Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 23 replies
  • Subscribers 31 subscribers
  • Views 3236 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Is it correct 411.3.2.2

Ziggie
Max disconnection ...shall be applied to final circuits with a rated current not exceeding 

1. 63A with one or more socket-outlets, AND

2. 32 A supplying only fixed connected current-using equipment.


Example 32A with at least one socket with plugs.


condition 1 is satisfied

condition 2 is not satisfied


The “and” implies both need to be satisfied.


is this true? 


ian Bowie


  • 0
    So the disconnection times I in 41.1 do not apply?
  • 0
    I do see what you mean, but what it you substituted "or" for "and"?
  • 0
    Writing requirements is full of pitfalls when trying to remove ambiguities. I do see what you mean.

    My reading of the intention is:
    Max disconnection ...shall be applied to final circuits with a rated current not exceeding 63A with one or more socket-outlets AND

    Max disconnection ...shall be applied to final circuits with a rated current not exceeding 32 A supplying only fixed connected current-using equipment.

    Replacing the AND with OR as suggested by Chris introduces other problems as you could then have a network with 1. and 2. but only provide disconnection for one of the options.
  • 0
    I think it needs two lines with no and nor or.
  • 0
    Thanks for response - I can always say that domestic ring mains only need disconnection times of 5 secs especially if there’s a court case?
  • 0
    I don't see what the problem is.


    The times in Table 411.1 shall apply to both types of circuit - hence 'and'.
  • 0
    I agree - they're not conditions (boolean expressions) to be logically-ANDed, they're simply two lists things to which the requirement applies.

      - Andy.
  • 0
    At best the “and” is redundant  and would be better to have two lines in a list.


    while you can say that it’s not a logical statement - this is a scientific book and care should be exercised.


  • 0
    I suggest you let the BSI know as part of their ongoing review before they issue amendment 2 . - To login and view the current draft, and comment you will need to give them your Email and lose 10 mins of your life to signing up ,but everyone who comments does us all a favour by making the regs more polished.
  • 0
    Thanks to all who have responded. I might raise iit just to have it considered.

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines