This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Double wound safety transformer for EV supply.

Hi everyone, I have only posted once before so thanks to anyone who replies!


I am following on from the earlier "70 volt PEN conductor not allowed to exceed post", and looking into supplying a client with an electric vehicle power supply from a three phase isolating transformer BS 7671 722.413 (1.2): " The circuit shall be supplied through a fixed isolating transformer.."


The general consensus seems to be that an external IP box with an RCD (Type B) and a tethered lead is the standard to follow, and this may be the only option with a 230 volt domestic supply, but why not use a 3 phase 400 volt step down or tapped, safety double wound isolation transformer in a standard 100 -200 ampere or above industrial units/sheds?

( Subject to load and diversity).


The answer often stated when I have asked sparks/engineers is that in-rush current are too high but a type D CB BS 60898 will 'let through' the in-rush ( the transformer manufacturer agrees), and will still give at 5 seconds- (final circuit exceeding 32 A) 0.44 ohm EL ( 10oC) , so is achievable in many situations local to Birmingham.


I was then going to run a fused cable out to an external isolated IP 65 box with a Type 2 socket to IP44 or above ( 722.55.101).


Isn't it better to engineer a solution to the upcoming electric charger deluge, rather than buying (insert well known manufacturer name here), and lots of single phase loads usually dumped onto L1?


I would be interested in any thoughts or problems you may consider....





Parents

  • I ahem heard the argument before that you could -in theory- wire a house in flex, but would you do it?



    I would a touring caravan (both distribution & final circuits) - because BS 7671 specifically demands it's done in flex - and all the normal compliance with standards & suitability rules still apply as normal.

     

    I'm not sure about your comments that you can pierce a steel armoured cable as easily as a flexible SY etc.



    I didn't mean to imply that SWA wasn't a bit tougher than SY etc - just that it's toughness (the physical armouring) still isn't good enough for proper mechanical protection underground - the mechanism that protects us is ADS rather than mechanical protection. The extra mechanical protection is to some extent wasted. I've done the experiment with a scrap length of 16mm2 SWA and a garden fork myself and the tine pushes apart the strands of the steel armour quite easily using little more than normal digging force in stony soil.


       - Andy.
Reply

  • I ahem heard the argument before that you could -in theory- wire a house in flex, but would you do it?



    I would a touring caravan (both distribution & final circuits) - because BS 7671 specifically demands it's done in flex - and all the normal compliance with standards & suitability rules still apply as normal.

     

    I'm not sure about your comments that you can pierce a steel armoured cable as easily as a flexible SY etc.



    I didn't mean to imply that SWA wasn't a bit tougher than SY etc - just that it's toughness (the physical armouring) still isn't good enough for proper mechanical protection underground - the mechanism that protects us is ADS rather than mechanical protection. The extra mechanical protection is to some extent wasted. I've done the experiment with a scrap length of 16mm2 SWA and a garden fork myself and the tine pushes apart the strands of the steel armour quite easily using little more than normal digging force in stony soil.


       - Andy.
Children
No Data