split load kits

[EFLImpudence]

Does anyone else have concerns about these formed pins on the neutrals?

The pins are linked to the rest of the conductor by a relatively small part of the crimp and seem to me undersized for what could be a 100A loading or even 60A.
The linking part cannot have a csa of more than 4mm².

They can be easily broken off and the whole remaining crimp terminated in the larger holes of the neutral bar.

 

[sparkwright]

Are they particularly different to the ones that come with a complete consumer unit?

How easily can the ends be broken off?

Who makes this kit?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Are they particularly different to the ones that come with a complete consumer unit?

They vary.
Some are supplied with a solid shaped copper rod.

How easily can the ends be broken off?

Very.
I don't necessarily mean accidentally but it seems a better thing to do.

Who makes this kit?

MK.

 

[Iggifer]

if they're not MK, then MK make something VERY similar, and in which case, they are probably garbage

 

[Sureitsoff?]

they are MK ones, part no K5563S

 

[333rocky333]

once in the terminal proberly less than 10 mm would possibly be carrying 100amp, think of a 100 amp fuse, sometimes there over 75 mm long and carry 100amp and the wires less than 4mm

 

[EFLImpudence]

once in the terminal probABly less than 10 mm would possibly be carrying 100amp,

What does that mean?

think of a 100 amp fuse, sometimes there over 75 mm long and carry 100amp and the wires less than 4mm

Are you suggesting 4mm² tails would be adequate?

 

[JohnW2]

once in the terminal probABly less than 10 mm would possibly be carrying 100amp,

What does that mean?

I also wondered I also wondered whether the word was perhaps meant to be 'properly' (rather than proberly or probably). I also didn't really understand how length (of conductors, pins or fuses) had any relevance.

Maybe what he is getting at is that, if the entire 'reduced CSA' bit is 'properly' in the terminal, then it effectively becomes part of a much larger CSA entity ('prong'+terminal). It's small CSA may then not be an issue. However, what will almost certainly remain an issue is the point of transition between the 'full CSA' and 'reduced CSA' at the cable end, since it would be all-but-impossible to ensure that none of that was outside of contact with the metal of the terminal.

I have to agree with you that the whole thing looks pretty iffy, and unnecessary, provided there are some reasonable sized holes available in the neutral bar.

Kind Regards, John

 

[333rocky333]

Maybe what he is getting at is that, if the entire 'reduced CSA' bit is 'properly' in the terminal, then it effectively becomes part of a much larger CSA entity ('prong'+terminal). It's small CSA may then not be an issue.

Kind Regards, John

Yes, and probably I dont know the length of the pins or the width of the bar but less than ten mill,, external to the bar, realistically about 2mm will be the reduced CSA, i cant see that being worse than a lug or other forms of pin lug, or even as i mentioned the reduced csa of a fuse in the circuit

 

[333rocky333]

Are you suggesting 4mm² tails would be adequate?

No, but its a short section, as i said probably less than 10mm long at the worst case

 

[JohnW2]

Maybe what he is getting at is that, if the entire 'reduced CSA' bit is 'properly' in the terminal, then it effectively becomes part of a much larger CSA entity ('prong'+terminal). It's small CSA may then not be an issue.

Yes, and probably I dont know the length of the pins or the width of the bar but less than ten mill,, external to the bar, realistically about 2mm will be the reduced CSA, i cant see that being worse than a lug or other forms of pin lug, or even as i mentioned the reduced csa of a fuse in the circuit

Are you suggesting 4mm² tails would be adequate?

No, but its a short section, as i said probably less than 10mm long at the worst case

As I said in my last post, I don't understand all these references to the length of the conductor/section in question. IF (and I'm not saying this is necessarily the case) the CSA of any part of a circuit is inadequate to safely carry the maximum possible current, then that's clearly unacceptable, whether that 'weak point' is 2mm, 20mm or 20m in length. A very high current (within the design maximum) could arise 'suddenly', so one can't rely on heat transmission away from a 'very short section' of inadequate CSA to make up for the inadequacy of it's CSA.

That's how I see it, anyway.

Kind Regards, John

 

[333rocky333]

I get what your saying but for years we used rewirable fuses even 100 amp ones as RF recently posted about, yet aside from extreme overload or loose connections, how many have you seen burn out.

Table 53.1 60A - diameter 1.53mm. - csa 1.83mm².

You have 100A - diameter 2.0mm.

Do you seriously feel that short length is a threat and that the designers never took into account the loading it possibly may take

 

[EFLImpudence]

Fair enough, I take it you think it is acceptable.

That was the purpose of the thread.

It just seems strange to me and unnecessarily pointless to have such a small part joining a 16mm² conductor to the neutral bar.
I suppose the worst that can happen is that it will act as a fuse and melt and disconnect.

 

[JohnW2]

I get what your saying but for years we used rewirable fuses even 100 amp ones as RF recently posted about, yet aside from extreme overload or loose connections, how many have you seen burn out.

I also understand what you're saying, but it's not the way we are meant to think (pushing the limits of current-carrying up towarads 'burning out' point). Sure, a 100A fuse wire (~3mm² CSA) will carry 100A 'indefinitely' without 'burning out'. However, if I suggested to you that it would be acceptable to have a couple inches of 3mm² CSA cable (if one could get it!) in the middle of a 25mm² 100A submain, I would expect you to regard me as crazy. Yes, it shouldn't 'burn out', but clever people have worked out what they regard as maximum safe current-carrying capacities for conductors, and that maximum is very much under 100A for 3mm² CSA. The maximum current they feel is safe/satisfactory is obviously far below that which would cause the cable to 'burn out'.

As I said in my last post, length does not really come into it to any significant extent. Hence, if it were acceptable for a very short length of 4mm² cable to carry 100A, then it would be more-or-less as acceptable for a whole 30 metre 100A submain to be run in 4mm² cable - which is obviously not the case.

Another factor is that, although it will not 'burn out', 4mm carrying 100A will probably get pretty hot. In the situation we're talking about, the fairly severe thermal cycling that would occur in the imemdiate vicinity of the terminal could well lead to losening of the terminal screw.

Do you seriously feel that short length is a threat and that the designers never took into account the loading it possibly may take

As I've said, a 4mm² conductor carrying 100A is not going to 'burn out', but if we accept that we're not allowed to use 4mm² for a 100A submain, why should it be acceptable for a few mm within a CU?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I suppose the worst that can happen is that it will act as a fuse and melt and disconnect.

As I've just written, probably not. If it is about 4mm², then it's not going to melt at 100A, but it's marked temperature cycling could possibly lead to loosening of the terminal screw, with possibly much more nasty consequences - that might well be the 'worst that can happen'.

Kind Regards, John