I hacked about a section on the cable sizing article:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/...Loop_Impedance

To include the changes in permitted ELI introduced by the 3rd amendment
to the wiring regs.

Is it worth keeping the original table, and the explanation of why the
change was made, or shall we just swap to the new table and ignore the
change bar just a footnote?


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 18:49:03 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
I hacked about a section on the cable sizing article:
Is it worth keeping the original table, and the explanation of why the
change was made, or shall we just swap to the new table and ignore the
change bar just a footnote?

A sufficiently explanatory footnote so that people can work from it if they're checking to an older version.

Owain

In message , John
Rumm writes
I hacked about a section on the cable sizing article:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/...ze#Checking_th
e_Maximum_Earth_Loop_Impedance

To include the changes in permitted ELI introduced by the 3rd amendment
to the wiring regs.

Is it worth keeping the original table, and the explanation of why the
change was made, or shall we just swap to the new table and ignore the
change bar just a footnote?

None of this was necessary under the 14th edition! You might want to
check the spelling of superceeded. OE doesn't like the c and only allows
3 e's.

Presumably any sparks will test to the new table so knowing what used to
be ok is no real help?

--
Tim Lamb

On 12/6/2016 6:49 PM, John Rumm wrote:
I hacked about a section on the cable sizing article:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/...Loop_Impedance


To include the changes in permitted ELI introduced by the 3rd amendment
to the wiring regs.

Is it worth keeping the original table, and the explanation of why the
change was made, or shall we just swap to the new table and ignore the
change bar just a footnote?


I've only skimmed it, but I think that's a *very* helpful explanation.
I'd have thought that anyone who takes the time to look it up would know
enough to be able to understand it.

On 06/12/2016 20:11, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , John
Rumm writes
I hacked about a section on the cable sizing article:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/...ze#Checking_th
e_Maximum_Earth_Loop_Impedance

To include the changes in permitted ELI introduced by the 3rd
amendment to the wiring regs.

Is it worth keeping the original table, and the explanation of why the
change was made, or shall we just swap to the new table and ignore the
change bar just a footnote?

None of this was necessary under the 14th edition!

Alas I don't have a copy to compare.

You might want to
check the spelling of superceeded. OE doesn't like the c and only allows
3 e's.

This seems to suggest that my version is ok

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/supersede

Presumably any sparks will test to the new table so knowing what used to
be ok is no real help?

If testing an existing installation then it would be tested against the
regulation in force at the time I would have thought... Obviously if
changing it, then the new values would need to apply.

ok I have added a note to make it clearer that the original table is for
stuff prior to Amendment 3. I have also expanded the table of new values
to include type C and D MCBs as well.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

In message , John
Rumm writes
On 06/12/2016 20:11, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , John
Rumm writes
I hacked about a section on the cable sizing article:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/...ze#Checking_th
e_Maximum_Earth_Loop_Impedance

To include the changes in permitted ELI introduced by the 3rd
amendment to the wiring regs.

Is it worth keeping the original table, and the explanation of why the
change was made, or shall we just swap to the new table and ignore the
change bar just a footnote?

None of this was necessary under the 14th edition!

Alas I don't have a copy to compare.

You could have mine. Faded to pink and is the metric reprint version but
otherwise in good order:-)

You might want to
check the spelling of superceeded. OE doesn't like the c and only allows
3 e's.

This seems to suggest that my version is ok

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/supersede

I was trying to be facetious!

Presumably any sparks will test to the new table so knowing what used to
be ok is no real help?

If testing an existing installation then it would be tested against the
regulation in force at the time I would have thought... Obviously if
changing it, then the new values would need to apply.


ok I have added a note to make it clearer that the original table is
for stuff prior to Amendment 3. I have also expanded the table of new
values to include type C and D MCBs as well.

Understood. I withdraw my comment.




--
Tim Lamb

On 07/12/2016 14:00, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , John
Rumm writes
On 06/12/2016 20:11, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , John
Rumm writes
I hacked about a section on the cable sizing article:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/...ze#Checking_th

e_Maximum_Earth_Loop_Impedance

To include the changes in permitted ELI introduced by the 3rd
amendment to the wiring regs.

Is it worth keeping the original table, and the explanation of why the
change was made, or shall we just swap to the new table and ignore the
change bar just a footnote?

None of this was necessary under the 14th edition!

Alas I don't have a copy to compare.

You could have mine. Faded to pink and is the metric reprint version but
otherwise in good order:-)

If you don't want it, then I could find space for it I am sure... ;-)

(shame its not the imperial one, since IIUC that had all the tables for
the imperial cables which I understand they dropped? (Which seems daft
since they cables themselves are still in use even now!))


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In message , John
Rumm writes
On 07/12/2016 14:00, Tim Lamb wrote:
None of this was necessary under the 14th edition!

Alas I don't have a copy to compare.

You could have mine. Faded to pink and is the metric reprint version but
otherwise in good order:-)

If you don't want it, then I could find space for it I am sure... ;-)

(shame its not the imperial one, since IIUC that had all the tables for
the imperial cables which I understand they dropped? (Which seems daft
since they cables themselves are still in use even now!))

There is also a 1972 guide to the wiring regulations, a memorandum on
the electricity regulations (1982 reprint) and B D Jenkins commentary on
the 15th. edition of the IEE wiring regs.

Mail addy works.

--
Tim Lamb

On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 18:49:03 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
I hacked about a section on the cable sizing article:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/...Loop_Impedance


Great article - thanks for all the effort you put into these

I did notice that the figures in "230V give or take +6% / -10% (i.e. between 216V and 253V)" don't add up.

On 08/12/2016 09:30, David wrote
I did notice that the figures in "230V give or take +6% / -10% (i.e.
between 216V and 253V)" don't add up.

Try 230 V -6% +10%.

--
Andy

On 08/12/2016 11:28, Andy Wade wrote:
On 08/12/2016 09:30, David wrote
I did notice that the figures in "230V give or take +6% / -10% (i.e.
between 216V and 253V)" don't add up.

Try 230 V -6% +10%.

By group effort we seem to have now arrived at a somewhat less mangled:

"230V +10%/-6% (i.e. between 253V and 216V)."


--
Cheers,

John.

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