does this comply?

[Graham Lister]

Yours misses the point too.I do not think anyone is questioning if 13A fuse can protect a 2.5mm cable. The issue is actually that an unfused outlet for current-using equipment is not suitable for overload protection for the cable preceeding it. Wrong, the appliance has a plug on it with fuse fitted so a socket is never going to exceed 13 or 26A. The original post was regarding a fused spur so its not unfused is it?.

The other issue is the distance from the last change in current-carrying capacity (i.e. the MCB) needs ot be within 3m too if being used as fault protection. Wrong, This does not apply, you are providing fault protection for the cable, as long as you can prove the cable will operate the protective device(calc it) then length in this situation is not limited to 3m.

What we need is special location to prove that in the event of a fault a single 2.5mm cable will trip the 32A rcbo, He could probably also tell the exact length that the 2.5mm could be and still operate the 32A rcbo in the event of the fault. Overload can be ommited as it has been provided further down the circuit by the 13A fused spurs/sockets. Dont think this will get through but worth one more try.

 

[ianmacd]

What we need is special location to prove that in the event of a fault a single 2.5mm cable will trip the 32A rcbo, He could probably also tell the exact length that will the 2.5mm could be and still operate the 32A rcbo in the event of the fault. Overload can be ommited as it has been provided further down the circuit by the 13A fused spurs/sockets. Dont think this will get through but worth one more try.

I can't start to tell you how wrong you are but I will of course try.

VERY!!!!

Go read 433.2.2. It CLEARLY states overload protection has to be before any branches OR Sockets (paraphrased). If you are not following this regulation (as in this case), its not compliant.

A plug without a fuse will have no overload protection. How safe is that?

Bottom line and I don't care if you disagree as you are clearly WRONG is that sockets are NOT SUITABLE FOR OVERLOAD PROTECTION!!!!!!!

Also, how can something be Wrong when I said IF?

 

[wozz]

Its not just bad practice, its daft and totally unnecessary, this could easily cause problems if someone adds to or changes the installation wether it strictly complies or not, just stick them on a 20A and the jobs a good un.

Can this argument be dropped as its a poor one, you can do a perfect installation and i could balls it right up in 10mins, does that make your installation not perfect? NO.

Show me a installation that cant cause problems by people not knowing what they are doing working on them.

 

[Graham Lister]

I can't start to tell you how wrong you are but I will of course try.VERY!!!!

Go read 433.2.2. It CLEARLY states overload protection has to be before any branches OR Sockets (paraphrased). If you are not following this regulation (as in this case), its not compliant.

A plug without a fuse will have no overload protection. How safe is that? A plug without a fuse wont work!

Bottom line and I don't care if you disagree as you are clearly WRONG is that sockets are NOT SUITABLE FOR OVERLOAD PROTECTION!!!!!!!

Also, how can something be Wrong when I said IF?

Ian you are not understanding overload can be provided downstream, sorry I cant help you anymore. Maybe some books explaining the regs might help. The ECA do a good guide to the 17th that explains the situation a bit better than I probably can. Hope this helps.

 

[ianmacd]

Can this argument be dropped as its a poor one, you can do a perfect installation and i could balls it right up in 10mins, does that make your installation not perfect? NO. Show me a installation that cant cause problems by people not knowing what they are doing working on them.

I agree. Attacking the OP is not 'cool'.

Wozz: Although this does not comply, its easy to see why you would believe it would as its a tad grey and seems to have caught out some others too with the status of its compliance. Please do not think that any continuing discussions on this thread are directed in any way at you or your compitence as they are not (or at least should not be as thats really not nice).

 

[ianmacd]

Ian you are not understanding overload can be provided downstream, sorry I cant help you anymore. Maybe some books explaining the regs might help. The ECA do a good guide to the 17th that explains the situation a bit better than I probably can. Hope this helps.

OMG go ask the ECA they WILL agree with me.

I do not think anyone supporting its compliance should post in this thread again without supporting regs to back it up as I have proveded them proving it does not comply.

SOCKETS ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR OVERLOAD PROTECTION FOR THE PRECEIDING CABLE!!

Graham are you really that out of touch with the real world to have not noticed plugs without fuses do exist and are being supplied?

 

[wozz]

thanks ian i did get a bit ****ed off with it at the start by people making statements that couldnt be backed up. Im pleased its a bit more on track, i started it to be debated it got me thinking and hopefully it has others to and lets face it if it was clear cut we would not be on page 10.

 

[wozz]

OMG go ask the ECA they WILL agree with me.

I have asked the nic and they have so far taken over a week and a half to reply, maybe they are having the same discussions!

 

[ianmacd]

I have asked the nic and they have so far taken over a week and a half to reply, maybe they are having the same discussions!

Probably still reading this thread .

 

[Graham Lister]

You need to read yours properly Ian. 433.3.1 actually means protection against overload can be omitted if the loads are not likely to cause an overload. You only need to provide fault protection for the cable. As for your 3m max length this is also wrong the cable just needs to be checked for short circuit (thermal) withstand using our old friend Mr Adiabatic Reg 434.5.2. Game over.

Ian theres your regs again as you obviously missed them last time I posted them.

I Just phoned the ECA and they didnt know who Ian was so couldnt tell me if they agreed with you or not, sorry.

 

[bluetobits]

Graham are you really that out of touch with the real world to have not noticed plugs without fuses do exist and are being supplied?

absolutely agree, only the other day i bought a box of red ones for 5.5 to 6mm drill size.

:run

 

[kme]

Glad I`ve become a "lurker" in here...........

:coat

 

[Andy™]

Glad I`ve become a "lurker" in here........... :coat

and me

(EDIT: and finally reached 10,000 posts. although 9950 are :Spam )

 

[a1spark]

Congatulations andy on your 10000th post ,but why has the clock stopped totting up...Have you broken it

EDIT :

its o.k someones just wound it back up now !

 

[Andy™]

Congatulations andy on your 10000th post ,but why has the clock stopped totting up...Have you broken it EDIT :

its o.k someones just wound it back up now !

it doesnt work when i dont post

 

[ADS]

I don't really wish to get back into this argument, but I had to comment on this:

OMG go ask the ECA they WILL agree with me. I do not think anyone supporting its compliance should post in this thread again without supporting regs to back it up as I have proveded them proving it does not comply.

SOCKETS ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR OVERLOAD PROTECTION FOR THE PRECEIDING CABLE!!

Graham are you really that out of touch with the real world to have not noticed plugs without fuses do exist and are being supplied?

What device is providing overload protection for a 2.5mm, un-fused spur off a 32 A ring final?

A simple question, so a simple, straight forward, 2 or 3 word answer please

 

[kme]

OK - I`m in again for a few mins.

Andy - congrats mate

ADS - one word reply: nothing.

BUT, and its a big but - it is specifically allowed in 7671.

To return to the original hypothesis......

We all know of a "joe bloggs" customer who has replaced a fuse with tinfoil / nail. Sometimes in the 3036, other times in the plug / fused spur.

If the 13A fuse blew due to a faulty appliance, and the customer had changed the fuse for tinfoil, the next weakest link is the 2.5 cable.

Ignore the "radial off a ring" scenario, as it has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion, IMO. This is purely a pair of radials bunged into 1 MCB.

(n.b. the tinfoil O/C protection point was just suggested by Mrs. KME :x )

 

[ADS]

OK - I`m in again for a few mins.Andy - congrats mate

ADS - one word reply: nothing.

BUT, and its a big but - it is specifically allowed in 7671.

To return to the original hypothesis......

We all know of a "joe bloggs" customer who has replaced a fuse with tinfoil / nail. Sometimes in the 3036, other times in the plug / fused spur.

If the 13A fuse blew due to a faulty appliance, and the customer had changed the fuse for tinfoil, the next weakest link is the 2.5 cable.

Ignore the "radial off a ring" scenario, as it has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion, IMO. This is purely a pair of radials bunged into 1 MCB.

(n.b. the tinfoil O/C protection point was just suggested by Mrs. KME :x )

Not a chance

When I did the 2391, the lecturer, who is also an NICEIC assessor, asked us the exact question that I have just put to you.

The answer is simple - it is impossible to overload the spur, because there is only facility to plug 2 x 13A plugs into it.

Just like it is impossible to overload the two radials in the ops scenario.

This is why the regs limit the amount of socket outlets permitted, on an un-fused spur, to two

 

[Andy™]

OK - I`m in again for a few mins.Andy - congrats mate

ADS - one word reply: nothing.

BUT, and its a big but - it is specifically allowed in 7671.

To return to the original hypothesis......

We all know of a "joe bloggs" customer who has replaced a fuse with tinfoil / nail. Sometimes in the 3036, other times in the plug / fused spur.

If the 13A fuse blew due to a faulty appliance, and the customer had changed the fuse for tinfoil, the next weakest link is the 2.5 cable.

Ignore the "radial off a ring" scenario, as it has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion, IMO. This is purely a pair of radials bunged into 1 MCB.

(n.b. the tinfoil O/C protection point was just suggested by Mrs. KME :x )

little thought for those of you who says it doesnt comply

what if you were to remove the 32A RCBO for the 2x radial sockets, and put them into the same 32A RCBO as the ring main....

please explain how one can be fully compliant, yet the other cannot, despite the fact that both are still protected by a 32A RCBO, just it doesnt comply on its own RCBO, but complies when sharing an RCBO

 

[kme]

Okay.........

Thanks ADS & Andy. I`ve just dug out BRB, and perused BOTH Appx15, and the reg which specifically allows this scenario:

433.2.2

So yes, it would appear that it does, in fact, comply. :Blushing