Oh gee...

#1 BS1362 : 1973 fuse standard:
- Fuse shall disconnect at 1.9x rated current in 30min (24.7A for
13A)
- Fuse shall have non-fusing current of 1.6x rated current (20.8A)

Therefore an extension lead with 13A plugtop fuse can provide 20.8A
non-fusing (indefinately).

#2 BS1363 double socket outlet:
- Each socket is protected by 13A plugtop fuse, 20.8A non-fusing
- Combined double socket load is 41.6A non-fusing
- Maximum continuous load for combined outlets is 19.5A (MK)
- Likely fire load for combined outlets is 24.5A (MK)

Therefore a 30A Final Circuit BS1362 fuse will non-fuse at 41.6A
(indefinately) and a 32A Type-B MCB will not-trip at 41.6A (for some
time).

Lets do a risk assessment.
Domestic installations tend to have multiple socket outlets (compared
to old fused multi-way adapters) and fewer extension leads. Where 4-
way extension leads are found they tend to supply audio-visual or
computer equipment which by its nature is relatively low current
demanding. At most it may supply a 2kW heater (8.3A), with the audio-
visual equipment becoming trivial in nature and overall the load is
within the 14A type testing limit.
Industrial installations are where there may be limited socket outlets
(big warehouse or lorry tyre shop) and 4-way adapters can be more
common in offices and such like. It is here that potentially someone
could plug two 2kW or two 3kW fan heaters into a multi-way adapter. It
is here, however, where a) fire is unlikely to trap people and b) fire
overnight is likely to only cause property damage.
So the only likely fire hazard really comes from kitchen fitters
plugging both dryer & washing machine into a 4-way strip adapter
shoved under a kitchen plinth, but due to the nature of a washing
machine element thermostat cycling (together with that of the dryer)
that still leaves the 4-way strip functioning within its limits.

Risk assessment not withstanding what is a simple solution?
#1 - Amend BS1362 to require 13A fuses to fuse at 16A not 20.8A.
#2 - Discontinue 13A fuses and replace by 10A fuses (fuse at 16A).

I am minded that stalled motor appliances, specifically fridge-
freezers & HVAC, do require 80-300A during startup. I suspect most are
limited to 80A (as PC SMPS) and a delay-restart to permit the internal
startup winding to cool down. Even so it is possible that switch-on
surge could cause a 10A fuse to fuse.
The simple solution to this is to make 10A fuses fuse at 1.6A but with
a slow-blow characteristic sufficient to permit high switch-on surge
appliances.

I think going forward that a very few fires could be avoided by use of
10A fuses, but in reality the bulk of fires it could prevent are in
the past. We are not in the 1950-1980 period with few socket outlets,
luxury of an electric cooker outlet with socket making that desperate
addition having exhausted the multi-way plug adapters for kettle
freezer toaster. There are a few such installations, but their Lead or
TRS fixed wiring is actually forcing upgrade to a safer number of
outlets - not to mention kitchen refits if only because the old 1950
unit has rotted into the ground.

That is the reality Dennis.
If you want to argue something useful, go test a 10A fuse on your
freezer & HVAC.

On 18/12/2010 16:04, Adam Wadsworth wrote:

To be fair you are pretty screwed if the fuses are illegal copies from
China with all the correct BS numbers stamped on them.

The irony here is that, AFAIR, the counterfeit fuses just lack sand
filling, so that, in all probability they'd operate OK in practice to
clear moderate overloads. Their real danger is that they explode and
arc if called on to break the full rated 6 kA fault. I suggest that
their danger has probably been somewhat overstated since (a) in 99+% of
cases the prospective fault current on a final circuit is far less than
that and (b) the upstream device will provide backup protection.

The counterfeit MCBs, OTOH, are *really* scary.

--
Andy

"js.b1" wrote in message
...

Thanks for that description.
It actually agrees with what I said.
The protection isn't there and it relies on statistics and supposition.. the
user won't do this, the user wont do that, etc.,
if he does do it something else will probably fail (and kill him?) first.

The 10A fuse is probably a good idea, but not for heaters, fridges, etc. but
for the fourway strips. The 16A that it would fail at is more likely to
protect the flex than the 20A the 13A fuse will run at. You would have to
drop it to 8A to bring overload protection to the actual spur cabling.

Its pointless debating it with people that just quote the regs are the
answer when its the regs that are in dispute.
The evidence is that there is no overload protection for the spur and that
its easy overload it without introducing fault conditions and its only
assumed use that protects it.

I think the matter is closed.

On Dec 19, 11:07*am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
It actually agrees with what I said.

It does not.

It is a theoretical risk which is extremely unlikely to be realised.
More of a problem is substandard 4-way multi-adapters who struggle
with 10A continuous never mind 13A.

It could be solved with a minor amendment to a standard changing 13A
fuse spec to 1.25x (I suspect the 1.6x came about due to production
tolerances).

On Dec 19, 12:53*am, Andy Wade wrote:
On 18/12/2010 16:04, Adam Wadsworth wrote:

To be fair you are pretty screwed if the fuses are illegal copies from
China with all the correct BS numbers stamped on them.

The irony here is that, AFAIR, the counterfeit fuses just lack sand
filling, so that, in all probability they'd operate OK in practice to
clear moderate overloads. *Their real danger is that they explode and
arc if called on to break the full rated 6 kA fault. I suggest that
their danger has probably been somewhat overstated since (a) in 99+% of
cases the prospective fault current on a final circuit is far less than
that and (b) the upstream device will provide backup protection.

The counterfeit MCBs, OTOH, are *really* scary.

--
Andy


As bad as 2.5 for a fuse?

I went to a job this year where all the MCBs were 32A and the Zs was
18ohm (a neighbour had installed the CU). They has a fault on the
bathroom light (nice big burn marks on the ceiling) but somehow the
fault cleared.

--
Adam

On 19/12/2010 11:23, Adam Wadsworth wrote:
On Dec 19, 12:53 am, Andy wrote:

The counterfeit MCBs, OTOH, are *really* scary.
As bad as 2.5 for a fuse?

Yes, or worse:
http://www.voltimum.co.uk/news/9525/...ing-Alert.html

I went to a job this year where all the MCBs were 32A and the Zs was
18ohm (a neighbour had installed the CU). They has a fault on the
bathroom light (nice big burn marks on the ceiling) but somehow the
fault cleared.

so much for Part P stopping such things. No RCDs in sight, presumably?

--
Andy

On Dec 19, 11:46*am, Andy Wade wrote:
On 19/12/2010 11:23, Adam Wadsworth wrote:

On Dec 19, 12:53 am, Andy *wrote:
The counterfeit MCBs, OTOH, are *really* scary.
As bad as 2.5 for a fuse?

Yes, or worse:http://www.voltimum.co.uk/news/9525/...ing-Alert.html

I went to a job this year where all the MCBs were 32A and the Zs was
18ohm (a neighbour had installed the CU). They has a fault on the
bathroom light (nice big burn marks on the ceiling) but somehow the
fault cleared.

so much for Part P stopping such things. *No RCDs in sight, presumably?

--
Andy

It was a "nice" metalclad CU with the tails passing through different
knockouts:-)

So again, it shows that you do not instantly die just because of a bad
setup even when there is a fault.

--
Adam

On Dec 18, 3:16*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Adam Wadsworth" wrote in message

...





On Dec 18, 12:48 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message

...

dennis@home wrote:
So stop incorrectly quoting the regs then.

I didn't quote the regs.

Obviously, as you have never read them.

You just made comment on a radial that was incorrect.

The comment I said was that people with sense don't put 2.5mm T&E
cable into 32A circuits and that applies to rings and spurs and
anything else. You may regard it as wrong in which case I will still
say its wrong. I am not alone, there are many members of the IEE that
also hold this view. I don't really care what the regs say as I
regard them as wrong and encouraging dangerous practices just to save
a miniscule amount of cash. What I propose does not breech the regs
and is an improvement on them which is something you cannot deny.

That is not what you said. It is just lie after lie with you. That plus
careful snipping of posts so that your lies do not show up. What you
said
was "That would be why they added radials with breakers that actually
match the cables because they didn't need to".

And where is that false?
They did exactly that but not with 32A breakers.

So it is an incorrect comment about 32A radials that you made then.
You just said radials and made no mention of MCB sizes. You are only
mentioning 32A radials now as you now have an idea how they can be
wired up, something that you did not know before I corrected you.

Is it easier for you to lie than just admit that you made a comment
about
radials that was incorrect?

Well state which one was incorrect the one you quoted was correct.

Well your quote is in this post.

And that quote is correct, no matter what you add to try and make it false
it is still true.
Try analysing it and then think about what radials they added last, a hint
it wasn't 32A radials it was radials designed about 2.5 mm cable with a
breaker that made it safe. Therefore what I stated is true.



So far you have been posting stuff calling me a liar while quoting stuff
that isn't a lie.

Maybe your are stupid and not a liar then.

Maybe you are deliberately trying to distort what I said?- Hide quoted text -

You are quite capable of distorting what you have said without my
help.

--
Adam

"js.b1" wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 11:07 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
It actually agrees with what I said.

It does not.

It is a theoretical risk which is extremely unlikely to be realised.

Its a risk, it arises because the protection isn't there in the correct
place.
All risks are theoretical, some happen more often.
More of a problem is substandard 4-way multi-adapters who struggle
with 10A continuous never mind 13A.

It could be solved with a minor amendment to a standard changing 13A
fuse spec to 1.25x (I suspect the 1.6x came about due to production
tolerances).

"js.b1" wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 11:07 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
It actually agrees with what I said.

It does not.

It is a theoretical risk which is extremely unlikely to be realised.

Its a risk, it arises because the protection isn't there in the correct
place.
All risks are theoretical, some happen more often.
More of a problem is substandard 4-way multi-adapters who struggle
with 10A continuous never mind 13A.

It could be solved with a minor amendment to a standard changing 13A
fuse spec to 1.25x (I suspect the 1.6x came about due to production
tolerances).

"Adam Wadsworth" wrote in message
...

You are quite capable of distorting what you have said without my
help.

I haven't changed what I said in this thread even if you have.
You even brought 32A spurs into it and ignored that I said "they introduced
radials with breakers that actually protected the cables" knowing full well
that 32A radials don't do that but 20A ones do and that 20A radials were a
later addition.

On Dec 19, 3:36*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Adam Wadsworth" wrote in message

...

You are quite capable of distorting what you have said without my
help.

I haven't changed what I said in this thread even if you have.
You even brought 32A spurs into it and ignored that I said "they introduced
radials with breakers that actually protected the cables" knowing full well
that 32A radials don't do that but 20A ones do and that 20A radials were a
later addition.

Lies again Dennis. You said "A radial circuit will not do that, the
breaker will trip before the cable can melt as no cable is rated below
the breakers rating."

No mention of 20A MCBs, just a mention of radials circuits. It was not
until I pointed out to you that 4mm 32A radials can have 2.5mm unfused
spurs that you decided to change your wording to include 20A radials.


--
Adam

"Adam Wadsworth" wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 3:36 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Adam Wadsworth" wrote in message

...

You are quite capable of distorting what you have said without my
help.

I haven't changed what I said in this thread even if you have.
You even brought 32A spurs into it and ignored that I said "they
introduced
radials with breakers that actually protected the cables" knowing full
well
that 32A radials don't do that but 20A ones do and that 20A radials were
a
later addition.

Lies again Dennis. You said "A radial circuit will not do that, the
breaker will trip before the cable can melt as no cable is rated below
the breakers rating."

No mention of 20A MCBs, just a mention of radials circuits. It was not
until I pointed out to you that 4mm 32A radials can have 2.5mm unfused
spurs that you decided to change your wording to include 20A radials.

Well you are the electrician not me, I forgot about 32A radials and would
never use one anyway, they have the same design faults a ring has and more
on top, not really surprising I never even thought about such cr@p.



And what I said is actually true in your context as well as in my
understanding so it can't be lies.

In case you can't understand simple logic.. a radial circuit includes 32A
(which I had disregarded as being no use so long ago I didn't even remember
them) and 20A radials so what I said was true then and is true now. If I had
said all radials had breakers that protected them then that would have been
untrue (even though I may have thought it was due to me having forgotten
about the cr@p 32A radials). So when you claim it was a lie it shows you
don't actually understand English.


Its all done and dusted anyway, the figures in switchedON and those posted
by others prove what I said..
you can overload the 2.5mm cable in a double spur without modifying the
circuits in any way.
The fuses in the spurs do not protect the spur's cable from overload and
neither does the 32A breaker.
There is no argument you have used that refutes this.

At best you can claim it never happens because people don't plug two
extensions into a spur and use them for high current devices.
This may or may not be true, neither you nor I can know.
Murphy says they will and I have every faith that he is correct, Murphy is
always correct in such matters.

The obvious solution is to only allow 8A fuses in extensions, but that would
require the removal of all the existing extensions.

It also allows a ring to be seriously unbalanced if you do the same thing in
a double near one end but that is another debate I don't want to bother
about.

Unless you have some new facts I consider this to be closed.

On Dec 19, 5:00*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Adam Wadsworth" wrote in message

...





On Dec 19, 3:36 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Adam Wadsworth" wrote in message

....

You are quite capable of distorting what you have said without my
help.

I haven't changed what I said in this thread even if you have.
You even brought 32A spurs into it and ignored that I said "they
introduced
radials with breakers that actually protected the cables" knowing full
well
that 32A radials don't do that but 20A ones do and that 20A radials were
a
later addition.

Lies again Dennis. You said "A radial circuit will not do that, the
breaker will trip before the cable can melt as no cable is rated below
the breakers rating."

No mention of 20A MCBs, just a mention of radials circuits. It was not
until I pointed out to you that 4mm 32A radials can have 2.5mm unfused
spurs that you decided to change your wording to include 20A radials.

Well you are the electrician not me, I forgot about 32A radials and would
never use one anyway, they have the same design faults a ring has and more
on top, not really surprising I never even thought about such cr@p.

An admission that you were wrong.

And what I said is actually true in your context as well as in my
understanding so it can't be lies.

Back to twisting the history of your words in the next paragraph.

In case you can't understand simple logic.. a radial circuit includes 32A
(which I had disregarded as being no use so long ago I didn't even remember
them) and 20A radials so what I said was true then and is true now. If I had
said all radials had breakers that protected them then that would have been
untrue (even though I may have thought it was due to me having forgotten
about the cr@p 32A radials). So when you claim it was a lie it shows you
don't actually understand English.


I have no problem with understanding English. It is the Denglish you
speak that causes problems.

Its all done and dusted anyway, the figures in switchedON and those posted
by others prove what I said..
you can overload the 2.5mm cable in a double spur without modifying the
circuits in any way.
The fuses in the spurs do not protect the spur's cable from overload and
neither does the 32A breaker.
There is no argument you have used that refutes this.

At best you can claim it never happens because people don't plug two
extensions into a spur and use them for high current devices.
This may or may not be true, neither you nor I can know.
Murphy says they will and I have every faith that he is correct, Murphy is
always correct in such matters.

The obvious solution is to only allow 8A fuses in extensions, but that would
require the removal of all the existing extensions.

The obvious thing is to follow the regs and not make stuff up.

It also allows a ring to be seriously unbalanced if you do the same thing in
a double near one end but that is another debate I don't want to bother
about.

Something else you would not understand.

Unless you have some new facts I consider this to be closed.

You ignore facts and live in Denworld


- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--
Adam

On Dec 19, 11:46*am, Andy Wade wrote:
On 19/12/2010 11:23, Adam Wadsworth wrote:

On Dec 19, 12:53 am, Andy *wrote:
The counterfeit MCBs, OTOH, are *really* scary.
As bad as 2.5 for a fuse?

Yes, or worse:http://www.voltimum.co.uk/news/9525/...ing-Alert.html

I'm so glad that one of the tests I'm doing on my new installation is
shorting the cable furthest from the CU on each circuit to see what
happens!

Cheers,
David.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 19/12/2010 00:19, dennis@home wrote:

Earlier you stated "there is no requirement for any fuse in the spur -
the spur could quite legitimately have an unfused flex outlet on the end
of it" if so I can put a trailing socket on it.

Which part of one single or one double do you not understand?

Which part of what you said don't you understand?


A flex outlet on the end of a spur would typically feed a single fixed
appliance.

Are you confusing flex outlets with fused connection units?
You know the ones with a fuse in them that you said are not required.


If you want to hardwire an extension lead into a flex outlet (not
something I would recommended), then you are back to the normal limits of
no more than two sockets.

You shouldn't wire anything into a flex outlet on a ring main or a 32A
radial as they lack fuses.


[snip]

A 32A breaker can't protect 2.5mm T&E from overloads so what do you
think does?

The breaker is required to *always* provide fault protection at the origin
of the circuit.

The circuit also needs overload protection, and this can, and often is,
also provided by the circuit breaker at the origin. However there is no
requirement that this is always the case. Some circumstances allow for the
overload protection to be provided elsewhere and by other means.

A spur from ring circuit is an example of this. The overload potential is
limited by the number of outlets supplied.

You are ignoring the facts.
I and others have provided figures that show this is not the case.
You can wire in a double socket and take 20A from each without blowing any
fuses or breakers.
Show me the calcs that show this doesn't overload any part of the cables.


A 3A flex on a pendent downlead on a 6 or 10A lighting circuit is another.
The overload protection is limited by the devices you can connect.

At least in that case you are probably right.
There were plugs available for you take power from light fittings but they
aren't sold in many places these days.
My parents had them and I dare say there may well be some still in use.


A 32A MCB feeding two cable runs in 2.5mm^2 T&E - one supplying an
immersion heater, and the other supplying (for example) a wall mounted
radiant heater in a bathroom) is another. The overload limitation is set
by the appliances connected

Are you sure that's in the OSG?


The fact that there is two sockets on a spur does not limit the current
below the cable rating.

For most practical purposes it does. You also need to understand what
happens when you draw 40A through a bit of 2.5mm^2 T&E. The answer is
nothing initially - it does not immediately go bang or catch fire. You
need a sustained overload to cause damage, and that is very much harder to
achieve.

Its easy to do, it doesn't require any tampering with circuits, any tools
and worst of all any knowledge of how to.
In fact it the last item that is the problem, anyone can do it and not even
know.
The protection mechanisms are there to prevent this happening, if they
worked that is.


Even dumb people seem to be able to understand that loading multiple high
load devices onto an adaptor or multiway extension lead is a bad idea.

You underestimate how dumb most people are.
They probably don't know its a spur in the first place.
They don't know how to convert kW into amps.
They probably know that they shouldn't daisy chain extensions which is a
shame as that wouldn't cause the problem in the first place.

Why can't you?

The fact we are having this debate proves I do.
It does make me wonder if the same is true of you though.


Now for the avoidance of doubt, Am I saying that multi way extension leads
are all fine and dandy? No I am not. There are certainly quality issues
that may need addressing if nothing else. The fuse in the leads plug is
designed to protect the flex to the leads sockets and there are cases
where it is questionable if it is doing this well enough.

Do I think this is something that requires modification to the fixed
wiring practices to correct? No I don't - the fault rests with the
appliance, so fix that.

So you think that its fine for an appliance to be able to compromise the
fixed wiring?
an appliance that the electrician that did the fixed wiring has no control
over.
It always makes sense to put the protection of the fixed wiring in the fixed
wiring and not in some device not under the control of the
installer/designer.
It is expected that the designer/installer should allow for misuse
intentional or unintentional.
What exactly is the point of any safety device if its used correctly? To
cover mistakes in the operating manual?



A trailing lead is after all an appliance, if it has the possibility of
introducing a load in excess of that the plug and socket were designed
for, then it is something to address in the design of the lead.

The plug is an integral part of the design of ring mains.
To fix it is a change to the design.

Down rating an entire circuit in an attempt to mitigate the problem makes
about as much sense as limiting a car's top speed to 30mph,

I have not suggested down rating the circuit so why confuse the issue? Its
easy enough not to run spurs in 2.5 mm cable on 32A breakers.

because there are poor quality counterfeit break disks available.

So what? It doesn't require any faulty or fake bits to cause the overload.


It is quite obvious that it doesn't, you can even see it quoted in trade
magazines like switchedON issue 18 if you bother to loo;.

You may recall it was either Adam or I who first posted the link in
question.

You had better quote the post then because I didn't see any such thing from
you or adam.


What did it show?

It showed that the fuse didn't limit the current to a level where the fixed
wiring was not overloaded.


That the leads in question fail fairly spectacularly with a 20A load. As
others have highlighted, many will struggle with 10A.

You had better ensure they outlaw 2.5 mm flex then, we don't want anyone
being able to make an extension using it do we?


It is easy to get 40A continuously without blowing the plug fuses from a
double socket.

For a few minutes...

You have seen what happens to the trailing lead when you try it.

Absolutely nothing, you can easily get 20A down 2.5 mm flex without it even
getting warm and it won't blow the plug fuse.
You could run a high powered arc welder for days from it and the fuse
wouldn't blow.


Just as well someone smart engineered our fixed wiring practices to cope
with short term overloads isn't it.

A 4mm^2 radial for general purpose sockets will in many circumstances
perform less well than a ring since it tends to have a higher earth
loop impedance. Its also more difficult to wire and in many cases
saves no copper. Hence why its fairly rare to see in practice.

The 20A circuit doesn't rely on the plug fuse to prevent overloading
the
cables like the others do.

What does a 20A circuit rely on to protect from overload?

A 20A MCB won't limit the current to below the cable's rating and make
your perceived problem vanish, since it will quite happily supply 40A for
an hour.

Are you claiming the cable won't take that current for an hour?
If it can then you argument is invalid.


None of the standard circuits rely on plug fuses to prevent overloading.

Yes they do, you are wrong and refuse to accept that you are wrong.

panto_mode

Oh no they don't

OK I will accept you statement and use it as proof that there the IEE didn't
design in any spur overload protection at all.
they just stuck their finger in the air and said well if they only plug in
two appliances all will be fine, nobody will ever find a way to plug in
more. I'm sure they will agree with your statement and what it means.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

8 snip desperate ramblings of someone quoting lots of dangerous things that
AFAIK are not in the OSG and have no calcs with them to show they comply
with the regs.

It is quite obvious that it doesn't, you can even see it quoted in
trade
magazines like switchedON issue 18 if you bother to loo;.

You may recall it was either Adam or I who first posted the link in
question.

You had better quote the post then because I didn't see any such thing
from you or adam.

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.d-...a9320a8825e99d

That link does not show a link to what I posted.
It doesn't link to an iee publication to start with or to a posting with
said link.


What did it show?

It showed that the fuse didn't limit the current to a level where the
fixed wiring was not overloaded.

No that is a figment of your imagination. The entire article did not
mention fixed wiring even once.

No it showed exactly what I said, the fuse doesn't limit the current enough,
the breaker doesn't limit it enough and now you think the meltdown of the
appliance is going to protect the fixed wiring.

8 as above.

This is pointless, you carry on as you like, I will continue to exceed the
requirements of the regs where I do stuff.
I will not put in a circuit where the current can continuously exceed the
cables rating whether it is in the regs or not!
Its you that is cost cutting and I hope it doesn't bite.


BTW ARW thinks the current is limited by the plug fuses just in case you
still think nobody else does.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

8 snip desperate ramblings of someone quoting lots of dangerous things that
AFAIK are not in the OSG and have no calcs with them to show they comply
with the regs.

It is quite obvious that it doesn't, you can even see it quoted in
trade
magazines like switchedON issue 18 if you bother to loo;.

You may recall it was either Adam or I who first posted the link in
question.

You had better quote the post then because I didn't see any such thing
from you or adam.

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.d-...a9320a8825e99d

That link does not show a link to what I posted.
It doesn't link to an iee publication to start with or to a posting with
said link.


What did it show?

It showed that the fuse didn't limit the current to a level where the
fixed wiring was not overloaded.

No that is a figment of your imagination. The entire article did not
mention fixed wiring even once.

No it showed exactly what I said, the fuse doesn't limit the current enough,
the breaker doesn't limit it enough and now you think the meltdown of the
appliance is going to protect the fixed wiring.

8 as above.

This is pointless, you carry on as you like, I will continue to exceed the
requirements of the regs where I do stuff.
I will not put in a circuit where the current can continuously exceed the
cables rating whether it is in the regs or not!
Its you that is cost cutting and I hope it doesn't bite.


BTW ARW thinks the current is limited by the plug fuses just in case you
still think nobody else does.

Huge wrote:

On 2010-12-20, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/12/2010 08:12, dennis@home wrote:

John, could you consider giving it a rest and just killfiling dennis
and getting on with your life, like most of the rest of us have?

If it bothers you seeing people reply to dennis, why don't you kill each
subthread that dennis replies to? Then it won't matter to you if anyone
else engages him ...

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/12/2010 08:12, dennis@home wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

8 snip desperate ramblings of someone quoting lots of dangerous things

Yourself I take it...?

It is quite obvious that it doesn't, you can even see it quoted in
trade
magazines like switchedON issue 18 if you bother to loo;.

You may recall it was either Adam or I who first posted the link in
question.

You had better quote the post then because I didn't see any such thing
from you or adam.

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.d-...a9320a8825e99d


That link does not show a link to what I posted.

Let me quote what I said for you:

"There is evidence that some of the lower quality (i.e. probably cheaper)
4 way leads are not adequately protected by their 13A fuse - since this
will usually permit a sustained load of 20A and not all of them are up to
that. Read the report starting page 18:

http://www.esc.org.uk/pdfs/business-and-community/SwitchedOn-Issue-18.pdf"

But that isn't the link you posted and it wasn't in the posts you linked to
either.
Are you confused? You sure appear to be.


It doesn't link to an iee publication to start with or to a posting with
said link.

I think you will find that links exactly to the issue of Switched On that
you were referring to (which is not an IEE publication, but a ESC one).
The intro I gave it should also give you a fairly good clue. Note that
before you claim day is night, your actual words are there in this post
for all to see.

That link might but not the one you posted.
Sorry I said it was iee it looked like it was from the bit I looked at.


What did it show?

It showed that the fuse didn't limit the current to a level where the
fixed wiring was not overloaded.

No that is a figment of your imagination. The entire article did not
mention fixed wiring even once.

No it showed exactly what I said,

More lies dennis...

Now you are telling pokies again.


This is pointless

Indeed. I am sure there are better things you could be doing with your
valuable time. Why not send some of your ideas to the IET? I am sure they
could do with a laugh as well.

BTW ARW thinks the current is limited by the plug fuses just in case you
still think nobody else does.

I am sure he does and I agree with him - fuses limit current flow in
downstream circuits.

That isn't what he said.

You will note I said above "There is evidence that some of the lower
quality (i.e. probably cheaper) 4 way leads are not adequately protected
by their 13A fuse".

I don't really care about your fixation with faulty fourways, I do find it
odd that you need a bit of faulty kit to provide protection against faults.
If it isn't faulty or poor quality it wont melt and your safety device
doesn't work.
Lets hope nobody makes safe fourways then as we don't want any that might
not melt to protect the spur.


Upstream circuits are either overload protected by their fuses/MCBs or
there are circumstantial factors in place that prevent overload in the
first place.

Circumstances that rely on a user doing the right thing even though they
don't know they have to do it or what they have to do. Sounds pretty good to
me, well done.
All it needs now is a manual written in Cinglish so we can be sure they do
the wro^Wright thing.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2010-12-20, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/12/2010 08:12, dennis@home wrote:

John, could you consider giving it a rest and just killfiling dennis
and getting on with your life, like most of the rest of us have?

Huge the liar strikes again.
If you have killfiled me why do you keep poping up and posting your useless
comments to my posts?
I would consider it quite nice to have a moron like you killfile me, but you
wont.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/12/2010 14:56, Huge wrote:

John, could you consider giving it a rest and just killfiling dennis
and getting on with your life, like most of the rest of us have?

(you could have killed the thread...)

Tis ok, I have stopped now. ;-)

He seems to be stuck looping now... having argued himself round and round
in circles long enough, we are now back to the idea that the reason we
are all wrong is because only he alone knows the one true answer. I am
sure the IET are looking forward to handing the whole production of the
18th edition over to him.

At least I have been consistent with what I said was wrong unlike you. You
have changed what you said and what a lot of others said to suit what you
want people to think you mean.

David Robinson wrote:
On Dec 19, 11:46 am, Andy Wade wrote:
On 19/12/2010 11:23, Adam Wadsworth wrote:

On Dec 19, 12:53 am, Andy
wrote:
The counterfeit MCBs, OTOH, are *really* scary.
As bad as 2.5 for a fuse?

Yes, or
worse:http://www.voltimum.co.uk/news/9525/...ing-Alert.html

I'm so glad that one of the tests I'm doing on my new installation is
shorting the cable furthest from the CU on each circuit to see what
happens!

Cheers,
David.

vbg

Nothing wrong with that:-)

--
Adam

dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/12/2010 14:56, Huge wrote:

John, could you consider giving it a rest and just killfiling dennis
and getting on with your life, like most of the rest of us have?

(you could have killed the thread...)

Tis ok, I have stopped now. ;-)

He seems to be stuck looping now... having argued himself round and
round in circles long enough, we are now back to the idea that the
reason we are all wrong is because only he alone knows the one true
answer. I am sure the IET are looking forward to handing the whole
production of the 18th edition over to him.

At least I have been consistent with what I said was wrong unlike
you. You have changed what you said and what a lot of others said to
suit what you want people to think you mean.

The only consistent thing you have done is twist and turn. You snip posts to
hide your effors and rewite your words when you realise you have made a
mistake.

--
Adam

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
David Robinson wrote:
On Dec 19, 11:46 am, Andy Wade wrote:
On 19/12/2010 11:23, Adam Wadsworth wrote:

On Dec 19, 12:53 am, Andy
wrote:
The counterfeit MCBs, OTOH, are *really* scary.
As bad as 2.5 for a fuse?

Yes, or
worse:http://www.voltimum.co.uk/news/9525/...ing-Alert.html

I'm so glad that one of the tests I'm doing on my new installation is
shorting the cable furthest from the CU on each circuit to see what
happens!

Cheers,
David.

vbg

Nothing wrong with that:-)

If he has a hall effect meter and a scope he could post some traces of the
current and voltages.
It would be interesting to see what actually happens.

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...

The only consistent thing you have done is twist and turn. You snip posts
to hide your effors and rewite your words when you realise you have made a
mistake.

Where?
If you count adding stuff then you can probably twist it to sound like that,
otherwise you can't.
After all 'tis you that keeps adding things in which I have responded to.
The basics haven't changed as you haven't actually added anything
significantly different.
My argument is the same now as it was in the beginning.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 18/12/2010 14:59, Adam Wadsworth wrote:
On Dec 16, 8:18 pm,
wrote:
"Man at wrote in
...

Then you deserve all you get. You really ought to know better.

And what about the poor suckers that have fuses from that batches that
didn't blow at the correct current, I suppose they deserve it to for
being
stupid enough to trust electricians with their lives?


So how do you test these made up in your imagination fuses then?

The same way he tests a match to make sure its not a dud... ;-)


dammit it didn't work.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 16/12/10 09:38, dennis@home wrote:

This isn't a solution though as the act of doing the test will make the
faults more likely to occur.

********. Have you ever done any testing and inspection work?

Inspections will disturb the accessory, so you do that first[1].



Terrific!!!!!!