No overload protection for fixed load cable?

[ban-all-sheds]

Is it, can you explain why it is allowed?

It's because the people who wrote the Wiring Regulations consider it safe and acceptable.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

433.3.1, is actually about bus-bar chambers and main switchgear.

Why do you say that?

If you understand the meaning of 434, you will understand that 433.3. will never apply in a domestic setting due to the inherent dangers and costs of overcoming those dangers, as required by 434.2.1 (i) (ii) and (iii)

So are you saying that the diagrams in Appendix 15 depict arrangements which contravene the Regulations?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Because, 433.3.1, is actually about bus-bar chambers and main switchgear.

Where does it say that?

So are you saying that the diagrams in Appendix 15 depict arrangements which contravene the Regulations?

Yes.

So if you found such an arrangement when doing a PIR, how would you code it?

And also T&E cable does not comply with regs, unlesss it has some mysterious qualities only understood by the IET.

So if you found T&E in use when doing a PIR, how would you code it?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Because, 433.3.1, is actually about bus-bar chambers and main switchgear.

Where does it say that?

It doesn't.

So why do you say it?

I wouldn't code it.

Is it normally your practice, when doing PIRs, to ignore things which contravene the Wiring Regulations?

 

[Risteard]

And also T&E cable does not comply with regs, unlesss it has some mysterious qualities only understood by the IET.

543.1.3

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So, holmslaw.

1) The regulations do not say that 433.3.1 is actually about bus-bar chambers and main switchgear, but you claim that it is.

Why?


2) You also claim that if you were doing a PIR and you found aspects of the installation which contravened the Wiring Regulations you would not note that in your report.

Why?

 

[Stoday]

So, holmslaw.

1) The regulations do not say that 433.3.1 is actually about bus-bar chambers and main switchgear, but you claim that it is.

Why?

That regulation has been included in the regulations for a long time — certainly in the 13th edition which was current when I worked in contracting. I used it for just what Holmslaw says it's for – to connect between busbars and switchfuses.

Regulations are worded to generalise the situation rather than to limit the issue to the usual application. Holmslaw has not said that 433.3.1 applies only to busbar/switchfuse connections, only that that's the usual situation. I agree with that. On reading the initial posts I kept thinking "that applies to busbars"; eventually holmslaw said so in a later post.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So it only applies to bus-bar chambers and main switchgear, even though the wording of the regulations makes absolutely no reference to that?

And it cannot be used for any other part of an installation, even though the wording of the regulations makes absolutely no mention of that?

If you found an arrangement like the ones depicted in Appendix 15 when doing a PIR, how would you code it?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[JohnW2]

433.3.1 (ii) applies to any situation where you have to connect to something of higher current rating and it is impractical to provide the correct size conductors or protection. But you must comply with the severe requirements of 434.2.1 (i) (ii) and (iii).

Interesting discussion. Putting my Devil's Advocate hat back on (since I really don't personally want to appear to be arguing in support of the arrangement BAS proposes)....

...434.2.1 (i), (ii) and (iii) relate to provision of fault protection. 433.3.1(ii) says that, under the conditions specified, one can omit overload protection provided that adequate fault protection is in place. The proposal related to situation in which requirements for the presence of fault protection and the conditions for omission of overload protection were both met - so I think/fear that, in terms of the regs, BAS is right in saying that would technically be compliant.

Kind Regards, John.