Cable size

[mwatsonxx]

I saw Elvis

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't know; I'm not that tech-savvy.

The other day my gmail started doing 'silly things' and my son suggested I may have unknowingly inadvertantly altered something by a keyboard shortcut.

It was showing 'IN' when 'W' was pressed and 'IS' when 'E' was pressed. I had to alter something in gmail settings.

 

[JohnW2]

I don't know; I'm not that tech-savvy.

I've just tried playing browsers.

With Firefox, everything works fine - i.e. I see the same that you do. With IE it currently won't actually let me into the DIYnot site to look! - I guess another 'security settings' issue which I will try to resolve - and, if I succeed, I will then report back!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Any differences?

 

[JohnW2]

Any differences?

Only a slight one. Previously, I saw only placeholders in both the posted message and also in the Reply Box when I "quoted" the post. This time, although I see only the placeholders in your post, as I type this in the Reply Box (quoting your message) I am looking at the actual image for your first image, but only a placeholder for the second one.

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

I have issues with certain sites functionality. Some web pages that have forms don't open properly in Edge or even Chrome, you fill in the details, get to the bottom and discover there is no submit button.
I can get CPW to open the main page in Edge and Chrome. But when I go to the PAYG pages, it just seems to freeze. Until I open it in Firefox and it's fine.
Very strange.

 

[jg321]

As previously stated it is likely that the existing cable is safe, which can be proven by a few measurements and calculation.
It still won't comply with BS7671 (wiring regulations) for the reasons above.

Davey - IMO flameport's sentence above is the most useful one on all of this thread, in relation to your original question at least.

 

[JohnW2]

Davey - IMO flameport's sentence above is the most useful one on all of this thread, in relation to your original question at least.

Agreed, electrically speaking. However, some people would undoubtedly be concerned about 'deliberately'/'knowingly' having something which is not compliant with BS7671.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Davey]

Get one with a light in it, then you've got a lighting circuit.

The irony is we have central heating and SWMBO only wanted the electric fire as a "focal point" because it has LED lights down the sides!

In hindsight the feed cable may even be 1.5mm - I only know it's thinner than 2.5mm. I'll have another look at the weekend.

Thanks for all your help guys.

 

[JohnW2]

In hindsight the feed cable may even be 1.5mm - I only know it's thinner than 2.5mm.

If it turns out that is 1.5mm², it would probably even be compliant with regs (despite the fact that some people might be {unnecessarily} 'worried' by the fact that it's not one of the arrangements shown in the 'informative examples' in an Appendix to the regs!) as well as being electrically fine.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

If it turns out that is 1.5mm², it would probably even be compliant with regs

Probably ???

(despite the fact that some people might be {unnecessarily} 'worried' by the fact that it's not one of the arrangements shown in the 'informative examples' in an Appendix to the regs!)

I think that would be stretching the realms of - what? quibblingforthesakeofquibblingness - beyond all reasonable bounds.

as well as being electrically fine.

Exactly.


In view of the fact that you sometimes argue with Bas and say you don't think this or that regulation means what it says, I don't understand your ultra-conservative attitude in this thread.

 

[JohnW2]

Probably ???

Yes, probably - i.e. given that we would be relying on downstream overload protection, it would be compliant provided that the circuit's OPD (probably a B32) provides satisfactory fault protection for a 1.5mm² cable (which it probably would).

I think that would be stretching the realms of - what? quibblingforthesakeofquibblingness - beyond all reasonable bounds.

Whatever you call it, we have seen it. The diagrams in Appendix 15 do not show a socket being fed directly from a ring final or a radial with 1.5mm² cable. As I said, that seems to worry some people. Indeed, I wouldn't bet on the suggestion that no electrician undertaking an EICR would flag it up as a 'non-compliance'!

In view of the fact that you sometimes argue with Bas and say you don't think this or that regulation means what it says, I don't understand your ultra-conservative attitude in this thread.

I'm not sure what part of my attitude you feel has been "ultra-conservative". What I personally feel, what I think about a particular regulation and what I would happily do in my own home are one thing, but, when it comes to informing/advising an OP, I think it's only right that the OP should be made fully aware of what the regulation appears "to actually say", whatever you, I and others think/feel about it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, probably - i.e. given that we would be relying on downstream overload protection, it would be compliant provided that the circuit's OPD (probably a B32) provides satisfactory fault protection for a 1.5mm² cable (which it probably would).

Yet you say that's ok without qualification when I advise people to check oven circuits because of that.

I'm not sure what part of my attitude you feel has been "ultra-conservative". What I personally feel, what I think about a particular regulation and what I would happily do in my own home are one thing, but, when it comes to informing/advising an OP, I think it's only write that the OP should be made fully aware of what the regulation appears "to actually say", whatever you, I and others think/feel about it.

The only regulation it contravenes is the ridiculous Table 52.3.
Had the installer used 1mm² (or even 0.75mm²) flex. it wouldn't even do that.

It might not then be big enough for the fire but that's another issue.

 

[JohnW2]

Yet you say that's ok without qualification when I advise people to check oven circuits because of that.

If I have ever said that, I'm surprised, because one really can't say it 'without qualification' - since it depends upon the EFLI as measured in that part of the circuit. In any event, I was merely echoing what Risteard and flameport had said back on page 1 (that confirmation of adequate fault protection was necessary to establish compliance); had I contradicted that (which I wouldn't want to, anyway), I would probably have confused the OP even more!

The only regulation it contravenes is the ridiculous Table 52.3.

Yep, we are agreed about that (provided that fault protection is OK).

Had the installer used 1mm² (or even 0.75mm²) flex. it wouldn't even do that. It might not then be big enough for the fire but that's another issue.

Indeed.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Davey]

If it turns out that is 1.5mm², it would probably even be compliant with regs

Fingers crossed then!

I see 1.0 is 7.8 x 4.25mm with L&N cores of 1.13mm dia while 1.5 is 8.2 x 5mm with L&N cores of 1.38mm dia.

Is there an easy way to determine 1.0 or 1.5mm² cable or is it a case of getting the vernier out?

(despite the fact that some people might be {unnecessarily} 'worried' by the fact that it's not one of the arrangements shown in the 'informative examples' in an Appendix to the regs!) as well as being electrically fine.

I'm grateful for pointing out the more obscure requirements of the Regs and I agree this is an important part of any advice provided.

However my main concern is electrical safety - not blind obedience to an apparently "ridiculous" table, the origin of which has apparently been lost in the midst of time!

Thanks for all your help.

Davey