Online assistance for electrical trade people in New Zealand and Australia Login  |  Register  |   Forgot Password
Assistance for electrical trade people




Click here to send Ron a pdf document for publication on this Topic

Documents must be less than 200k in pdf format

Posted By Topic: Notes to table C8

Feb 18 2019 17:02

Note "b" says...
Figures for 6 mm2 and 10 mm2 conductors are given primarily for dedicated circuits supplying permanently connected fixed or stationary appliances, water heaters and ranges. While this Standard does not prescribe the installation of socket-outlets and lighting points on these circuits, the physical limitations of the terminals of these devices may make their connection impractical.

Should that say preclude instead of prescribe?


Feb 19 2019 08:14

Perhaps they meant to write "proscibe"?
But doesn't really matter, as it's just an intro to making the point that if you increase conductor size too far, you may have trouble terminating it.
Which I suppose had to be stated; because otherwise some muppets would expect that because they have listed the contribution of lighting points and sockets for these sizes, it must be a good idea to try to connect such loads directly to those sorts of circuit.

Feb 19 2019 09:12

Ok, thanks Alec.

Today's word of the day "Proscribe"...
(Yesterday's word was "winsome" BTW, but that's a whole different story LoL)..

That's a good pick Alec, but I'm not sure how many electricians would know the meaning of proscribe, and would be even more confused...

I thought it may have been preclude, which is used further down in "h", and also other clauses in the book.

I think it's pretty obvious that prescribe is wrong though.. and it's continued in the 2018 version as well.

Feb 19 2019 09:55

Even if it's an error, it might not be that the wrong word was chosen. The Standards pass through many stages of writing & editing; and also get "styled" Currently there seems to be a preference for "which" over "that", but in most cases "that" is correct(according to Fowler / Oxford). And you might have noticed that SA follows USA spelling ",,, ize" for words that should end "... ise".

We have a very large document, written mostly by technical people rather than language experts; then edited and styled by people who don't know what the words they are tweaking actually mean in our specialised (specilized) world. At any stage, a typo can get in, and not all of them get spotted.

Bottom line, is any user going to get the wrong idea? In this case, I think not.

So I'm just not sure it's worth the effort to consider whether this word should be changed; the Committee has plenty of other stuff to spend their time on. There may well be a lot of users who wouldn't know "proscibe" from "prescibe", but there are plenty who a very clever at twisting the words to arrive at whatever meaning they want.


Feb 19 2019 11:42

Thanks Alec. It wasn't a criticism of the hard work people put in to the standards.. I was just checking that there wasn't something else I had missed.