• IMPORTANT: Please note that nobody on this forum should be seeking from or providing advice to those who are not competent and / or trained and qualified in their field (local laws permitting). There is a discussion thread on this global industry-wide matter HERE. This also has more information about the warning with regards to sharing electrical advice in some countries. By using this forum you do so in agreement to this.
  • If you have electrical work available, then you are in the correct forum.

    Post details of the position you have on offer in this forum. Domestic / homeowners are also welcome to post electrical work they have available on their property. Or you're welcome to seach for a Local Electrician in our directory.

Discuss The old one still learning in the Electrical Work Up For Grabs |Electrical Jobs area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

Hi telectrix I understand the cpc would be 1.67x greater due to only 1.5 , so yes like you say 0.5 x1.67 =0.83 .
But totally confused with regards the 1.66 calculation
So like you say the phase and cpc seem fine so neutral problem am I still looking at a bad connection do you think ?
 
Ignore me, listen to Tel, I mis read your line and neutral end to end readings. The r1 seems to be right, as Tel said it's the rN that needs investigating, again a loose connection could quite easily be the cause.

The 1.66 (or 1.67 if you want to round up the recurring figure) comes from the difference in the cross sectional area of the live conductors and cpc. 2.5 (mm2) / 1.5 (mm2) = 1.666666666 (recurring).

So r2 should be 1.66 x greater than r1 (and rN).

Hope that makes sense.
 
yep.might just be a terminal screw a bit loose in a socket. any why the confusion with 1.66? it's the ratio of 1.5/2.5.
 
Ignore me, listen to Tel, I mis read your line and neutral end to end readings. The r1 seems to be right, as Tel said it's the rN that needs investigating, again a loose connection could quite easily be the cause.

The 1.66 (or 1.67 if you want to round up the recurring figure) comes from the difference in the cross sectional area of the live conductors and cpc. 2.5 (mm2) / 1.5 (mm2) = 1.666666666 (recurring).

So r2 should be 1.66 x greater than r1 (and rN).

Hope that makes sense.
you are excused due to the fact that you are in Devon. too much time smuggling booze and hanging pirates.
 
my favorite tipple at my old local was Addlestones cloudy cider on draft. 7%. only 2 of us drank it, but we got through 2 x 10 gallons a week between us. sadly my mate has moved to a better world, having been crushed between a 50ft. canal barge and a lock when pi$$ed.
 
yeah, it's that tricky maths again. 1.6666666666 rounded up to 1 67. was much easier when we had roman numerals. XVIIIIIIIIIIIIIVIII.
 
I always preferred vulgar fractions 2.5/1.5===5/3

(then reminding your common sense 0.99999999 .. =1)
so a third is 0.333333333 ..
Spock strikes with logic yet again. but McCoy would argue that 0.3333333 is not a turd. it's life Jim, but not as we know it. (enter the Borg).
 
think this thread has fractionally run it's course.
 
how is 1/6 related to 20%?
If you know the gross figure (net+vat) divide it by 6 and times 1 to give you the VAT... Not so relevant now as 20% is easy to work with, but when it was 17.5%, you'd divide by 47 and times by 7 for the VAT element. Or times by 40 instead to give you the Net element.

Far easier than multiplying the gross by 0.148936 to give you the VAT.

Fractions are very useful things... as are feet and inches but that's a different topic...
 

Reply to The old one still learning in the Electrical Work Up For Grabs |Electrical Jobs area at ElectriciansForums.net

This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top