lennyhb Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 T8LEY - 2013-06-20 9:12 PM No. The insulation on 110V cable is inadequate for 230V. Talking rubbish all mains (110/230v) cables are made to the same tri-rated standard, Only cables for use at less than 50v such as auto cable have a different insulation that is not suitable for use at mains voltages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T8LEY Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 lennyhb - 2013-06-20 10:24 PM T8LEY - 2013-06-20 9:12 PM No. The insulation on 110V cable is inadequate for 230V. Talking rubbish all mains (110/230v) cables are made to the same tri-rated standard, Only cables for use at less than 50v such as auto cable have a different insulation that is not suitable for use at mains voltages. I think you have been misled. Tri rated cables are manufactured to BS 6231 which is for equipment wiring not flexible cable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennyhb Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 OK wrong choice of words Trirating only means in addition to the European standard they also meet UL & SA specifications. Checked my facts this time BASEC 3183Y the spec that the orange/yellow/blue/white & black PVC insulated mains cables are made to has a voltage rating of 300 volts ac, 500 volts dc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T8LEY Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 lennyhb - 2013-06-20 10:15 PM Yellow flex normally used for 110v still has insulation rated at 400v the cable is no different to orange or white cable. Colour is not specified in the IEE regs but the NCC recommend orange, my own cable is yellow. If you are going to use a hook up in the winter is best to use blue arctic grade cable as it remains flexible down to -20 deg where standard cable gets very stiff as the temperature falls towards zero. Edit: You can get arctic rated yellow cable. There is no such rating, for mains cables, of 400V. They are either 300V for flexibles, such as 3183Y or 600/1000V for something like 6491X. Arctic grade is a good idea for winter use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T8LEY Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 lennyhb - 2013-06-20 10:48 PM OK wrong choice of words Trirating only means in addition to the European standard they also meet UL & SA specifications. Checked my facts this time BASEC 3183Y the spec that the orange/yellow/blue/white & black PVC insulated mains cables are made to has a voltage rating of 500 volts. Agree completely. That's cable made to BS6500. Sorry I missed the 500 off my other post. Should have said 300/500V. Do you really think the cable makers would waste insulation oversizing, when they flog tri-rated cable in lieu of 6491X? Tri Rated cable has marginally thinner insulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crinklystarfish Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Brian Kirby - 2013-06-20 1:20 PM crinklystarfish - 2013-06-20 11:35 AM Me either, but even if it is, why wouldn't that be adequate just to charge batteries? ... I know, it's all about risks, and the chances are slim... Thanks Brian; thought I was missing something fundamental for a moment there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 T8LEY - 2013-06-20 9:09 PM Brian Kirby - 2013-06-20 2:20 PM crinklystarfish - 2013-06-20 11:35 AM Me either, but even if it is, why wouldn't that be adequate just to charge batteries? It would be adequate in terms of load, but unsafe if a fault developed. The van would have a mains connection, but no earth path (being insulated by its tyres). If a fault developed, it is possible the van could become live without the occupants realising. Then, just stepping in or out, when you would be in contact with the ground and the van, would make you the earth path! Same true under those circumstances if anyone outside touched the van metalwork. The RCD in the van or the feeder pillar SHOULD then work, but it would work far quicker, and with far greater certainty, if the earth connection was present. I know, it's all about risks, and the chances are slim. :-) However, the consequences could be quite nasty, so better to make sure the earth is there by using a three core flex, and eliminate the risk. It wouldn't actually be adequate for a 16A load, because the cross sectional area is too small and the voltage drop associated with that size of cable would be double what is tolerable. It's unsafe to use a smaller cable when you don't make the decision about what is protecting it. The IEE Regs require a cable to be adequately sized for the rating of its protection. But, if you re-read the above, you will see that was not the question. The question was in relationship to the adequacy of a 1.5mm cable to run a battery charger, but specifically as to the need for a three-core, earthed, cable. There is/was no suggestion of THIS cable being used at 16A. Please also see my post four down on page 1 of this string. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave225 Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Brian Kirby - 2013-06-21 11:51 AM T8LEY - 2013-06-20 9:09 PM Brian Kirby - 2013-06-20 2:20 PM crinklystarfish - 2013-06-20 11:35 AM Me either, but even if it is, why wouldn't that be adequate just to charge batteries? It would be adequate in terms of load, but unsafe if a fault developed. The van would have a mains connection, but no earth path (being insulated by its tyres). If a fault developed, it is possible the van could become live without the occupants realising. Then, just stepping in or out, when you would be in contact with the ground and the van, would make you the earth path! Same true under those circumstances if anyone outside touched the van metalwork. The RCD in the van or the feeder pillar SHOULD then work, but it would work far quicker, and with far greater certainty, if the earth connection was present. I know, it's all about risks, and the chances are slim. :-) However, the consequences could be quite nasty, so better to make sure the earth is there by using a three core flex, and eliminate the risk. It wouldn't actually be adequate for a 16A load, because the cross sectional area is too small and the voltage drop associated with that size of cable would be double what is tolerable. It's unsafe to use a smaller cable when you don't make the decision about what is protecting it. The IEE Regs require a cable to be adequately sized for the rating of its protection. But, if you re-read the above, you will see that was not the question. The question was in relationship to the adequacy of a 1.5mm cable to run a battery charger, but specifically as to the need for a three-core, earthed, cable. There is/was no suggestion of THIS cable being used at 16A. Please also see my post four down on page 1 of this string. Any cable that is being used for a non designated purpose is a risk. Yes, the owner may know exactlly what he is doing but someone else may not and assume that as it is plugged in to the main supply, it is fine. The OP clearly states 'hook up' cable so intends to use it as such. Again, if he feels £30 is too expensive for his life and safety, then I can say no more. The weight is irrelevant compared to the total package of goods being carried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veggielover Posted June 21, 2013 Author Share Posted June 21, 2013 I would not put my safety (or anyone else's) at risk for £30. Cost was not a major consideration, merely the possibility of utilising existing resources (my father trained me in the make do and mend philosophy of fifty odd years ago, when one did not throw things away but re-utilised them - and when he died left me a garage full of 'useful' things to add to my own collection). I had I must admit forgotten that the old mower cable is only twin core, which I agree is a no-no. But I am relieved that my post has elicited very helpful responses without the ill-humour I notice on some other strings. Thanks again for all the advice. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Veggielover - 2013-06-21 3:27 PM ... I am relieved that my post has elicited very helpful responses without the ill-humour I notice on some other strings. Thanks again for all the advice. Chris ..it's still early days yet Chris, give it time... (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Oops! double post :$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T8LEY Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Brian Kirby - 2013-06-21 12:51 PM T8LEY - 2013-06-20 9:09 PM Brian Kirby - 2013-06-20 2:20 PM crinklystarfish - 2013-06-20 11:35 AM Me either, but even if it is, why wouldn't that be adequate just to charge batteries? It would be adequate in terms of load, but unsafe if a fault developed. The van would have a mains connection, but no earth path (being insulated by its tyres). If a fault developed, it is possible the van could become live without the occupants realising. Then, just stepping in or out, when you would be in contact with the ground and the van, would make you the earth path! Same true under those circumstances if anyone outside touched the van metalwork. The RCD in the van or the feeder pillar SHOULD then work, but it would work far quicker, and with far greater certainty, if the earth connection was present. I know, it's all about risks, and the chances are slim. :-) However, the consequences could be quite nasty, so better to make sure the earth is there by using a three core flex, and eliminate the risk. It wouldn't actually be adequate for a 16A load, because the cross sectional area is too small and the voltage drop associated with that size of cable would be double what is tolerable. It's unsafe to use a smaller cable when you don't make the decision about what is protecting it. The IEE Regs require a cable to be adequately sized for the rating of its protection. But, if you re-read the above, you will see that was not the question. The question was in relationship to the adequacy of a 1.5mm cable to run a battery charger, but specifically as to the need for a three-core, earthed, cable. There is/was no suggestion of THIS cable being used at 16A. Please also see my post four down on page 1 of this string. I agree, the lawnmower cable would cope with battery charging, up to its current rating (13A) but, I think it was also worth adding, to what you said, that it would be inadequate on some sizes of site supply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Yes, agreed. I wasn't recommending it, just answering a question as to why a three core cable should be used. For clarity, I should probably have repeated the cautions in my earlier post regarding connected loads. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.