]

I assume that he/you meant was:

"... if it's at least the next-larger available cable size than 16mm² or 022 (I assume that's 0.022²") they often leave it looped....... "​

Kind Regards, John

Can

... cable size, if it's over (but not including) 16mm² or 022...

be interpreted any other way?

 

[JohnW2]

Can ... be interpreted any other way?

I wouldn't have thought so - hence my comment. Whether the imperial size cable is equivalent to 14mm², 16mm² or 20mm², his/your initial statement would be equally valid.

In other words, I was merely reassuring you that it wouldn't have made any difference if you had "done the calcs before".

Kind Regards, John

 

[jelliottelectrical]

"... if it's at least the next-larger available cable size than 16mm² or 022 (I assume that's 0.022²") they often leave it looped....... "​

was exactly what I meant. I wasn’t saying anyone is wrong, just sharing my experience. I seem to have ended up with lots of projects over the years with various DNOs and it’s amazing what you pick up

 

[JohnW2]

was exactly what I meant. I wasn’t saying anyone is wrong, just sharing my experience.

I realise that. It was Sunray who appeared to be saying that he was in some sense 'wrong' ("I should have done the calcs before as that comes up at 14.5mm².") - but, as I wrote to him, that calculation made no difference to what he and you had written.

As I said, my intention was simply to 'reassure' him, but my attempt seems to have somewhat backfired. Ah Well

Kind Regards, John