H
holmslaw
..
I think it's probably 60+ years, and therein lies the most obvious response to the question posed by this thread. It has been successfully used for over half a century and is probably present in every single one of the millions of electric installations in the UK - not a very sound reason for 'banning' anything.T&E has been around for nigh on 50 years and it was introduced with absolutely no method of clamping the cable.
Are you serious?The stuffing glands with oval inserts are comparatively recent, someone said they used them in 1996. And I would bet good money that if they were widely used there would be a lot of damaged cable where the cpc has been pushed into the L/N insulation.
As for 'why',you would obviously have to ask them, but I don't think many people other than you see the clamping issue as a problem, so perhaps teh IET don't, either. As for 'undersized CPC', I'm not really sure what criteria you are applying; if you undertake the adiabatic calculations (as accepted/prescribed by IET), I think you'll find that the CPCs of T&E are of adequate CSA by current standards, provided that the required disconnection times are being achieved.The question is why did, and why do the IET allow the use of a cable with no means of sheath clamping and an undersized cpc to be used.
Real fact - virtually all T&E in common use does have flat sides because that's the way it's made. I've handled a fair bit of cable over the years, and seen quite a bit more, but that one is new to me - presumably cheap since it uses less plastic.Fact, Twin Romex has perfectly flat sides because all the cores are the same size.
Fact, T&E does not have perfectly flat sides because of the reduced cpc size, thats also another reason why it is crap cable.
Heres a pic of some BASEC approved T&E - View media item 38042
Not quite the same profile as romex, is it?
And actually, to say there was absolutely no form of clamping would be an outright lie - unless the basic saddle clamp had not been invented, which I think would be something of a wild claim to make.I think it's probably 60+ years, and therein lies the most obvious response to the question posed by this thread. It has been successfully used for over half a century and is probably present in every single one of the millions of electric installations in the UK - not a very sound reason for 'banning' anything.T&E has been around for nigh on 50 years and it was introduced with absolutely no method of clamping the cable.
As for being introduced with no method of clamping, I strongly suspect that exactly the same had been true of most forms of cable previously introduced.
Yes, he probably is. Because it's now been demonstrated that there are clamping systems for flat cables, and were before T&E was around, he's shifting the goalposts to be "stuffing gland" type clamping systems.Are you serious?The stuffing glands with oval inserts are comparatively recent, someone said they used them in 1996. And I would bet good money that if they were widely used there would be a lot of damaged cable where the cpc has been pushed into the L/N insulation.
And of course the answer to the first part is "they didn't" - there were, and are, methods for sheath clamping T&E.As for 'why',you would obviously have to ask them, but I don't think many people other than you see the clamping issue as a problem, so perhaps teh IET don't, either. As for 'undersized CPC', I'm not really sure what criteria you are applying; if you undertake the adiabatic calculations (as accepted/prescribed by IET), I think you'll find that the CPCs of T&E are of adequate CSA by current standards, provided that the required disconnection times are being achieved.The question is why did, and why do the IET allow the use of a cable with no means of sheath clamping and an undersized cpc to be used.
Please don't feed the troll.Troll food
Please don't feed the troll.Troll food
Please don't feed the troll.Troll food
Please don't feed the troll.Troll food
Please don't feed the troll.Troll food
Please don't feed the troll.Troll food
Please don't feed the troll.Troll food
What the regs 543.1.1) actually clearly state is that if one can't be bothered to calculate the required CPC CSA according to 543.1.3, then one can select the CSA in accordance with 543.1.4 (i.e. use the very conservative figures in Table 54.7) - which is what you are referring to above. That 'lazy' method will nearly always result in a substantial over-estimate of the required CSA.The regs clearly state that cables with a Live of 16mm or less shall have the same size cpc.
Maybe it would take you that long, but it actually only requires a knowledge of the Ze, circuit design current (to ensure CCC and VD requirements are met) and the approximate length of the circuit concerned; it's then a fairly trivial matter to produce a spreadsheet, or even a program for a programmable caculator, which will give you instant answers. However, after anyone has done that a few dozen times, they are likely to learn that the calculations virtually always indicate that the current CPC CSA's in T&E sized for CCC and VD are more than enough, so probably stop wasting their time doing it every time! If you recall, the initial CPC size of 2.5mm² T&E had to be increased becasue it proved not always to be adeqaute.....so when you are rewiring using crap T&E do you do an adiabatic for every piece you install. That would take a domestic rewire into months rather than days.
For once we agree on something - but it's a bit ironic that you are not only taking the regs fairly seriously, but are actually failing to quote them completely, in an attempt to justify your apparent belief that T&E should not be allowed; one might be forgiven for thinking that you seem to want it both waysDon't take the regs too seriously they are just a very badly written guide that occassionaly get revised due to criticisms such as mine.
Sigh.[a veritable banquet for a troll, in the form of countless pointless repetitions of "Please don't feed the troll"]
Earlier you wrote that resorting to personal abuse is recognition that you've lost the argument. Now you are resporting to personal abuse to try and deflect the topic away from your lost cause.SimonH2, dodgy name, a lot like JohnW2, with a very similar personna ie 'I don't what I'm talking about but that won't stop me commenting'
On any accessory with saddle clamps then I'd simply fit it in the saddle clamp in the same way as any other type of cable. Simples.Just explain how your imaginary clamping systems work on plastic accessories ie ceiling roses, boxes, patrices and circular junction boxes, metal boxes in stud partitions. And while your at it tell the world what size romex glands go with which size T&E cables.
None of those were directed at the troll, only at those for whom the penny has not yet dropped.Sigh.[a veritable banquet for a troll, in the form of countless pointless repetitions of "Please don't feed the troll"]
Kind Regards,John.
That's obvious, but it seems that my penny didn't drop, either. By directing that list of repetitive comments at the rest of us you were, in fact, yourself providing very nutritious troll food!None of those were directed at the troll, only at those for whom the penny has not yet dropped.
No, I have no need to educate anyone but you - but then you are definitely not open to education.You are spouting imaginary nonsense because you still can't explain how how your imaginary clamps are fixed to plastic accessories such as ceiling roses, boxes, patrices and circular junction boxes, metal boxes in stud partitions.
Come on its your chance to educate every spark in the uk.
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local