Don"t Make These Three Phase Mistakes?

[@efixx]

Catch up with your favourite bits of eFIXX TV ⏱ 0:00:00 eFIXX TV 04/09/2024 0:01:15 Get your comments in 0:01:47 3 phase has come a long way 0:03:06 Hager are tonights' guests 0:04:10 Where's Rick tonight? 0:05:00 Gary got something better than oasis tickets 0:06:27 Introducing tonight's guests 0:10:19 Get your guesses in for the GT Time 0:11:53 Electricians' Challenge Paul VS Paul 0:18:00 Placing the times on the leaderboard 0:23:15 De-rating of consumer units 0:27:45 Sneak peek of a recent Hager video 0:28:55 An SPD innovation 0:36:56 CAMments Corner 0:39:50 You're gonna need a bigger board! 0:40:00 We've ran out of space in our DB 0:43:22 Hager's solution 0:46:09 Allbro Inbox 0:49:13 Lets talk MCCBs 0:54:28 The devices are lockable in the on or off position 1:00:00 A closer look at some 3 phase Hager DBs 1:06:00 Do you double up your cables? 1:09:00 MID meters are fit as standard 1:15:00 CAMments Corner 1:18:00 A beast of a circuit breaker 1:23:00 Extendable Distribution boards 1:26:00 Hager like to help colleges 1:31:00 Visit Hager at ELEX 1:37:00 Thanks for watching - Roll the credits!

[@andyhodchild8]

Hager SP boards are rated at 125A, i believe, for this issue.

[@markyd2633]

Dont mention David Savery......I mentioned it once but i think i got away with it

[@gardenogauge]

Bloody hell Gary, getting the knife in tonight 😂

[@efixx]

Yep 🤣👍🏻

[@EnergiTerbaru]

Sangat bermanfaat tutorialnya

[@pault4793]

slightly over the top saying 100A main switch & 16a from PV total 116A on main switch , within domestic show me a board that actually takes 100a , virtuallty no domestic pulls anywhere near that , so the odds of overloading the main switch is extermely rare if not impossible, though not totally impossible

[@shitbag420]

they need to work to the extremely rare but not impossible constraints

[@deang5622]

No it isn't. It's mandated by the regs. You don't get a choice. And eFixx are simply informing you how to do things the right way. There is good logic behind it, even though the scenario is not likely to occur often. The point is the regs as written ensure an overload cannot occur. It's a safe position. You are talking about a risk based strategy, which says you consider it low risk (not very likely to occur) and therefore do nothing about it, but the fact is it can occur. What the regs are doing are removing that particular risk entirely by ensuring it cannot occur.

[@pault4793]

@@deang5622 when we design a street we allow 2KVA per house (10a) cos through experience we know 100a per house will virtually never happen , for long sustained periods

[@efixx]

So you size the cable to the house to carry 10 Amps??

[@deang5622]

@@pault4793 You have willfully missed the point, or you just don't get the concept of designing for safety. I explained quite clearly in my post it's about reducing the probability to zero to ensure overload cannot happen. It is a guaranteed safe design. Operative word being _guaranteed_ . You are proposing an approach which is not guaranteed, your approach is to say "a low probability is good enough". It is a different approach and the regulatory bodies have chosen not to adopt that approach. The reason is because of the impact of an overload situation which is potentially a fire and loss of human life. And the regulatory bodies have decided that adopting a low probability approach can still result in that impact occurring, and there is an alternative approach which is safer, guaranteed safe. I guess it comes down to whether you can understand that a non zero probability, although low, does not mean that an overload cannot occur. One word: Grenfell. Sort out the regulatory regime and design out the risk.

[@alhamilton7261]

audio?