Residential 3 Phase Supply to Single / 3 Phase

[EFLImpudence]

However, given that its nearly Friday, I wonder how you would feel about "a further distance apart", "further miles apart" or "further travel"?

As you have said, it depends on whether that distance is greater or additional.

I don't think you can have a farther mile.

 

[EFLImpudence]

This interpretation sounds like something Winston would come up with.

Depends if he were right or not.

Neither the Oxford, nor the Cambridge English dictionaries support this interpretation, though they do point out that taking farther to mean distance is mostly an American usage.

Sometimes the Americans speak better than the English and have not succumbed to the dreaded evolution (democracy of the wrong) which dictionaries all too readily accept.

I guess EFLI encountered someone with a bee in his bonnet who convinced him it was right and has never been prepared to reconsider.

No, it's memory.

I once knew a handyman who insisted that we had to call plugs plug-tops. Doesn't make it right.

So, what about the reverse argument? I.e. if YOU thought 'plugtops' was right.


How do you feel about 'would of' etc.?

 

[JohnW2]

As you have said, it depends on whether that distance is greater or additional.

Is not "greater than X" essentially the same as "Additional to X"?

I don't think you can have a farther mile.

That certainly would not sound right - but what about "the farthest mile"? ....

"The farthest mile is the most difficult one in a multi-mile walk"

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Sometimes the Americans speak better than the English and have not succumbed to the dreaded evolution (democracy of the wrong) which dictionaries all too readily accept.

The one thing about your view which I've never really understood is what it is that you feel is the determinant of 'correct' current use of language at any point in time.

As far as I can make out, you regard the 'correct' (current) use of language as that which would have been documented in the dictionaries or 'Use of English' texts many decades (or more) ago. However, is that not a never-ending process? - i.e. will there not, 'back then', have been people, like you, bemoaning the fact that the then-current dictionaries had 'succumbed to evolution' and that the 'correct' (at the time) usage should be that which had been documented in dictionaries a number of decades earlier than that ... and hence on, and on, and on!

As I've said before, I don't think you believe that we should today all be speaking/writing the English of Beowolf or Chaucer (or earlier), so you have seemingly decided to draw an arbitrary line somewhere - and it seems to be at the time when you were first learning English ... but that 'landmark time' is unique to those in your generation, and in no way 'magic', let alone 'absolute'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Is not "greater than X" essentially the same as "Additional to X"?

I don't think so.

I wonder how you would feel about "a further distance apart", "further miles apart" or "further travel"?

This is pretty contorted but the first two surely mean 'extra' (additional) distance apart and 'extra' (additional) miles apart.

Taking 'further travel' means travelling more (additional); as opposed to 'travel farther'.

That certainly would not sound right - but what about "the farthest mile"? ....
"The farthest mile is the most difficult one in a multi-mile walk"

That's alright isn't it?
The mile farthest away; i.e. the last in the race.
A further mile would be one added on to the race, meaning the end was now farther away, wouldn't it?

Obviously if someone thinks they both mean the same then they will think the words are interchangeable but they are not always.
You cannot use farther when it should be further - farthermore, farther details to follow, etc.

 

[EFLImpudence]

The one thing about your view which I've never really understood is what it is that you feel is the determinant of 'correct' current use of language at any point in time.

As far as I can make out, you regard the 'correct' (current) use of language as that which would have been documented in the dictionaries or 'Use of English' texts many decades (or more) ago. However, is that not a never-ending process? - i.e. will there not, 'back then', have been people, like you, bemoaning the fact that the then-current dictionaries had 'succumbed to evolution' and that the 'correct' (at the time) usage should be that which had been documented in dictionaries a number of decades earlier than that ... and hence on, and on, and on!

As I've said before, I don't think you believe that we should today all be speaking/writing the English of Beowolf or Chaucer (or earlier), so you have seemingly decided to draw an arbitrary line somewhere - and it seems to be at the time when you were first learning English ... but that 'landmark time' is unique to those in your generation, and in no way 'magic', let alone 'absolute'.

We've been here before. What has already happened cannot be undone.

Some things are just wrong and the majority of people using words wrongly does not make it right.
Re: Ant and Giraffe; you think that is a silly example but it is no different really.


I will just say that if the OED decides that 'of' now means 'have' I will give up.

 

[JohnW2]

Taking 'further travel' means travelling more (additional); as opposed to 'travel farther'.

I think you are trying to make a distinction which can be very subtle (maybe 'pedantic'?) in at least some contexts ...

"going from London to Manchester via Cardiff involves further/farther travel than does going direct"
​

Is the extra travel 'additional' (hence 'further') or 'farther'? There are certainly more miles of travel involved.

That's alright isn't it? The mile farthest away; i.e. the last in the race.

I'm glad you agree. I was responding to your suggestion that one could not have a "farther" mile. Since we appear to agree about the "farthest mile", what's wrong with:

"Farther miles are more difficult than the first one, but the worst of all is the farthest one"​

Obviously if someone thinks they both mean the same then they will think the words are interchangeable but they are not always. You cannot use farther when it should be further - farthermore, farther details to follow, etc.

I don't think anyone has suggested that farther/further (or farthest/furthest) are always interchangeable, but my point is that when one is talking about distances or other quantitative things (as in my statement which started all this), then the two will usually effectively have (and will certainly convey) the same meaning.

Further/furthest have a much wider range of possible meanings/usages, whilst I think that farther/farthest always refers to quantitative things.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

We've been here before. What has already happened cannot be undone.

That's my view. However, yours seems to be that you would like to 'undo', and try to undo (by telling people that they are 'incorrect') changes that have occurred since you were born, but accept that the changes which occurred before you were born 'cannot be undone'.

I surely can't be alone in having had grandparents born in the late 19th century (and, at least in my case, some great-grandparents born even early) who were very disapproving of a lot of the ('incorrect' in their eyes) language that was being used in the mid/late 20th century?

I will just say that if the OED decides that 'of' now means 'have' I will give up.

As I've said countless times, whilst I certainly find that pretty 'offensive', I think it's a bit different from much of the evolution we see, being essentially just sloppiness. It really started with sloppy abbreviation such as "would've" (which my English teacher would have punished me for uttering or writing!) - which, when spoken, sounds very much like "would of".

Kind Regards, John

 

[sparkypenguin]

Sorry to hijack the thread but thought I would update on my OP...

EON came out today to fit the 3 phase smart meter only to tell me they could not fit into a single phase box.
This is after both Northern Power Grid and EON had told me it should not be a problem.
Also after me discussing on numerous occasions with EON over the last month including sending them photo's and measurements etc.
They also refused to fit the meter on the other side of the wall stating is was against the rules to have the cut out in a different location to the meter.
When I told Northern Power Grid they said that that was rubbish and they had other meter fitters who did it and if I wanted the cut out moving it would cost in the region of £600.
I then spoke to a technical guy at EON who said fitting the meter on the opposite side of the wall to the cut out was a definite no no and that NPG should not have fitted the 3 phase cut out into a single phase box and that NPG should be correcting the issue FOC.


These are the options that have been suggested.
1. Have the supply disconnected and remove the recessed single phase meter box and replace with a 3 phase box at great expense to myself.
2. Disconnect the supply and replace the cable with a longer one that will go up into the current single phase box and then through the wall into the garage into the cut out.
3. Take tails from the NPG cut out through the wall into a red link cut out and then EON will fit the meter.
The latter seems the easiest option?
Has anyone had any experience of something similar or any independent thoughts on this issue?


Mark.

 

[JohnW2]

... EON came out today ... They also refused to fit the meter on the other side of the wall stating is was against the rules to have the cut out in a different location to the meter. .... These are the options that have been suggested.
1. ... 2. ... 3. Take tails from the NPG cut out through the wall into a red link cut out and then EON will fit the meter.
The latter seems the easiest option?

My first reaction, without thinking too deeply, was that it seemed daft that they (EON) would be prepared to do that (given what they are not prepared to do) but, on reflection, it's probably a safety issue - since it means that people working on the meter can see the cutout (a cutout) and therefore be sure that no-one has re-energised the installation whilst they were working.

However, I presume that NPF would have to "take tails from the NPG cut out through the wall into a red link cut out" - and, if so, are they prepared to do so, and at what cost?

I'm a bit confused by ...

then spoke to a technical guy at EON who said fitting the meter on the opposite side of the wall to the cut out was a definite no no and that NPG should not have fitted the 3 phase cut out into a single phase box and that NPG should be correcting the issue FOC.

... followed by ...

1. Have the supply disconnected and remove the recessed single phase meter box and replace with a 3 phase box at great expense to myself.

How do "FOC and "at great expense to yourself" fit with one another\?

Kind Regards, John

 

[sparkypenguin]

My first reaction, without thinking too deeply, was that it seemed daft that they (EON) would be prepared to do that (given what they are not prepared to do) but, on reflection, it's probably a safety issue - since it means that people working on the meter can see the cutout (a cutout) and therefore be sure that no-one has re-energised the installation whilst they were working.

EON guy said it was changed due to historical flats having all cut outs in the one place and as you stated people re-energising the system accidentally while the engineer was working in a different room. You would have thought they would just introduce a locked system so it was impossible to re-energise without the key / code.

However, I presume that NPF would have to "take tails from the NPG cut out through the wall into a red link cut out" - and, if so, are they prepared to do so, and at what cost?

Not sure yet as I have yet to put this option to them.

How do "FOC and "at great expense to yourself" fit with one another\?

Option 1 was what NPG initially proposed and they said it would cost approx. £600, this conversation happened before I spoke to the EON technical guy.
Option 3 is what the EON guy suggested and he said NPG should be sorting it out for free as what they have done is not legally serviceable.
He was not very complimentary about NPG in general and said they were working to outdated regulations which were causing issues on many sites and he did seem to know his stuff.
I'm just really frustrated as I raised my concerns to numerous people at NPG before they fitted the cut out and also to EON before they agreed to fit the meter and now they are both blaming each other with me in the middle.
However the EON guy has offered to speak directly to NPG if I have any problem getting them to sort it out so I am grateful for that.
I'm just hoping NPG agree that they have messed up and it does not drag on as I was hoping to have some electricity for light and heating now that winter is on its way.

 

[JohnW2]

However the EON guy has offered to speak directly to NPG if I have any problem getting them to sort it out so I am grateful for that. ... I'm just hoping NPG agree that they have messed up and it does not drag on ...

Such a conversation between E.ON and NPG might help. I have to say that I'm not sure that I necessarily understand what is being said about "putting (or not!) a 3-phase meter into a 'single phase box' " ...

EON came out today to fit the 3 phase smart meter only to tell me they could not fit into a single phase box.
.... a technical guy at EON who said fitting the meter on the opposite side of the wall to the cut out was a definite no no and that NPG should not have fitted the 3 phase cut out into a single phase box and that NPG should be correcting the issue FOC.

.... a single-phase cutout wouldn't be any less tall than your 3-phase one, and I can't see any sort of meter fitting 'beside' it, so even a single-phase meter would probably have to go above the cutout - and I don't see any fundamental reason why a 3-phase meter necessarily has to be any taller than a single-phase one (although there will obviously be variations between makes/models).

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

.... a single-phase cutout wouldn't be any less tall than your 3-phase one, and I can't see any sort of meter fitting 'beside' it, so even a single-phase meter would probably have to go above the cutout - and I don't see any fundamental reason why a 3-phase meter necessarily has to be any taller than a single-phase one (although there will obviously be variations between makes/models).

Kind Regards, John

I think I have to stick my oar in here and say in my experience 3ph meters used tend to be taller than single phase. However I've seen a number of 3ph cutout/meter combos fitted in 'standard meter boxes' without problems, including rotating wheel versions.
One has also to consider the position of the cutout in the meter box, I've seen them right up near the top, effecticely using up half of the available width

 

[JohnW2]

I think I have to stick my oar in here and say in my experience 3ph meters used tend to be taller than single phase. However I've seen a number of 3ph cutout/meter combos fitted in 'standard meter boxes' without problems, including rotating wheel versions.

I think that 3-phase ones generally tend to be taller than single=-phase ones (my 3-ph one is certainly fairly 'tall'), although I'm not sure why. However, I've certainly seen some 3-phase ones which aren't very tall at all. Maybe E.ON are only prepared to use 'their usual' one?

One has also to consider the position of the cutout in the meter box, I've seen them right up near the top, effecticely using up half of the available width

True, but in the OP's case we know (pic with post#21) that the cutout is about as near to the bottom as it could be, hence leaving all of the top half of the box for a meter.

Kind Regards, John

 

[sparkypenguin]

Such a conversation between E.ON and NPG might help. I have to say that I'm not sure that I necessarily understand what is being said about "putting (or not!) a 3-phase meter into a 'single phase box' " ...

.... a single-phase cutout wouldn't be any less tall than your 3-phase one, and I can't see any sort of meter fitting 'beside' it, so even a single-phase meter would probably have to go above the cutout - and I don't see any fundamental reason why a 3-phase meter necessarily has to be any taller than a single-phase one (although there will obviously be variations between makes/models).

Just to clarify it was not that EON refused to fit the 3 phase into the box, it was that it would not physically fit above the cut out.
The installer from EON tried to place the smart 3 phase meter that they fit into the meter box but it was simply too tall due to the extra bit at the top that contains all the "smart" stuff.
He even showed me what I believe was a standard "shorter" 3 phase meter and although this fit above the cut out it only left minimal room for the cables.
However I can't remember if he tried to fit it above and to the right of the cut out so I'll have to investigate this.

I think that 3-phase ones generally tend to be taller than single=-phase ones (my 3-ph one is certainly fairly 'tall'), although I'm not sure why. However, I've certainly seen some 3-phase ones which aren't very tall at all. Maybe E.ON are only prepared to use 'their usual' one?

I'll add looking for a different meter to my list of possible options as EON may be willing to fit even if I have to supply it.

True, but in the OP's case we know (pic with post#21) that the cutout is about as near to the bottom as it could be, hence leaving all of the top half of the box for a meter.

Upon looking at my photo (re-attached to this post) it looks to me that they could have placed the cut out lower by 50mm or so?
The actual space available is 340mm wide by 250mm high which makes me wonder if they could fit the meter on it's side?
I'll be adding both of those to the list of potential options.

Thanks JohnW2 and SUNRAY for your help.

Mark.