No overload protection for fixed load cable?

[ricicle]

An industrial application such as fixed wiring to a motor I would feel more comfortable with. Where the fixed wiring to the motor is mechanically protected against external influences.

You cannot take a motor as a fixed load in respect to the regulations in this instance as a motor can run overloaded for periods of time if loads become to great or it stalls.
There is no guarantee that the motor overload will protect the supply cable.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[EFLImpudence]

Thats allowed by 433.1.5 and only applicable to BS1363 accessories.

Not really. 433.1.5 refers to Rings.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[EFLImpudence]

2.5mm² spur on 32A 4mm² radial - even connected directly to MCB.

2.5mm² spur on 32A 4mm² radial - even connected directly to MCB.

Thats allowed by 433.1.5 and only applicable to BS1363 accessories.

Not really. 433.1.5 refers to Rings.

Thats allowed by 433.1.5 and is only applicable to BS1363 accessories supplied throught a ring final circuit.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[EFLImpudence]

Regulations are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.

It may be allowed but it is wrong.

What if you had a 2.5mm² spur and 4mm² radial (or 2.5mm² ring) connected at a 32A MCB then, for whatever reason, the radial (or ring) were disconnected, would this still comply with this odd regulation?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[kai]

A very common situation, where a cable has no effective fault protection, is where thin 4mm street lighting cables are fed off street mains fused at 500 amps or above - if a fault developed in the thin 4mm street lighting cable, it will simply burn out and be destroyed by the fault current.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't know what 'It' is.

Yes you do. Both 'its' are 2.5mm² spurs on a 32A 4mm² radial circuit.

A 'disconnected' circuit doesn't have to comply with anything.

No, but the spur would be left on its own.

Did you read my previous post?

Yes, but it (same 'it') IS allowed.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The fact that you have absolutely no idea why is irrelevant.

The fact that it is allowed is relevant.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[JohnW2]

Regulations are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.

It may be allowed but it is wrong.

Goodness - a lot of water has flowed under this bridge during my few hours' absence - what did I start?

I'm glad to see that, if I'm understanding correctly, most people agree with me that, 'allowed' or not it's essentially daft (or worse) not to have 'conventional protection' related to a cable's Iz. That was, after all, the reason I started this thread.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Risteard]

An example of a fixed load which cannot overload is an electric shower.

It is impermissible to apply any recommendation code to it as it complies with BS 7671. Only non-compliances with BS 7671 may be made as observations. Why would a load which cannot overload require overload protection anyway?