431.2.1 again

[Jeffmo65]

I said VD WAS irrelevent being pedantic of course it matters . .ok let's say the circuit is designed on the limit in 4mm , putting 2.5 at end would not be correct . Yes?

 

[Richard Burns]

The whole circuit is suitable for 2.5/1.5 from a CCC consideration, so it is also suitable for 4/1.5 in terms of CCC.
therefore there is no need to fuse down.
The decreased resistance provided by the 4/1.5 serves to reduce the volt drop only.

 

[Jeffmo65]

Then that's what you would use or a cable of a bigger CSA

Hurar finally . Thank you Leesparks

 

[Jeffmo65]

The whole circuit is suitable for 2.5/1.5 from a CCC consideration, so it is also suitable for 4/1.5 in terms of CCC.
therefore there is no need to fuse down.
The decreased resistance provided by the 4/1.5 serves to reduce the volt drop only.

what do you abbreviate to CCC MATE

 

[Richard Burns]

what do you abbreviate to CCC MATE

Current carrying capacity

 

[Jeffmo65]

Ok so circuit regarding voltage drop is on limit at end of total circuit we can use 2.5mm for the last few meters ??

 

[ipf]

what do you abbreviate to CCC MATE

300....in roman numerals

 

[Plonker 3]

Ok so circuit regarding voltage drop is on limit at end of total circuit we can use 2.5mm for the last few meters ??

Strewth this is hard work. Only if by dropping the CCC the Zs and VD values comply with the BGB or BYB

 

[Jeffmo65]

Good one and to think I did Latin at school . In fact they were probably still speaking in Latin when I went to school .

 

[Jeffmo65]

Streuth your not wrong . Ok the CCC is fine , Zs is fine but OBVIOUSLY VD WOULD NOT BE BECAUSE OF THE 2.5 add on

 

[Plonker 3]

See post #25

 

[Jeffmo65]

Yes mate saw that 16 posts ago . I think I will not reduce cable size . Thanks for your comments .

 

[Knobhead]

Reported thread, let's see what happens.

 

[tazz]

Post going nowhere...Questions answered several times.....Post Closed