Can't seem to find the answer, 18th edition tommorow ; )

[Deleted member 26818]

But in the context of the question posted by the OP your quote


Is wrong and therefore confusing for the OP and you have almost accepted your error by your statement tonight

What error?

 

[DefyG]

Suggesting k value should be 143 then you have corrected it tonight to 115

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I have at no time suggested the value of k should be 143.
What I have said, is the value of k for single core cables is 143 and that the tables 54.2 through to 54.5 can be used for both live conductors and protective conductors.

We had already established that the value for k to be used in the question was 115, before you posted.

 

[DefyG]

I'm sorry, I believe you are wrong tables 54.2 - 54.5 clearly state - Values of k for 'protective conductor' in the relevant heading for whatever form it may take, conduit, trunking, armour etc.
I do not believe the tables should be used for 'live' conductors, which is why table 43.1 is in the book.
I'm surprised no one else has waded in with their two penny worth!
I think we can agree to disagree on this one!

 

[tudore]

yeah got that but they gave us four outcomes which was 0.4s/1.92s/3.67s/5s i didn't stipulate this in the beginning but 5s I'm guessing they have just rounded it off.

Be careful with table 43.1: I'm pretty certain the value for k is 115, and answer is 3.67.