I hacked about a section on the cable sizing article:
To include the changes in permitted ELI introduced by the 3rd amendment to the wiring regs.
Is it worth keeping the original table, and the explanation of why the change was made, or shall we just swap to the new table and ignore the change bar just a footnote?
A sufficiently explanatory footnote so that people can work from it if they're checking to an older version.
Owain
In message , John Rumm writes
None of this was necessary under the 14th edition! You might want to check the spelling of superceeded. OE doesn't like the c and only allows
3 e's.Presumably any sparks will test to the new table so knowing what used to be ok is no real help?
I've only skimmed it, but I think that's a *very* helpful explanation. I'd have thought that anyone who takes the time to look it up would know enough to be able to understand it.
Alas I don't have a copy to compare.
This seems to suggest that my version is ok
If testing an existing installation then it would be tested against the regulation in force at the time I would have thought... Obviously if changing it, then the new values would need to apply.
ok I have added a note to make it clearer that the original table is for stuff prior to Amendment 3. I have also expanded the table of new values to include type C and D MCBs as well.
You could have mine. Faded to pink and is the metric reprint version but otherwise in good order:-)
I was trying to be facetious!
Understood. I withdraw my comment.
If you don't want it, then I could find space for it I am sure... ;-)
(shame its not the imperial one, since IIUC that had all the tables for the imperial cables which I understand they dropped? (Which seems daft since they cables themselves are still in use even now!))
There is also a 1972 guide to the wiring regulations, a memorandum on the electricity regulations (1982 reprint) and B D Jenkins commentary on the 15th. edition of the IEE wiring regs.
Mail addy works.
Great article - thanks for all the effort you put into these :)
I did notice that the figures in "230V give or take +6% / -10% (i.e. between 216V and 253V)" don't add up.
On 08/12/2016 09:30, David wrote
Try 230 V -6% +10%.
By group effort we seem to have now arrived at a somewhat less mangled:
"230V +10%/-6% (i.e. between 253V and 216V)."
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required