? 6mm = 2 x 2.5 mm cables

[Ohmless]

Hello peeps.
Okay, I should read regs. instead of just ask those who might know, but it's easier
Do you think it acceptable to use a short length of 6mm t&e in order to link a new consumer unit to a 'head' (the former CU position) of an existing final ring consisting of the normal two 2.5's? (about 400 mm length.)
I only ask because I am curios whether this could possibly look neater.
Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[suffolkspark]

your cpc will be 0.5mm smaller

 

[Pete999]

Hello peeps.
Okay, I should read regs. instead of just ask those who might know, but it's easier
Do you think it acceptable to use a short length of 6mm t&e in order to link a new consumer unit to a 'head' (the former CU position) of an existing final ring consisting of the normal two 2.5's? (about 400 mm length.)
I only ask because I am curios whether this could possibly look neater.
Thanks for your thoughts.

What else exists at "the head and what do you mean by "the head"?

 

[westward10]

Use two 2.5 cables suitably jointed this will also aid future testing.

 

[Risteard]

your cpc will be 0.5mm smaller

Actually more than that, because 2 * 1.5mm^2 conductors will carry more current than 1 * 3mm^2.

 

[Pete999]

Actually more than that, because 2 * 1.5mm^2 conductors will carry more current than 1 * 3mm^2.

3mm2 conductor?

 

[Risteard]

3mm2 conductor?

Yes - a hypothetical one.

 

[Pete999]

Yes - a hypothetical one.

Ah right

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

given we are talking quite a small distance here, why not just get a suitable enclosure and use some connectors to extend with the same cable? wont cost much for a little box and connectors, will look nice when clipped and dressed well for the customer though. its better than bodging it with a bit of 6mm. If you really want to be fancy get a small enclosure with din rail and use the din connectors. they look really nice when dressed well to extend the circuits to a new CU position.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Hello peeps.
Okay, I should read regs. instead of just ask those who might know, but it's easier
Do you think it acceptable to use a short length of 6mm t&e in order to link a new consumer unit to a 'head' (the former CU position) of an existing final ring consisting of the normal two 2.5's? (about 400 mm length.)
I only ask because I am curios whether this could possibly look neater.
Thanks for your thoughts.

Yes, called a lollipop circuit.

 

[Richard Burns]

Electrically I think the lollipop would be OK, testing is inconvenient, one radial to one ring and join the two together.
Not a standard circuit but an allowable design of circuit.
Not one I would necessarily recommend but workable.

 

[SparkySy]

I wouldn't want to be the one trying to squeeze 2x 2.5 and a 6mm into the back of a socket!

There was an article about this type of circuit arrangement I think in the voltium email I get not so long ago, FWIR. They said that this was an acceptable way of supplying a ring final circuit as long as the joint with the 6mm was accessible to facilitate test and inspection.

 

[ipf]

I wouldn't want to be the one trying to squeeze 2x 2.5 and a 6mm into the back of a socket!

There was an article about this type of circuit arrangement I think in the voltium email I get not so long ago, FWIR. They said that this was an acceptable way of supplying a ring final circuit as long as the joint with the 6mm was accessible to facilitate test and inspection.

JB then. I presume that's what he's on about at the former CU position. 32A dp switch may suit better.

 

[Ohmless]

Oh yes, thank you guys, great replies.
Glad I know now what a Lollypop circuit is, inthe past I would've been tempted to give it a good ol' lick for a quick live test .
...only kidding. Thanks for your thoughts people, I'll stick to the solid path.

 

[westward10]

What exactly is the solid path.