does this comply?

[ADS]

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

That is the one, KME - I just had to read it about 4 times to fully digest it.

Looks like you've totally cracked this topic, because there's no argument with that regulation, even for the nit-pickers:^O

 

[ianmacd]

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.

They should do. They call me enough.

 

[Andy™]

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

1 down, many more to go!

but it still doesnt mean that im going to be installing like this scenario any time soon though, and i doubt many others will be either

 

[ianmacd]

Not a chanceWhen 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

Actually it is specifically allowed by 433.1.5. Thats a specific allowance for 30 & 32A protected 2.5 Rings with a single spur in 2.5 to comply with 433.1.1 which the listed scenario does still not.

So it fails to comply with 433.1.1 or 433.2.2. Take your pick.

 

[ianmacd]

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.

433.3.1 is not applicable with a socket outlet as it contains no overcurrent protection on the fixed wiring side. It would satisfy a fixed load directly wired to a scu.

 

[ianmacd]

[quote name='Andy

 

[ianmacd]

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

Not at all. 433.2.2 specifically says sockets will not comply. Read it again while you have it out.

 

[ianmacd]

That is the one, KME - I just had to read it about 4 times to fully digest it.Looks like you've totally cracked this topic, because there's no argument with that regulation, even for the nit-pickers:^O

Surely if you have read it about 4 times you must have seen the part below:

The device protecting a conductor against overload may be installed along the run of that conductor if part of the run between the point where a change occurs (in cross-sectional area, method of installation, type of cable or conductor, or environmental conditions) and the position of the protective device has neither branch circuits nor outlets for connection of current-using equipment and fulfils at least...

Surely the plug comes after the socket

 

[ADS]

433.2.2 The device protecting a conductor against overload may be installed along the run of that conductor, if the part of the run between the point where a change occurs ( in cross-sectional area, method of installation, type of cable or conductor, or in environmental conditions ) and the position of the protective device, has neither branch circuits nor outlets for connection of current-using equipment and fulfills at least one of the following conditions:

(i) It is protected against fault current in accordance with the requirements stated in Section 434

(ii) It's length does not exceed 3 m, it is installed in such a manner as to reduce the risk of fault to a minimum, and it is installed in such a manner as to reduce to a minimum the risk of fire or danger to persons ( see also Regulation 434.2.1 )

It is saying that there mustn't be any branches or socket outlets in the length of cable that the overload protective device is protecting.

In other words,

MCB - 5 metres of cable - FCU.............OK

MCB - 2 metres of cable - socket outlets - 3 metres of cable - FCU.......Not OK

Same aplies to a run feeding the regulation double-socket outlet.....there can't be any branches or other outlets for current using equipment between the start of the run and the overload device (double socket).

 

[ianmacd]

433.2.2 The device protecting a conductor against overload may be installed along the run of that conductor, if the part of the run between the point where a change occurs ( in cross-sectional area, method of installation, type of cable or conductor, or in environmental conditions ) and the position of the protective device, has neither branch circuits nor outlets for connection of current-using equipment and fulfills at least one of the following conditions: (i) It is protected against fault current in accordance with the requirements stated in Section 434

(ii) It's length does not exceed 3 m, it is installed in such a manner as to reduce the risk of fault to a minimum, and it is installed in such a manner as to reduce to a minimum the risk of fire or danger to persons ( see also Regulation 434.2.1 )

It is saying that there mustn't be any branches or socket outlets in the length of cable that the overload protective device is protecting.

In other words,

MCB - 5 metres of cable - FCU.............OK

MCB - 2 metres of cable - socket outlet - 3 metres of cable - FCU.......Not OK

Same aplies to a run feeding the regulation double-socket outlet.....there can't be any branches or other outlets for current using equipment between the start of the run and the overload device (double socket).

thats the bit you missed. You install dsso's that have fuses then? Aren't they normally in the plug?

 

[ADS]

433.2.2 The device protecting a conductor against overload may be installed along the run of that conductor, if the part of the run between the point where a change occurs ( in cross-sectional area, method of installation, type of cable or conductor, or in environmental conditions ) and the position of the protective device, has neither branch circuits nor outlets for connection of current-using equipment and fulfills at least one of the following conditions: (i) It is protected against fault current in accordance with the requirements stated in Section 434

(ii) It's length does not exceed 3 m, it is installed in such a manner as to reduce the risk of fault to a minimum, and it is installed in such a manner as to reduce to a minimum the risk of fire or danger to persons ( see also Regulation 434.2.1 )

It is saying that there mustn't be any branches or socket outlets in the length of cable that the overload protective device is protecting.

In other words,

MCB - 5 metres of cable - FCU.............OK

MCB - 2 metres of cable - socket outlets - 3 metres of cable - FCU.......Not OK

Same aplies to a run feeding the regulation double-socket outlet.....there can't be any branches or other outlets for current using equipment between the start of the run and the overload device (double socket).

And that's the bit you missed

 

[ianmacd]

OMG this is getting really stupid.

Where is the fuse? Is it in the socket? No? then how does it comply? How is that socket circuit protected when nothing is plugged in?

 

[ADS]

I was wrong, KME, you can give it them in black and white and the nit-pickers will still try and interpret it to suit themselves. headbang

It complies, end of, but as Andy said, you wouldn't do it.

 

[Nicky Tesla]

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.

Ive bin thinking about this today and have come up with the same conclusion here Lister. I was about to post it when i came across your old post which must have subliminally got into my brain waves.

Yes theres overload protection and short cct protection. The cable will be protected by overload from the plug fuses. Overload is when an electrical item draws more current than it is expected to. On a ring, there are many sockets making it possible for the cable to draw a large current for some time, which necessitates the overload protection at the beginning. Where an electrical item in a single socket on a radial cannot overload the cable due to the plug fuse. A plug without a fuse, which is designed to plug into a household socket, is either not to british standard, or it directly feeds a transformer such as a mobile phone charger.

 

[Andy™]

a socket alone does not provide overcurrent protection. the fuse in the plug does. so go to 433.3 - omission of overload.

and your '3mtr' rule doesnt exist here.

and it also follows that if you can install a double socket, then you could change that to a FCU

 

[ADS]

OMG this is getting really stupid.Where is the fuse? Is it in the socket? No? then how does it comply? How is that socket circuit protected when nothing is plugged in?

If nothing is plugged in, it doesn't need protecting against overload!!

 

[Andy™]

If nothing is plugged in, it doesn't need protecting against overload!!

best post of the thread!

 

[ianmacd]

All I can hear is the clang of spurs. The Plug is after the socket therefore the fuse is not suitable as overload protection for that part of the circuit. I can not understand why that is so hard for you all to understand.

Also, this is not a ring. It has been said many times as we went along so do not bring up rubbish like 'its ok on a ring'.

Plug is an accessory not part of the fixed wiring (section 2).

 

[ianmacd]

[quote name='Andy

 

[Nicky Tesla]

If the cable is damaged, the fault will then pass over to a short cct type fault. What is required here, is that the breaker must trip within the relevant time ie 0.4 seconds and that the cpc should be able to withstand the surge of current without melting which as graham has said, is within the adiabatic equation, so if a ridiculously sized breaker was used on the radiald it would not comply as the cpc could melt in the event of a short cct fault.

Jobs a good unut the kettle on