2 circuits done. 2 to go.

[noviceone]

Hi all, I've now rewired my house lights on two circuits. One upstairs and one down. Haven't had it tested (yet), but it's all been connected for a couple of weeks and nothings blown up so I'm taking that as a good sign .
Now I'm going to do the sockets. I do have a few questions though. How many sockets can I have on one circuit. I'm using 2.5mm cable and would like ten double sockets on the downstairs circuit. Assuming I might occaisionally use the odd 4 plug extension bar for appliances,will this be ok. It's a small terraced house and downstairs is less than 100 sq metres. Sorry for the essay,just want to check I'm on the right track.

 

[industryspark]

hi there,

im thinking that you arent goingto bother getting those lights tested then! naughty!

i take it your making a ring circuit then. you can have as many socket outlets as you like for a ring circuit although the OSG i think has guidelines for the recomended number per room.

you should be thinking about trying to make the legs equalish in length between sockets, its good practice.....and of course they are going to be rcd protected!

thats not to mention that this is part p work and powering up and crossing your fingers is not classed as testing!

 

[securespark]

Unless you make provision for the rapid expulsion of bodily fluids...

 

[breezer]

well if it does go wrong should that not be bodily lumps?

 

[securespark]

That as well...

Carrot or otherwise...

 

[noviceone]

Thanks for the replies. I will definately have ALL circuits tested when I've finished the sockets. I'm only going for three double sockets per room and will keep the lengths between sockets roughly the same. It will be a ring circuit. One thing though,what is part p?

 

[breezer]

try the wiki (its what ist for)

 

[noviceone]

I'll have a look,cheers mate.

 

[ebee]

"you should be thinking about trying to make the legs equalish in length between sockets", its good practice.....and of course they are going to be rcd protected!

Sorry I disagree with that one but it may not be written so as convey what you actually intended though.
You should, at design stage, be attempting to make the current draw around the ring equal both in current drawn at most times and in total of time. It would be impossible to get it right at all times, even most of the time but an attempt to balance current when considering the ring as two halves and/or concentrating most of the load in the one third of the central portion (as measured by cable total ring length) should be a consideration.

In other words, making a common radial then bringing the end point back via the second leg is something to avoid. It would not be good in terms of a ring would it?

The number of sockets etc on a ring final is infinity. It is the amount of (likely) current draw over time and some degree of balance.

I know some have an aversion to the good old Ring Final Circuit , it is pretty much a British thing and lots of the world frown upon it (I think dear old John Ward pretty much detests them, sorry JW I disagree). The Ring Final Circuit has advantages and disadvantages. The Radial Circuit also has advantages and disadvantages too.

A plumbing pal of mine did an Electrics course, cost him a lorra lorra money, the first thing they stated was "Ring Finals are old hat, we don`t do them anymore" . I was gobsmacked. even if the RFC was outlawed from today we would still need to be aware how to test/add to/amend/modify etc etc for years to come (long enough for most of us to have been dead twice at least).

I started work in the 70s, we were brung up on rings

 

[JohnW2]

.... Sorry I disagree with that one but......

You've done it again, but even more dramatically this time - this thread is over 16 years old

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

They not in order John. I can`t help it

 

[JohnW2]

They not in order John. I can`t help it

At least 2 of the 5 "Similar threads" are, this time, only two or three years old (2020)!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

Does this mean that I am actually improving John? (If ever so slightly)

 

[JohnW2]

Does this mean that I am actually improving John? (If ever so slightly)

Not really - it's not really you who have 'improved' but, rather, the lists, because this one has at least a couple of 'relatively recent' threads!

I suppose it could be said that you have moved in the opposite direction - since last time there were no remotely recent ones in the list for you to choose to reply to, but in this case there were that couple which 'are not too old' which you could have chosen (but didn't)

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

I started work in the 70s, we were brung up on rings

I started in the early 80s but on the 14th Ed. I was also force-fed Ring Finals.

I have always hated them. And I hate sparks who call them "Ring Mains". They are often a real PITA to fault find and it is very common to find that they have been horribly abused, altered or disfigured by idiots that have no idea what they are doing. Breaks in the ring are a big deal.

Whereas Radial Finals are much more straight forward both to install, fault find and be resistant to abuse.
Adding to the circuit is child's play.

Rings are a throwback to the late 40s where the circuit was designed to be as efficient in terms of material used as possible.

In many cases, you can replace a traditional ring final with a 20A radial final.