That's the job. You wont need all of it.
Connecting a new single oven
- Thread starter lasto
- Start date
That's the job. You wont need all of it.
Sponsored Links
Deadshort - Yes, the oven supply is on a circuit breaker and the cable comes directly out of the cooker switch.
DS - unfortunately I'm not at home right now (begging hot food from a friend!) but I'll check as soon as I get back.
Sponsored Links
That oven is 2.3KW, so you can use a piece of heat resistant flex (minimum 1.5mm²) and put a 13amp fused plug on the end of the flex.
Change the connection point on the wall to an unswitched 13A socket and you are done!.
*** To the tekkies on this forum, I am simplifying the details from BEKO's product instructions. ***
http://www.manualslib.com/manual/352040/Beko-Oif21300.html?page=6#manual[/QUOTE]
I AGREE WITH TTC
Your cooker will be on a 32a breaker, as TTC has advised this is the correct way to connect your oven. Buy a single socket and box and connect to the existing cable and plug the oven into that.
I would strongly advise you to get an electrican to check your work and check the earthing.
Regards,
DS
Why this apparent aversion to hard-wiring the oven, just like the previous (probably similar) one was (TTC has subsequently agreed that would be acceptable, and it's what PBoD advised)? I don't know about you, but I would personally prefer not to have an oven 'unnecessarily' connected via a plug and socket - as I see it, it's just more pair of things which can 'go wrong', heat up and/or fail.
Kind Regards, John
433.3.1(ii) .... As you say, there's nothing to debate (unless you seriously believe that an oven is likely to create an overload situation).
Kind Regards, John
My concern would be over protecting a cable/flex that is not designed to carry a current over of that of which the protective device can deliver.
I agree that the appliance being installed in case, would very unlikely draw enough current to have an adverse effect. But given the nature/method of connection and the possibility that an ill-informed appliance installer, may one day in the future decide to connect a much higher output appliance to this flex. So in my opinion, best have that base fully covered.
But if we were going belt/braces, the information within the MI would be the option to adhere to.
I agree that the appliance being installed in case, would very unlikely draw enough current to have an adverse effect. But given the nature/method of connection and the possibility that an ill-informed appliance installer, may one day in the future decide to connect a much higher output appliance to this flex. So in my opinion, best have that base fully covered.
But if we were going belt/braces, the information within the MI would be the option to adhere to.
One can obviously never knock foolproof/idiot-proof approaches. Five years ago, I would have said exactly the same - indeed, I would not have known that there was any alternative. Before I started participating in this forum, I had not noticed (or, at least, not taken any notice of) 433.3.1(ii) and therefore worked on the assumption that, for all cable in a circuit, one had to stick with In≤Iz. However, despite initial argument from myself, various electricians in this forum (particularly EFLI) convinced me that it was reasonable to invoke 433.3.1(ii) in the sort of situations we are talking about.
That's obviously all true, and I personally don't think there is any doubt that 433.3.1(ii) is applicable so long as the load connected to the 1.5mm² flex remains a cooking appliance with a total power of less than about 6.9kW (16A after diversity). The question obviously relates to the extent to which one should plan for what incorrect/stupid/dangerous things people might do in the future. If (as is true of 'idiots') one considers that 'anything is possible', it would, of course, never be possible to invoke 433.3.1(ii), since there is no telling what they might connect to the cable in the future - it's not just a question of the power of the appliance; they might connect an appliance (e.g. a WM or dryer) which could create an overload situation.
In this case, the MIs are not necessarily 'safe', per your line of thinking. As TTC points out, they call for 1.5mm² cable and a minimum fuse rating of 13A. There is no mention of the maximum OPD rating. That may be an error on their part or, of course, they might themselves be thinking of 433.3.1(ii).
Kind Regards, John
But - for the OP:
Protective devices do not deliver current; they restrict current drawn by the load(s) to protect the cable, not the appliance.
That the appliance in this thread cannot draw more than the 16A means that a 16A cable cannot be overloaded and so restriction will not be necessary.
I think some mention should have been made on checking that fault current protection will be sufficient although it is unlikely that it will not be.
That an idiot in the future may connect a hadron collider is not the responsibility of the owner nor the electrician today.
Protective devices do not deliver current; they restrict current drawn by the load(s) to protect the cable, not the appliance.
That the appliance in this thread cannot draw more than the 16A means that a 16A cable cannot be overloaded and so restriction will not be necessary.
I think some mention should have been made on checking that fault current protection will be sufficient although it is unlikely that it will not be.
That an idiot in the future may connect a hadron collider is not the responsibility of the owner nor the electrician today.
They may not have actually been thinking of our regulation but it comes to the same thing.
The oven draws current - it requires a cable that can handle that maximum current (1.5mm²) and a fuse which will not blow (13A).
The oven draws current - it requires a cable that can handle that maximum current (1.5mm²) and a fuse which will not blow (13A).
OK - I suppose one of my failings is that I do try to bend over backwards to give people the 'benefit of the doubt'! Of course,the irony in this case is that, even if they weren't thinking about that reg., what they were saying was probably compliant with it!
Kind Regards, John
That's strictly true, but I personally don't usually even think of mentioning it. It is extremely improbable that fault protection would be satisfactory with a couple of metres of 4mm² flex at the end of the circuit but not satisfactory with a couple of metres of 1.5mm² (the difference being about 0.033Ω, less if the flex were <2m). If it would not be satisfactory in either case, the problem is obviously greater than that of satisfying the conditions of 433.3.1(ii) - but most of those here probably wouldn't tell someone that they needed to check the Zs before connecting the cooker with 4mm² flex (on a 32A circuit).
Kind Regards, John
DIYnot Local
Staff member
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
Sponsored Links
