matal clad consumer question

[Farmelectrics]

installed another one of these 17th edition consumers yesterday ok it had a knock out in back which i used and then used a fire resitant mastic around cables as ive been told that youll get pulled if you dont. all other cables have been installed in stuffing glands entering the consumer so heres my question a doudt over night has a risen in my head ha ha i have installed the tails in individual stuffing glands now im sure that that is ok aswell but over night started to think about eddy currents is it ok for the meter tails to be in separate gland or should they be together your thoughts please

 

[telectrix]

they should by rights enter through the same hole, but the chance of eddy currents heating up the steel enclosure in a single phase domestic situation is, IMO, virtually nil.

 

[andyb]

Not really Farm, the conductors of a circuit should enter the enclosure through the same opening.

 

[Farmelectrics]

ok so really a bigger stuffer needed and both tails in same gland got to call back anyway i will change thanks guys

 

[Farmelectrics]

yes i agree with you tel but think ill change it piece of mind lol

 

[Richard Burns]

Regulations state you should have the tails all entering the metal enclosure at one point.
Perhaps you could just cut slots between the stuffing gland holes and fill with mastic as a resolution for this case.
Though Tel is also correct no significant heating expected.

 

[Risteard]

ok so really a bigger stuffer needed and both tails in same gland got to call back anyway i will change thanks guys

Also the Earthing Conductor must enter through the same hole.

 

[Risteard]

Perhaps you could just cut slots between the stuffing gland holes and fill with mastic as a resolution for this case.

Or in any case, as that is perfectly permissible.

 

[DPG]

I like the thread title 'metal clad consumer' - was the customer wearing a suit of armour? Daz

 

[Risteard]

I like the thread title 'metal clad consumer' - was the customer wearing a suit of armour? Daz

I wondered the same!

 

[HandySparks]

I like the thread title 'metal clad consumer' - was the customer wearing a suit of armour? Daz

No mate, just a suit of matal !

 

[davesparks]

The regulations require that when passing through a ferrous metal all conductors of a circuit, including protective conductors are only collectively surrounded by ferrous metal not individually.

So by installing the tails in seperate holes you have deviated from the regulations. If you've issued a certificate without this devotion properly recorded then you have signed off a non-compliant installation

 

[DPG]

The regulations require that when passing through a ferrous metal all conductors of a circuit, including protective conductors are only collectively surrounded by ferrous metal not individually.

So by installing the tails in seperate holes you have deviated from the regulations. If you've issued a certificate without this devotion properly recorded then you have signed off a non-compliant installation

Posts #2, #3 and #6 have already stated this. Daz

 

[davesparks]

Posts #2, #3 and #6 have already stated this. Daz

No, those posts say things like 'should' and 'by rights' which implies that the requirement is not absoloute, which it is.

 

[andyb]

No, those posts say things like 'should' and 'by rights' which implies that the requirement is not absoloute, which it is.

And the word 'require' is more absolute is it Dave?

I think that you have a low opinion of people on this forum if you really think that they would take from these posts anything other than what was meant.

 

[davesparks]

And the word 'require' is more absolute is it Dave?

I think that you have a low opinion of people on this forum if you really think that they would take from these posts anything other than what was meant.

Yes, being required to do something is absoloute, saying that something should be done is not.

The bloke has already installed the board with tails through seperate holes, my opinion isn't going to get much lower when that regulation has been in existence for more years than I've been alive

 

[andyb]

Should


VERB


used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness

by rights
In a just or proper manner;

Require


VERB

need for a particular purpose:

This is just playing silly games, Tel, Richard you and myself all answered the question for the OP.

 

[telectrix]

dave is right, though. while the routing of the cables through separate holes will give rise to problems is about as likely as me giving up ale. however, it's against regs. and that puts farm's arse in a sling if anything untoward were to occur.

 

[andyb]

dave is right, though. while the routing of the cables through separate holes will give rise to problems is about as likely as me giving up ale. however, it's against regs. and that puts farm's arse in a sling if anything untoward were to occur.

Since when has giving up ale been against the reg's? give me a number. I'll quote it to the missus.

You are correct, Dave is right, there was a thread about this a week or so back.

 

[telectrix]

i'm sure there's a reg.somewhere about giving up ale being banned. might be in human rights or the AA handbook.