"> after all the regs are there to help those that don't actually know
Jesus wept. Do you deliberately write this stuff so that people will take the piss out of you?
Now who was it that did not know the regs last time this came up?
I am beginning to wonder if he is TheScullsters BCO.
As usual, the point of significance misses you. That being that overload protection is not required at all in this circumstance, because of the characteristics of the load.
No dennis, as has been explained to you many times, overload current and fault current are not the same thing, and they require independent consideration. Much the same that a car's braking performance and its crash performance are treated separately even though they are both "ways of stopping".
And the result? Overload still not possible...
However, its a straw man argument, much like saying what if someone connected an electric shower to the bathroom lighting circuit? Then used that for justification that all lighting circuits should be wired in
10mm^2 T&E.
These would be the mythical electricians that speak to you in the quieter moments would it dennis? Keep taking the tablets.
That is so "Jerry", even down to the nail as a fuse.
MBQ
"GET Ultimate" are pretty good for terminal space as well IME.
I know the bit of the regs you think I don't. I just don't agree with it. I am not alone in thinking this. What's more, I don't have to prove its right as I am not using it.
However its easy to prove the alternative I said is true as in all cases it exceeds the regs. There are no circumstances where it would be wrong to use 4 mm2 cable in place of 2.5 mm2 cable. There are no occasions where it is unsafe to fit a smaller breaker on a 2.5 mm2 circuit. You could even use 2.5 mm2 radials as per the later editions of the regs. These BTW are there to replace rings so even the IEE thinks you are onto a bad thing. Give it a few more editions of the regs and you wont be doing what you are doing now.
Are we going to have the same argument as last time or have you come up with something new and worth listening to? I expect not.
Odd its you that misses the point. I know about fault conditions and overload is a fault condition. It doesn't involve hundreds of amps but it will sure destroy cables.
Yes and I don't like the way you do it.
What cr@p, but to be expected.
Of course it is, we have been through it before and I have shown several ways a user can get more than 40A through your 26 amp cable, you just state "its the users fault", etc. I just make it impossible without him altering the installation.
That's altering the installation and also a very bad choice as the breaker in the lighting circuit would protect it against overload unlike the 2.5 mm2 spurs on rings. You really should know that as it pretty basic stuff!
You are arguing against things I have never said and it makes you look bad. I suggest you start again and try to understand the basic argument before adding in cr@p arguments.
Of course you now know that bit of the regs. I pointed it out to you last time around around. That is why I said "did not know last time"
Is there a point to those statements?
I will adapt to now regs when they occur in reallty not in dennise world.
You were proven wrong last time.
Why don't you go and set fire to an induction hob?
The wiring regs define the terms fault current and overload current. One is not a subset of the other. Since we are using them here in their "official" sense, the fact that you would like to define them differently is not relevant.
The reason they define them separately is that there are fundamental differences, and in particular the mode of cable heating under fault conditions must be treated as being adiabatic - this obviously does not apply to a longer term overloads.
The current carrying capacity of a cable for the point of view of assessing overload depends heavily on the installation method. While for fault conditions the method is irrelevant.
An overload (where it is possible to have one) can be "fixed" by removing the excess load. Fault conditions tend to require more invasive repair operations.
An overload if permitted for long enough will damage a cable. However its not relevant in this case.
Well you do it your way, I and I will do it the right way...
So you are suggesting that having just the one drum brake on one wheel will be adequate, because we have crumple zones and air bags? Or no need for a laminated screen, because the hand brake is really good?
Strange boy...
Dennis, engage your brain and focus a little before typing will you?
We are talking about a dedicated spur to feed a cooker hood. Total load is very unlikely to exceed 3A. There will be a FCU at the end of the spur, with a 3A fuse to protect the flex into the cooker hood. How do you suppose that this arrangement is going to draw the sustained 40A or so required to damage the spur cable? Remember there are no sockets, there is nothing a "user" can do to change the load. I am not aware if any cooker hood, come induction welders on the market - so even a swap for a new cooker hood is not going to change the situation.
Hence we can deduce that overload is not a problem we need to worry about in this scenario. All we need to do is ensure we have fault protection, for when some dope comes along and nails a spice rack through the cable, or tries to poke the wrong sort of bulb into the cooker hood and shorts the bulb contacts. Here it is easy to calculate the minimum conductor sizes required to ensure the flex to the cooker hood is not damaged before its protective 3A fuse blows, and the spur cable and main radial cables back to the CU are not damaged before the MCB at the origin of the circuit operates.
Now for the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying that treating this feed as a branch of the radial, and doing it in 4mm^2 cable would be unsafe or unsatisfactory, just unnecessary.
You seem to be wandering off at a tangent again - cooker hood on a FCU remember?
However if you want to talk about sockets...
As has been demonstrated by the ESCs research, the 4 way extension leads are the primary cause of concern since they typically will not carry a
20A load for any time without catastrophic failure. (many won't even carry 13A). However one of these, fully loaded on a typical spur will not damage the spur cable[1] - even if it lasted long enough.Two of these connected to a double socket (remember these are rated at a nominal 20A total load - not 26A) - would be bad news - for the socket. The supply cable is going to be the least of the problems.
[1] Remeber one of the design exercises for the installer using a spur is that the installation conditions don't de-rate the cable to an inappropriate amount.Most of your supposed "problems" involve modification of the installation one way or another - removing cooker hood feeds, grafting a pair of four way extension leads onto the wire because you think the cupboard above the cooker hood would be a really nifty place to stick 8 extra sockets so that you can plug in an additional 9.2kW of load. What was that going to be again?
Whereas its the things you have said that makes you look, well not so much bad, as just rather unhinged and comical.
Good advice - you should practice what you preach.
As it says in my copy of Parker-Morris: "socket outlets have obviously been placed in locations to save wire rather than with consideration to where they would be useful" ;)
JGH
The only thing you pointed out was that I didn't explicitly state 22A radials and you went on about 30/32A radials which had nothing to do with what I said. But that's typical of you.
Not a chance, you just keep saying that, the reality is different.
That would be hard to do, why don't you tell me the best way?
No you are not. the second you and adam posted about me and my previous posts you went into
2.5 mm spurs and all the previous arguments.I even said that at least you defined the load, so were correct in this case. that doesn't make all the previous cr@p you posted correct.
Its you and adam that want this discussion, I didn't bring it up.
You are going off on another tangent, again.
Your not going to comment on your error about showers on lighting circuits then? I would have thought you would know that they were fully protected against overload at the CU unlike rings.
Swap "explicitly state" for "know"
You had no idea that a 2.5mm spur was allowed from a 4mm 30/32A radial circuit.
It was you that set fire to the £1.99 wok using an induction hob, not me.
No. I brought the subject and your name up, not John. However it was the same OP that started both threads.
You made it a discusson by talking bollocks again and saying that you know better than BS7671.
Dennise, you are just a figure of fun for the rest of the newsgroup.
Get a life you sad old wanker.
I didn't care and still don't care, it made no difference to my argument and still doesn't.
We that was hot oil in a wok, somewhat different to a hob. I knew you were a bit thick but I expected you to know the difference.
Best not admit that you were wrong then.
Everyone else seems to manage not to set fire to their £1.99 woks using their cheap induction hobs.
John also posted a similar comment.
That's their loss then.
Its you that keeps trying to prove me wrong and failing. Why don't you get a life and give up.
No. He replied to my post with a humourous comment. Not quite the same thing is it?
That does not make sense. Did you write that just to amuse everyone?
I have won every time.
Why do you not give up your sad life? I am a real person that does not hide behind an anonymous name.
No, not humorous at all.
Figures of fun have no sense of humor. The reason is because we are laughing at you not with you.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.