On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:11:29 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote

I thought this was a somewhat more mature use of English than dear
old dribble can manage, it appears the child has discovered
Wikipedia.

My English is much superior.,,and this counters you wonderness of the plug.

I stand corrected, there is no doubt, as the sentence above shows,
that you are to prose what William Topaz McGonagall was to poetry.
"So giftedly bad he backed unwittingly into genius".

What a pity he missed the header for this particular section and most
of his quotation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BS_1363 which states
"The factual accuracy of this section is disputed."

It maybe.

"is" means it _is_ disputed, not that it may be.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:53:14 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Peter Parry" wrote

However, the consequential hazards are not.
A characteristic of many continental installations is that there are
a smaller number of sockets in a house than for a house of similar
age in the UK and consequently much more use of trailing extensions.

Not the fault of the radial system.

Yes it is as it is both more expensive to fit radials initially and
much more difficult and expensive to add them later. A Dutch friend
of mine has recently returned to a brand new house in Holland after
several years in the UK. In the UK their office room had 15 double
sockets which took a day to retrofit. Their new house in Holland
includes an "office" room which has 5 single sockets. To fit 30
outlets in the new room would cost him well over £3,000 including the
extensive re plastering and redecoration required throughout the
house after fitting the new cables.

These are inherently more hazardous than wall sockets and contribute
to far more fires of electric origin than does fixed wiring. The
lack of any form of appliance lead protection coupled with high trip
currents

High trip current? 16A MCBs or RCBOs on 8 sockets is not high.

Yes it is, it is more than high enough to allow a 2A flex to burn for
some time and start a fire. How many sockets you have is
inconsequential. 16A on a single socket won't trip a residual
current device or a circuit breaker but will start a fire in a faulty
lead. The consequence is that you have an inherently unsafe
installation.

If a simple
fuse fails in a plug the protection is a 32A MCB (or fuse)

Fuses, which are 13A maximum, don't fail short circuit - only open
circuit. In safety terms usually the simpler things are the safer
and more reliable they are.

One of the problems CENELEC faced when told by their EU paymasters to
introduce a new EU plug and socket system (amazingly without anyone
having bothered with any estimation of cost of implementation) was
that for political reasons it had to be more or less the same as the
German system and for technical reasons safer than all other systems.
During 5 years of large lunches the best they could come up with was
an astonishingly complex proposal with mini distribution boards in
every room which by their own admission was no safer than the UK
system and in some respects less safe. The IEC continue to peddle IEC
60906-1 which manages to be as unsafe as the dreadful American
system.


All countries using the CEE 7/4 (Shuko) plugs tend to have a number
of child fatalities each year caused by objects being poked into the
unprotected openings. The UK has virtually no such accidents with
the shielded 13A socket.

There are unprotected openings now in some sockets I have seen.

Only if your fellow bodgers have been at them with a drill. Shutters
are required to be operated by the earth pin or by pressure of both
shaped pins on both L and N at the same time (MK have used this
system). There is also a marked difference between a system which
has a few unshielded sockets caused by damage and one which by design
has none whatsoever.

Another issue with the continental two pin plugs is that the wiring
of the live and neutral is random (and even if it were not the plugs
can be inserted any way around).

There is a standard to where live should be connected, but most don't stick
to it.

There is no standard for wiring of Shuko sockets, there would be no
point as they are not polarised. There is supposedly one for CEE
7/7.

The improved safety of the ring over the radial stems largely from
secondary effects of the greater number of fixed sockets and fuse
protection of the appliance lead.

"improved safety of the ring" Where?

In its design, in the proper certification of devices to use with it
and with its proven inherently lower risk of causing fires.

A radial circuit with RCBOs, tripping
on neutral and live, on each circuit is much safer.

No it isn't. Tripping of both sides occurs in current imbalance on
both types of circuit. In overload, tripping on both sides has no
safety advantage.

The UK ring system
trips on 32A and only the live. Most new Continental systems have RCBOs.

My Dutch friends brand new just finished house doesn't.

Together these reduce the number
of fires caused by overloaded and damaged extensions.

This is where you display your profound ignorance. A 16A circuit will
dissipate about 3.7kW which is more than enough to turn an extension
or appliance lead into a red hot fire source.

Most fires are caused by overloads which do not trip high current
protective devices.

Fires in the UK are caused by the same problem. Most homes I see have
trailing extension leads, especially around computers, TVs, etc.

Indeed, and each appliance plugged in has a low value fuse. Contrary
to your ignorant assertion that most fuses are 13A most low current
devices have moulded on plugs and the same (correct) fuse they were
originally supplied with as they rarely fail.

On a Shuko system there is no protection at all other than the main
16A fuse or circuit breaker.

There would be. A 16A RCBO at the CU, rather than a 32A RCBO. 1363 relies
on old hat fuses in plug tops.

As fuses are cheaper and inherently more reliable than RCBO's what is
wrong with that?

If I did a re-wire, it would have radials and RCBOs.

For some reason you never seem to put your money where your mouth is.
Do you use _any_ of the aberrant ideas you suggest to others
yourself?
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:11:29 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote

I thought this was a somewhat more mature use of English than dear
old dribble can manage, it appears the child has discovered
Wikipedia.

My English is much superior.,,and this counters you wonderness of the
plug.

I stand corrected

Thank you.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:53:14 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Peter Parry" wrote

However, the consequential hazards are not.
A characteristic of many continental installations is that there are
a smaller number of sockets in a house than for a house of similar
age in the UK and consequently much more use of trailing extensions.

Not the fault of the radial system.

Yes it is

It isn't. You just fit more.

as it is both more expensive to fit radials initially and
much more difficult and expensive to add them later. A Dutch friend
of mine has recently returned to a brand new house in Holland after
several years in the UK. In the UK their office room had 15 double
sockets which took a day to retrofit. Their new house in Holland
includes an "office" room which has 5 single sockets. To fit 30
outlets in the new room would cost him well over £3,000 including the
extensive re plastering and redecoration required throughout the
house after fitting the new cables.

Rings are not illegal in Holland.

These are inherently more hazardous than wall sockets and contribute
to far more fires of electric origin than does fixed wiring. The
lack of any form of appliance lead protection coupled with high trip
currents

High trip current? 16A MCBs or RCBOs on 8 sockets is not high.

Yes it is, it is more than high enough to allow a 2A flex to burn for
some time and start a fire.

Fit a 16A flex instead of bell wire.

If a simple
fuse fails in a plug the protection is a 32A MCB (or fuse)

Fuses, which are 13A maximum, don't fail short circuit - only open
circuit. In safety terms usually the simpler things are the safer
and more reliable they are.

I have known a few not to blow.

The IEC continue to peddle IEC
60906-1 which manages to be as unsafe

It isn't.

The improved safety of the ring over the radial stems largely from
secondary effects of the greater number of fixed sockets and fuse
protection of the appliance lead.

"improved safety of the ring" Where?

In its design, in the proper certification of devices to use with it
and with its proven inherently lower risk of causing fires.

Proven? Only in your mind.

A radial circuit with RCBOs, tripping
on neutral and live, on each circuit is much safer.

No it isn't.

It is.

The UK ring system
trips on 32A and only the live. Most new Continental systems have RCBOs.

My Dutch friends brand new just finished house doesn't.

Try Germany.

Most fires are caused by overloads which do not trip high current
protective devices.

When having RCBOs tripping on L & N, there is s high safety factor.

Fires in the UK are caused by the same problem. Most homes I see have
trailing extension leads, especially around computers, TVs, etc.

Indeed, and each appliance plugged in has a low value fuse.

Do they? Sure they do!

Contrary
to your ignorant assertion that most fuses are 13A most low current
devices have moulded on plugs and the same (correct) fuse they were
originally supplied with as they rarely fail.

When they do fail a 13A is invariably fitted.

On a Shuko system there is no protection at all other than the main
16A fuse or circuit breaker.

Or RCBO which is far safer.

There would be. A 16A RCBO at the CU, rather than a 32A RCBO. 1363 relies
on old hat fuses in plug tops.

As fuses are cheaper and inherently more reliable than RCBO's

They are? New to me.

If I did a re-wire, it would have radials and RCBOs.

For some reason you never seem to put your money where your mouth is.
Do you use _any_ of the aberrant ideas you suggest to others
yourself?

My house does not require a rewire. I may consider using RCBOs on some
circuits.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:16:18 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Peter Parry" wrote

Yes it is, it is more than high enough to allow a 2A flex to burn for
some time and start a fire.

Fit a 16A flex instead of bell wire.

That of course is a solution sometimes employed - although a clock
radio wired with a 16A cable is a bit silly.

Fuses, which are 13A maximum, don't fail short circuit - only open
circuit. In safety terms usually the simpler things are the safer
and more reliable they are.

I have known a few not to blow.

That's because their fault current wasn't exceeded. Exactly the same
happens with circuit breakers. It's not a fault but a design
characteristic.

A radial circuit with RCBOs, tripping
on neutral and live, on each circuit is much safer.

No it isn't.

It is.

You don't understand how RCBO's work do you?

The UK ring system
trips on 32A and only the live. Most new Continental systems have RCBOs.

My Dutch friends brand new just finished house doesn't.

Try Germany.

If you had said Germany I would have, your assertion that most new
continental systems use RCBO's is false.

Most fires are caused by overloads which do not trip high current
protective devices.

When having RCBOs tripping on L & N, there is s high safety factor.

There is no safety factor. With a current path only from line to
neutral an RCBO is no difference from an RCD or fuse and will not
trip until the full current is exceeded. If this current exceeds the
capacity of the appliance lead fires can result.

Contrary
to your ignorant assertion that most fuses are 13A most low current
devices have moulded on plugs and the same (correct) fuse they were
originally supplied with as they rarely fail.

When they do fail a 13A is invariably fitted.

Sometimes, but such fuses rarely fail unless the appliance becomes
unserviceable. Even if your assertion was correct a proportion of
appliances having such protection is a great deal better than none at
all doing so.

On a Shuko system there is no protection at all other than the main
16A fuse or circuit breaker.

Or RCBO which is far safer.

How do you reach the conclusion that that is safer?

As fuses are cheaper and inherently more reliable than RCBO's

They are? New to me.

Quite a lot is new to you. It remains a fact that a fuse is
inherently more reliable than a circuit breaker.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Peter Parry wrote:

In safety terms usually the simpler things are the safer
and more reliable they are.

Peter, that is like saying that because dribble is simple, he will be
safer than any other poster on this n.g.

Regards

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Peter Parry wrote:

In safety terms usually the simpler things are the safer
and more reliable they are.

Peter, that is like saying that because dribble is simple, he will be
safer than any other poster on this n.g.

Oh look! Pat-n-Dave again. The perfect couple.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:59:21 +0100, Dave
wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:

In safety terms usually the simpler things are the safer
and more reliable they are.

Peter, that is like saying that because dribble is simple, he will be
safer than any other poster on this n.g.

A good point although I doubt if simple is the right description. It
takes a particularly convoluted and idiosyncratic turn of mind to
come up with such consistent and complex absurdity as he manages.

He is undoubtedly the all time winner of the new William Topaz
McGonagall prize for clarity of explanation; not many people have the
faintest idea what he is on about. This is especially true of his
ante-hostelry late night ramblings, when he is perhaps a tad tired
and emotional, such as

"My English is much superior.,,and this counters you wonderness of
the plug."

I suspect he poses more of a threat to the English language and
readers blood pressure than he does to actual DIY or other
activities.



--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:59:21 +0100, Dave
wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:

In safety terms usually the simpler things are the safer
and more reliable they are.

Peter, that is like saying that because dribble is simple, he will be
safer than any other poster on this n.g.

A good point although I doubt if simple is the right description.

It appears the rest of the world is simple except you and the silly UK
de-facto rings regs. Apparently the rest of the world is out of step.
Amazing!!!

Andy Hall wrote:

RCBOs vs a whole house RCD is much superior.

Of course. What is your point?

Do you think he might have got a new job? (i.e. at Newey and Eyre
instead of Plumb Center)

Not unless they are actively seeking legal action!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Doctor Drivel wrote:


Most fires are caused by overloads which do not trip high current
protective devices.

When having RCBOs tripping on L & N, there is s high safety factor.

You know, the more you say, the more you demonstrate the astonishing
shallowness of your understanding.

On a Shuko system there is no protection at all other than the main
16A fuse or circuit breaker.

Or RCBO which is far safer.

Powerfully dumb

As fuses are cheaper and inherently more reliable than RCBO's

They are? New to me.

I expect it would be.

If I did a re-wire, it would have radials and RCBOs.

For some reason you never seem to put your money where your mouth is.
Do you use _any_ of the aberrant ideas you suggest to others
yourself?

My house does not require a rewire. I may consider using RCBOs on some
circuits.

Good for you, nothing wrong with that. Just don't try any of the other
tosh you are spouting.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

RCBOs vs a whole house RCD is much superior.

Of course. What is your point?

Do you think he might have got a new job? (i.e. at Newey and Eyre
instead of Plumb Center)

Not unless they are actively seeking legal action!

This man is from Essex, you know.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:


Most fires are caused by overloads which do not trip high current
protective devices.

When having RCBOs tripping on L & N, there is s high safety factor.

You know, the more you say, the more you demonstrate the astonishing
shallowness of your understanding.


You really don't know, do you?

Peter Parry wrote:

"My English is much superior.,,and this counters you wonderness of
the plug."

I suspect he poses more of a threat to the English language and
readers blood pressure than he does to actual DIY or other
activities.

He reminds me of that other windbag **** and dribbles idol; Prescott...
As William Hague said "There was so little English in that answer,
President Chirac would have been happy with it"

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 2007-08-29 20:16:44 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:59:21 +0100, Dave
wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:

In safety terms usually the simpler things are the safer
and more reliable they are.

Peter, that is like saying that because dribble is simple, he will be
safer than any other poster on this n.g.

A good point although I doubt if simple is the right description.

It appears the rest of the world is simple except you and the silly UK
de-facto rings regs. Apparently the rest of the world is out of step.
Amazing!!!

Yes, I suppose it must seem like that.

Do you ever feel lonely?

On 2007-08-29 21:09:53 +0100, John Rumm said:

Peter Parry wrote:

"My English is much superior.,,and this counters you wonderness of
the plug."

I suspect he poses more of a threat to the English language and
readers blood pressure than he does to actual DIY or other
activities.

He reminds me of that other windbag **** and dribbles idol; Prescott...
As William Hague said "There was so little English in that answer,
President Chirac would have been happy with it"

I wonder what Prescott will do next.

After he's written his memoirs (or actually had his memoirs written for
him), there isn't a lot left. It isn't as though he's going to have
any appeal on the after dinner speaking circuit, although he might
manage a minor role on Blackpool Pier in the summer - collecting
tickets, that kind of thing.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:27:30 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

I wonder what Prescott will do next.

After he's written his memoirs (or actually had his memoirs written for
him), there isn't a lot left. It isn't as though he's going to have
any appeal on the after dinner speaking circuit, although he might
manage a minor role on Blackpool Pier in the summer - collecting
tickets, that kind of thing.

He could become an 'advisor' to Brown...

--
Frank Erskine

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:27:30 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

I wonder what Prescott will do next.

He will become an environmental consultant traveling the world (first
class, at our expense) to visit endangered coral reefs and carbon
offsetting trees. He will them come back as a member of the iron age
restoration society and rail against cars (except when needed for
official green business) and exhorting all to put a windmill on the
roof.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On 2007-08-29 21:58:58 +0100, Frank Erskine
said:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:27:30 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

I wonder what Prescott will do next.

After he's written his memoirs (or actually had his memoirs written for
him), there isn't a lot left. It isn't as though he's going to have
any appeal on the after dinner speaking circuit, although he might
manage a minor role on Blackpool Pier in the summer - collecting
tickets, that kind of thing.

He could become an 'advisor' to Brown...

As long as he advises him to take a hike I'd happily fund it.

In article ews.net,
"Doctor Drivel" writes:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...

BS1363 family is the most recently designed domestic plug and
socket system in the world. It was the result of some 10 years
of competition between manufacturers to design a new standard.
It has been adopted in whole or part by more countries in the
world than any other domestic plug and socket standard.

The US plugs are used in North and South America and other countries too.
Also because of the large population in the US more people use their systems
than ours. Those who adopted the British systems tend to be ex empire
countries, choosing a mother country system rather one on technical merits.

Ireland went to the effort of changing from Schuko to BS1363,
and that was on technical merits (safety in particular).

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:24:19 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-08-29 21:58:58 +0100, Frank Erskine
said:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:27:30 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

I wonder what Prescott will do next.

After he's written his memoirs (or actually had his memoirs written for
him), there isn't a lot left. It isn't as though he's going to have
any appeal on the after dinner speaking circuit, although he might
manage a minor role on Blackpool Pier in the summer - collecting
tickets, that kind of thing.

He could become an 'advisor' to Brown...

As long as he advises him to take a hike I'd happily fund it.

Even better, Prescott could be rendered down, although what the
resultant blubber would do to the environment I shudder to think.

--
Frank Erskine

In message , Frank Erskine
writes
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:24:19 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-08-29 21:58:58 +0100, Frank Erskine
said:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:27:30 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

I wonder what Prescott will do next.

After he's written his memoirs (or actually had his memoirs written for
him), there isn't a lot left. It isn't as though he's going to have
any appeal on the after dinner speaking circuit, although he might
manage a minor role on Blackpool Pier in the summer - collecting
tickets, that kind of thing.

He could become an 'advisor' to Brown...

As long as he advises him to take a hike I'd happily fund it.

Even better, Prescott could be rendered down, although what the
resultant blubber would do to the environment I shudder to think.


Double the CO3 footprint ?


--
geoff

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:


Most fires are caused by overloads which do not trip high current
protective devices.

When having RCBOs tripping on L & N, there is s high safety factor.

You know, the more you say, the more you demonstrate the astonishing
shallowness of your understanding.


You really don't know, do you?

I think you will find we all know that you haven't actually got a clue.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:24:19 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-08-29 21:58:58 +0100, Frank Erskine
said:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:27:30 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

I wonder what Prescott will do next.

After he's written his memoirs (or actually had his memoirs written for
him), there isn't a lot left. It isn't as though he's going to have
any appeal on the after dinner speaking circuit, although he might
manage a minor role on Blackpool Pier in the summer - collecting
tickets, that kind of thing.

He could become an 'advisor' to Brown...

As long as he advises him to take a hike I'd happily fund it.

Even better, Prescott could be rendered down, although what the
resultant blubber would do to the environment I shudder to think.

Oh Little Middle England is at it again.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
"Doctor Drivel" writes:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...

BS1363 family is the most recently designed domestic plug and
socket system in the world. It was the result of some 10 years
of competition between manufacturers to design a new standard.
It has been adopted in whole or part by more countries in the
world than any other domestic plug and socket standard.

The US plugs are used in North and South America and other countries too.
Also because of the large population in the US more people use their
systems
than ours. Those who adopted the British systems tend to be ex empire
countries, choosing a mother country system rather one on technical
merits.

Ireland went to the effort of changing from Schuko to BS1363,
and that was on technical merits (safety in particular).

That may be so, but the other just followed irrespective of whether it was
good or bad. Is it happens the 3 pin plug is probably the best of a bad
bunch.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:


Most fires are caused by overloads which do not trip high current
protective devices.

When having RCBOs tripping on L & N, there is s high safety factor.

You know, the more you say, the more you demonstrate the astonishing
shallowness of your understanding.


You really don't know, do you?

I think you will find we all know that you haven't actually got a clue.

.....and me and the rest of the world as well. Only from Essex!

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-08-29 20:16:44 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:59:21 +0100, Dave
wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:

In safety terms usually the simpler things are the safer
and more reliable they are.

Peter, that is like saying that because dribble is simple, he will be
safer than any other poster on this n.g.

A good point although I doubt if simple is the right description.

It appears the rest of the world is simple except you and the silly UK
de-facto rings regs. Apparently the rest of the world is out of step.
Amazing!!!

Yes, I suppose it must seem like that.

Matt, it is like that.

Do you ever feel lonely?

Yes, being the only sane person in a sea of fools.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Peter Parry wrote:

"My English is much superior.,,and this counters you wonderness of
the plug."

I suspect he poses more of a threat to the English language and
readers blood pressure than he does to actual DIY or other
activities.

He reminds

It is clear you are from Essex.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...

When having RCBOs tripping on L & N, there is s high safety factor.

There is no safety factor. With a current
path only from line to neutral an RCBO is
no difference from an RCD or fuse and will not
trip until the full current is exceeded. If this
current exceeds the capacity of the appliance
lead fires can result.

The ignorance of this one holds no bounds. He is saying that if there is an
earth fault the RCBO will only trip when the current rating is exceeded.
Which defeats the purpose of an RCBO.

1. If there is an over-current fault on the circuit it will operate the
overcurrent detection part of the device, which will trip the RCBO.

2. If there is an earth fault on the circuit it will operate the earth
fault part of the device. This will also trip the RCBO.

The above two points are mutually exclusive.

There are two separate sensing circuits contained within the one RCBO
device, operating a single activation device to interrupt the current flow
on live AND neutral.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:57:01 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote

There is no safety factor. With a current
path only from line to neutral an RCBO is
no difference from an RCD or fuse and will not
trip until the full current is exceeded. If this
current exceeds the capacity of the appliance
lead fires can result.

The ignorance of this one holds no bounds. He is saying that if there is an
earth fault the RCBO will only trip when the current rating is exceeded.

Where have I said that? Please explain how and where an earth fault
occurs "With a current path only from line to neutral"?
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Ireland went to the effort of changing from Schuko to BS1363,
and that was on technical merits (safety in particular).

That may be so, but the other just followed irrespective of whether it
was good or bad. Is it happens the 3 pin plug is probably the best of a
bad bunch.

And you would improve on the plug design how exactly?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Doctor Drivel wrote:

When having RCBOs tripping on L & N, there is s high safety factor.

There is no safety factor. With a current
path only from line to neutral an RCBO is
no difference from an RCD or fuse and will not
trip until the full current is exceeded. If this
current exceeds the capacity of the appliance
lead fires can result.

The ignorance of this one holds no bounds. He is saying that if there
is an earth fault the RCBO will only trip when the current rating is
exceeded. Which defeats the purpose of an RCBO.

Where did he say that? I think you have reading comprehension issues.
Peter made no reference to earth faults.

1. If there is an over-current fault on the circuit it will operate the
overcurrent detection part of the device, which will trip the RCBO.

2. If there is an earth fault on the circuit it will operate the earth
fault part of the device. This will also trip the RCBO.

The above two points are mutually exclusive.

Odd that you claim this is not the case with a separate MCB and RCD
then. I refer to your assertion that a blowing lamp will trip a RCD.

So which of your pronouncements is wrong then?

There are two separate sensing circuits contained within the one RCBO

No, three actually; Thermal (overload), Magnetic (fault), and Current
Imbalance.





--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Doctor Drivel wrote:

....and me and the rest of the world as well. Only from Essex!

And "the rest of the world" elected you as a spokes muppet when exactly?

And FYI, the rest of the world does not come only from Essex.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Ireland went to the effort of changing from Schuko to BS1363,
and that was on technical merits (safety in particular).

That may be so, but the other just followed irrespective of whether it
was good or bad. Is it happens the 3 pin plug is probably the best of a
bad bunch.

And you would improve on the plug design how exactly?

If I was doing R&D it would be the best. The problem is that they are
constrained by having to have a link with previous designs. For E.g, why
didn't they change the design to round, which is better for contact, instead
of flat pins on the last update? Why? Because millions of sockets are flat
pin that is why.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

....and me and the rest of the world as well. Only from Essex!

And "the rest of the world" elected you as a spokes muppet when exactly?

It is clear you are from Essex.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

That may be so, but the other just followed irrespective of whether
it was good or bad. Is it happens the 3 pin plug is probably the
best of a bad bunch.

And you would improve on the plug design how exactly?

If I was doing R&D it would be the best.

That will have to be a exercise in conjecture for our readers.

The problem is that they are
constrained by having to have a link with previous designs. For E.g,
why didn't they change the design to round, which is better for contact,
instead of flat pins on the last update? Why? Because millions of
sockets are flat pin that is why.

Strange really... Previous sockets were round pin and not flat.

Why do you assert that round is better than flat pin?



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ews.net,
"Doctor Drivel" writes:
1. If there is an over-current fault on the circuit it will operate the
overcurrent detection part of the device, which will trip the RCBO.

2. If there is an earth fault on the circuit it will operate the earth
fault part of the device. This will also trip the RCBO.

The above two points are mutually exclusive.

They aren't mutually exclusive, as they can both happen together due
to the same failure (e.g. a heating element which shorts to earth
halfway round will generate an overload and an earth fault).

You missed:

3. Fault current protection.

A few RCBO's (e.g. Merlin Gerin, IIRC) also include:

4. Polarity reversal tripping

5. Loss of neutral tripping

There are two separate sensing circuits contained within the one RCBO
device, operating a single activation device to interrupt the current flow
on live AND neutral.

You can buy RCBO's which switch the neutral, but they aren't normally
used in this country because they use up 2 positions in the CU, and
neutral switching isn't required.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

The problem is that they are constrained by having to have a link with
previous designs. For E.g, why didn't they change the design to round,
which is better for contact, instead of flat pins on the last update?
Why? Because millions of sockets are flat pin that is why.

Strange really... Previous sockets were round pin and not flat.

Why do you assert that round is better than flat pin?

Beter contacts.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
"Doctor Drivel" writes:
1. If there is an over-current fault on the circuit it will operate the
overcurrent detection part of the device, which will trip the RCBO.

2. If there is an earth fault on the circuit it will operate the earth
fault part of the device. This will also trip the RCBO.

The above two points are mutually exclusive.

They aren't mutually exclusive,

They are. One is not dependent on the other.

You missed:

3. Fault current protection.

A few RCBO's (e.g. Merlin Gerin, IIRC) also include:

4. Polarity reversal tripping

5. Loss of neutral tripping

There are two separate sensing circuits contained within the one RCBO
device, operating a single activation device to interrupt the current
flow
on live AND neutral.

You can buy RCBO's which switch the neutral, but they aren't normally
used in this country because they use up 2 positions in the CU, and
neutral switching isn't required.

"isn't required"? By regs no, but safer when tripped as all is off and when
working on the circuit too.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
"Doctor Drivel" writes:
1. If there is an over-current fault on the circuit it will operate the
overcurrent detection part of the device, which will trip the RCBO.

2. If there is an earth fault on the circuit it will operate the earth
fault part of the device. This will also trip the RCBO.

The above two points are mutually exclusive.

They aren't mutually exclusive,

They are. One is not dependent on the other.

Then they cannot be mutually exclusive. Jings but you're dim.