Well, if you would ever stop hiding behind the keyboardand come in the real world speaking nicely with people, you may find what it’sreally going on. You never proved your opinion are you, as said before, if youfeel so strongly about it tell us where you get your info from we may believeyou...
You definetly have issues big boy. If you speak with people like that in the real world, I guess you are very lucky then if you still with us. Its not that you don't believe D Skelton or not thats offending its the way you speak. All have opinions but there is no need for such attitudes here...
Reffering to Post 57
Well said mate, its shocking how he is slating the D Skelton, seems very personal an all, I don’t think he would of said what he said straight into his face. He wouldn’t to me that’s for sure.
And as I said before, yes the pass % is fluctuating dependant how good or bad...
Sorry, you right, I got confused myself, I done 2391 exams and 2330 exams the same time more or less, and got mixed up with 2330, because 2330 has 1 day practical I+T, 1 day practical Fault finding, online, written I+T, Written Fault finding, so it was 5 exams from it. 2391 yes its as you say 1...
I done my 2391 a year ago and it was the same content as you state in the later two. 2practicals. 2 written, 1 online. Are we not confucing things here. I always new that old 2392 is new 2394 and old 2391 is new 2395 ????
After 7.5 years of employment I received form to sign to the amendment of contract, so basically all that nonce, that employment is better than self-employed in regards stability is down the window. Below is cut out of amendment. Not sure how is this ok???
The undernoted amendments have...
I think your figure of 0.05 ohms came from guidence( and only guidence), that when testing continuity of your protective bonding conductors, even though you just put a tick in box on your certificate it "SHOULD" be under 0.05 ohms, which is derived from formula too, can not think exactly from my...
This thread just gon ---- up, all over the place. 1667 ohms stable not stable, 0.05 ohms and rings, etc. I just got dizzy with no beer. the only number you need to know with sup bond is 23 kohm, that's about it.
Thats it, it all seems correct, as Biff said you have extremly small Ze plus low R1+R2 by having very short circuits, where did you seen a ring 7.15 meters long and then lighting circuit 3.57meters long at the furthest point, its just unrealistic knowns used in calcs.
That’s just a joke. A wind up, must be???
From terminology and questions, it is clearly to any spark, that you have no clue what you talking about
Is it really is like that, that everyone thinks that anyone can do electrical installs just like that?
Shocked
Please advice “your...
It is not like for like is it? So this reason is wrong. But yes you can leave 6mm in place for other reasons you stated and if it satisfies adiabatic equation and 10mm protective bonding is in place for TN-C-S
Not sure where you going to use this 0.725 factor at this stage, we all know what it is for and it is for calculating the cable size, but at this moment an from OP the cable size is given, so its too late to use it anywhere.
Remember that that for other sizes this 1.67 value is different. it comes from L / CPC, in this instance you have 1.67, if you have 4mm / 2.5mm you get 1.6, if 6mm / 2.5mm you get 2.4. It is not like you will see any bigger rings then 2.5/1.5 bet you get my drift
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc