does this comply?

[ianmacd]

You. You have no protection from the fuse if you fit a socket as the socket has no fuse in it. Dont spurt some rubbish about there being one in a plug as a plug does not form part of the fixed wiring and what if someone stuck something linking L&N with just enough resistance to draw 31A? Also, plugs are available without fuses!

EDIT: 443.2.2 precludes the use of branches or outlets for connecting current-using equipment so it does not see a socket as a suitable overcurrent device (didn't I say that may posts ago too?).

 

[ADS]

How can it not be applicable when its written that it will always apply? Did you get your copy of the regs by saving coupons on your frosties packs?

I can only assume you're talking to me, Ian.

I haven't used the word 'applicable'.

Of course the regulation that you quoted is applicable - it applies to the protective device - the BS1362s, like I said.

In (3/5/13 A) does not exceed Iz (27A)

 

[kme]

While I agree with Ian on this, as I think I`ve made my position perfectly clear; I would ask that we "tone it down" a bit? It seems to be getting a bit heated in here.

KME

 

[Graham Lister]

How can it not be applicable when its written that it will always apply? Did you get your copy of the regs by saving coupons on your frosties packs?

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.

 

[ADS]

You. You have no protection from the fuse if you fit a socket as the socket has no fuse in it. Dont spurt some rubbish about there being one in a plug as a plug does not form part of the fixed wiring and what if someone stuck something linking L&N with just enough resistance to draw 31A? Also, plugs are available without fuses!

Well then, there's your nail .....because exactly the same thing could happen with an un-fused spur off a ring final!!

 

[ianmacd]

Well then, there's your nail .....because exactly the same thing could happen with an un-fused spur off a ring final!!

No as a FCU is part of the fixed wiring unlike a plug. Also spurs off rings are specifically allowed to ignore that (433.1.5).

 

[Graham Lister]

You. You have no protection from the fuse if you fit a socket as the socket has no fuse in it. Dont spurt some rubbish about there being one in a plug as a plug does not form part of the fixed wiring and what if someone stuck something linking L&N with just enough resistance to draw 31A? Also, plugs are available without fuses!EDIT: 443.2.2 precludes the use of branches or outlets for connecting current-using equipment so it does not see a socket as a suitable overcurrent device (didn't I say that may posts ago too?).

Ian you are getting into fantasy land scenarios here that no designer can possibly account for.

 

[ADS]

No as a FCU is part of the fixed wiring unlike a plug.

I said un-fused:|

Also spurs off rings are specifically allowed to ignore that (433.1.5).

Spurs off rings are specifically allowed to ignore.........

You have no protection from the fuse if you fit a socket as the socket has no fuse in it. Dont spurt some rubbish about there being one in a plug as a plug does not form part of the fixed wiring and what if someone stuck something linking L&N with just enough resistance to draw 31A? Also, plugs are available without fuses!

433.1.5 really says that, does it??

 

[Mr Smith]

messrs

i am considering closing this thread

as it is now failing to serve any purpose

although i believe interpretation of your regulations to be important

this thread does not seem to be offering cohesive options

mr smith awaits your input before proceeding

mr smith

 

[ianmacd]

Bottom line is this. All circuits have to comply with 433.1.1 and this does not. 433.1.5 allows rings to comply. This is not a ring it's a radial anyway. It doesn't comply. That's the end of it. Anyone wanting to dispute those regs should go talk to the iet not us.

 

[Badger]

While I agree with Ian on this, as I think I`ve made my position perfectly clear; I would ask that we "tone it down" a bit? It seems to be getting a bit heated in here.KME

] :innocent

 

[Graham Lister]

Night Ian. You should meet my wife sometime, you and her are probably the most stubborn people on the planet. Mr Smith goodnight to you, sorry for trying to discuss something.

 

[Graham Lister]

] :innocent

Awesome!

 

[Badger]

anyone for a game of golf :^O

 

[Badger]

could someone switch the kitchen fan off please on their way up to bed :^O

 

[kme]

I don`t think discussion, per se is being frowned upon. More, as I tried to say a few posts back, some posters seemed to be getting somewhat aggravated over this. I`m not one of them. You don`t seem to be, either. I don`t know who Mr. Smith was reffering to, but, AFAIAC, we aren`t getting anywhere.

Some members tink it can comply; others are sure it doesn`t.

Who`s right? I believe I am (I expect everyone else thinks the same!), but, as was said Waaaaaaaay back, it is all down to personal interpretation of the regs.

I think I`ll "lurk" on this thread now - I`ve nothing more to add, unless someone supplies a POV which sheds a different light on it

KME

 

[kme]

could someone switch the kitchen fan off please on their way up to bed :^O

That`s me! 7 weeks. Jamaica (no, she volunteered) :x ray

 

[Lee321]

yes agree it has got a bit "strong" with some opinion being stated as its clear cut. if it was this debate would have been long over

 

[Ian Speirs]

Not trying to start this going again but in the electrical safety councils booklet for periodic inspection codes, it says if you find "circuits with ineffective over current protection ( Due, for example, to oversized fusewire in rewireable fuses)"

These should be given a code 1. So if you find a 30A fuse wire or 32A mcb supplying 1 2.5mm cable then this is a dangerous situation that needs urgent attention. I have read the whole thread and can see the argment from all sides, Just thought that although one person might see this as acceptable, or within the regs and install it as such, why cause yourself bother in the futuure when someone else does a pir on the circuit and fails it. :coffee coffee

 

[Andy™]

but that doesnt apply to this. the circuit is adequately protected, and so no code can be given.

if the 2.5 had 2x double sockets or 2x FCU's (or more), then it would not be protected, and would be codeable