Bright Sparks

[ebee]

He understands and researches well.
He is often right (almost always I think)
He changed my mind once - got me thinking.
We agreed to differ once.
Apart from that I can`t think of a time that to my knowledge he was wrong.
He encourages folk to think for themselves rather than let other think for them and believe urban myths.
He does not take fools gladly and I think that makes some folk think he is a tadd too abrasive.

I can`t pretend that I`ve read all threads, however I would trust him to do a job right or not at all , more than I would trust some "time served & qualified electricians"

 

[ban-all-sheds]

A big FAT nothing. Looks like you had a go at posting something, but decided to delete it - after all, if your calculation is WRONG for the length of cable, that could be DANGEROUS.

So, just because you are familiar with EIC forms, and know how to complete them that makes you a compentent spark?

So, I chose to give you something original to calculate, but because you cannot look it up, or churn it out, or use industry specific acronyms, you fall short - you've been found wanting - So invite BAS round to do some sparks work, and you'll be OK as long as it's in the book, but anything that involves a bit of maths and you may find him wanting.

Dear God you really are pathetic, childish and desperate, aren't you.

What I posted was a reply to this:

I took it to mean the CPC was 2.5mm and extended with 1.5mm?

and I did it without quoting it, i.e. just a reply.

But by the time I hit Submit, ebee had already posted his reply, so mine didn't read well, looking like a reply to his, and wasn't needed, so I simply got rid of it.

But you, in your interminable thrashing around just had to seize on it as "proof" that I couldn't answer your pointless question.

Not only is that yet more b****cks from you, it's also showing that you are still thinking (if what goes on inside that defective brain of yours can really be called thinking) that the outcome of your little test has some bearing on whether someone so ignorant as to think that where a form asks for an per-circuit figure in amps it means a not per-circuit figure in mA is competent to issue certificates of compliance.

As I said earlier - I just couldn't be bothered to play your daft little game.

I note that you haven't attacked anybody else here who has also not "solved" it. I note that chapeau expressed the same opinion as I, that ebee's initial answer was it's "a lemon", and I note that those who have given answers have given different ones, so they can't all be correct.

But you aren't having a go at any of them, only at me.

And do you know why?

It's because you didn't like it when I said that the ignorance you displayed when you wrote this:

Just a few questions regarding the EIC.

1. Particulars of Installation referred to in the certificate.
It asks for "maxium demand" kVa or Amps - I am not sure what figure to put here. Is it the rating of the largest MCB or RCD?

2. The "In" rating of the MCB on the test results - Is this 30mA

3. The short circuit capacity for the overcurrent device - Is this the 6kA figure from the MCB/RCD - It's the resistor looking symbol with a line through it.

made you incompetent to be designing, testing and certifying, and you thought you could distract attention via this charade.

As I said, pathetic, childish and desperate.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No, but he does presume to lecture others about something he is apparently neither experienced in or qualified to do.

You're getting very close to an ad-hominem fallacy....

He is very happy to quote regs till the cows come home, and happy to accuse others of being dangerous if they can't recite them without getting a comma in the wrong place, but apparently doesn't actually know all that much about real world electrics (he demonstrated that much in one of my recent threads).

Did I really?

Which one was that, then?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

He is the only person in the past twenty or so years on the whole internet I have ever put on ignore. When he comes along and abuses me now I cannot read it, therefore he doesn't get a reply, must drive him bananas.

Your loss - ignoring people means that you don't get the benefit of their advice and corrections when you are wrong.

 

[stillp]

He understands and researches well.
He is often right (almost always I think)
He changed my mind once - got me thinking.
We agreed to differ once.
Apart from that I can`t think of a time that to my knowledge he was wrong.
He encourages folk to think for themselves rather than let other think for them and believe urban myths.
He does not take fools gladly and I think that makes some folk think he is a tadd too abrasive.

I can`t pretend that I`ve read all threads, however I would trust him to do a job right or not at all , more than I would trust some "time served & qualified electricians"

I agree with most of the above, except that I have noticed occasions when he is wrong - unlike some other posters, he then has the balls to admit he made a mistake. Shame his uncompromising attitude lets him down.

 

[EngStudent]

I think BAS is alright. He knows his stuff and he, IMO, correctly pulled you up on not knowing how to fill in an EIC.

And dizz - you haven't posted the solution.

 

[EFLImpudence]

The additional 0.1Ω is the extra resistance in the 1.5mm² cpc compared to the 2.5mm² L or N.

Indeed.

In order for this to be the case R1 must be 0.15Ω & R2 (R1 x 1&#8532 will be 0.25Ω

No, I don't think so! R2 = (R1 x 1&#8532 would only be true if the entire length of CPC were 1.5mm² - but, in fact, it's part 1.5mm² and part 2.5²mm. In other words, in the actual situation:

But it is.

The only way R1+R2 can be 0.1Ω greater than R1+Rn is as I have stated; leaving no 'room' for the 2.5/2.5 cable.
Any other figures at a ratio of 1:1⅔ don't result in a difference of 0.1.

Although, as ebee said, perhaps the 2.5/2.5 cable pokes out of the cu for a such a short distance its resistance is negligible.

 

[SimonH2]

He is often right (almost always I think)

He is sometimes just plain wrong, but I've not observed him admit the possibility

He encourages folk to think for themselves rather than let other think for them and believe urban myths.

No, he does exactly the opposite of that. He presents "Here's the regs, stop thinking past them". He has set views on some things and won't accept that it's valid for people to disagree with him.

I can`t pretend that I`ve read all threads, however I would trust him to do a job right or not at all , more than I would trust some "time served & qualified electricians"

From my observations, I wouldn't let him do any actual installation or testing. Whether I trust "time served" leckys (some are really good, some are really bad) is another question altogether.

No, but he does presume to lecture others about something he is apparently neither experienced in or qualified to do.

You're getting very close to an ad-hominem fallacy....

I speak as I find.

He is very happy to quote regs till the cows come home, and happy to accuse others of being dangerous if they can't recite them without getting a comma in the wrong place, but apparently doesn't actually know all that much about real world electrics (he demonstrated that much in one of my recent threads).

Did I really?

Which one was that, then?

You know exactly which one. Another thread where once you'd been shown to be wrong, you suddenly went quiet. Mind you, it was a relief as I'd been asking you to STFU until you has something useful to add but you wouldn't.

 

[JohnW2]

The only way R1+R2 can be 0.1Ω greater than R1+Rn is as I have stated; leaving no 'room' for the 2.5/2.5 cable. Any other figures at a ratio of 1:1⅔ don't result in a difference of 0.1.

I guess it's just the way you expressed it, since I more-or-less agree with everyone's bottom lines. Straight calculation gives (using dizz's restivity figures) answers close to Spark123's back on the first page - original length ~21.32m and calculated added length ~ -1.079m. In other words, it's an impossible situation. The way I would express the qualitative explanation is this (which I think is very close to what you're saying):

We know from the R1+Rn that R1=0.3Ω/2 = 0.15Ω
Hence, given that (R1+R2)=0.4 Ω , R2=0.25Ω
Even if all the CPC were 1.5mm², this would give R2 of about 0.2449 - i.e. fractionally below 0.25Ω (i.e. R1+R2 fractionally below 0.4&#937. If any of the CPC were 2.5mm², R2 would be even lower, hence R1+R2 could not possibly be as high as 0.4Ω.

Although, as ebee said, perhaps the 2.5/2.5 cable pokes out of the cu for a such a short distance its resistance is negligible.

As above, it's actually impossible, unless you have a way of realising a negative (tiny) length of cable!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

He is sometimes just plain wrong, but I've not observed him admit the possibility

You must have very poor powers of observation.

No, he does exactly the opposite of that. He presents "Here's the regs, stop thinking past them".

And you can prove that can you? (Except when "thinking past them" actually means "ignoring and contravening them").

He has set views on some things and won't accept that it's valid for people to disagree with him.

Untrue.

People are perfectly entitled to disagree with me, and to be wrong to do so, but the latter I will challenge.

I speak as I find.

In what way is that a justification for criticising what someone says, not because it's wrong but because you don't like them or don't think they should say it?

You know exactly which one. Another thread where once you'd been shown to be wrong, you suddenly went quiet.

No, really, I don't.

Mind you, it was a relief as I'd been asking you to STFU until you has something useful to add but you wouldn't.

Did you actually mean STFU until I had something to say which you wanted to hear?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

what is the answer to the question

-1.08m and 21.32m

as I ended up with a -ve one and that can't be right

Mathematically it is.

or was it just something you made up to try and prove a point but has backfired?

But as he said

You conduct a resistance test on the TOTAL circuit:

R1+R2 = 0.4
R1+Rn = 0.3

i.e. was positing those actual readings from an actual test, I'd say it has indeed backfired.

 

[JohnW2]

But as he said ..... i.e. was positing those actual readings from an actual test, I'd say it has indeed backfired.

Here's a question to all you bright sparks out there. I've made it up so you won't find the question or answer on google.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[securespark]

Well, I've nipped out for a bag of popcorn, but the interval is still on....

When is he going to post his solution?

Should have bought two bags....

 

[dizz]

what is the answer to the question

-1.08m and 21.32m

What did you do, take a look at which poster I "thanked" and then regurgitated stuff like you always do?

The reason I gave you this dumb ass question was because it's something I came across in real life - a length of cable unknown in pre-wired conduit in a property which had been extended in modern cabling. The only way to calculate the length of each length is to as spark123 has done, by using simultaneous equations.

Imagine that BAS, you just connect one end of the cable, and do two tests at the other, and you can evaluate the length of cable of the old pre-wired conduit and new cable - amazing isn't it? It's called maths.

Here's the BBC bitesize website for GCSE simultaneous equations which you might find useful :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/maths/algebra/simultaneoushirev1.shtml

Perhaps you'd like to practice some.

This is a made up question, and as people have noticed, it doesn't make sense with the original numbers I gave - I hadn't gone through the maths because it was hastly posted and intended to prompt you to do some work for a change rather than just shout people down or refer to regs - but you couldn't could you?

You had plenty of time to either quote the number spark123 has quoted or say it was not realistic - you did neither - you're dangerous!

... oh but you managed to state the answer in the end - by how? Oh yes - by referencing someone else - AGAIN. So you cannot think on your feet, you can only regurgitate other people work - brilliant - well done.

 

[EngStudent]

I dare say BAS, like most here, can quite easily do simultaneous equations.

What you've done is invent some figures, not bother to work out the solution to check that it makes sense, then go 'HA! You didn't answer the question BAS, you're dangerous!'

To be honest dizz, you come out of this looking far worse than BAS does.