Increasing load for dual machine use in utility

[ebee]

Then that is a daft reason.

Well if you reckon that three or four outlets running at the same time is more risky than two outlets running at the same time I can see some logic in that thought.
I am not suggesting that it always happen or even mostly happens but I can envisage it happening sometimes and therefore the simple step of reducing that risk by changing the rules a bit I suppose might help.
I have not seen suggested another alternative reason for the rule change.

Changing 100 sq yards to 100 sq metres for area served by a ring final circuit changed the floor area served by about 20% but nobody bothered too much so our 100 sq yards was not that near the bone in the first place?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Well if you reckon that three or four outlets running at the same time is more risky than two outlets running at the same time I can see some logic in that thought.

Well if you reckon prohibiting something better than that which is allowed because someone might do something different is logical then I think your logic is considerably flawed.

I am not suggesting that it always happen or even mostly happens but I can envisage it happening sometimes and therefore the simple step of reducing that risk by changing the rules a bit I suppose might help.

So you have faith in people abiding by one rule but think another would be ignored.

I have not seen suggested another alternative reason for the rule change.

Which change?

Changing 100 sq yards to 100 sq metres for area served by a ring final circuit changed the floor area served by about 20% but nobody bothered too much so our 100 sq yards was not that near the bone in the first place?

Exactly. The point being that the area is irrelevant.