Adding a new ring with one wire?

[securespark]

I'm also a fan of RFCs.

You an' me are gonna 'ave a bit of a fallin' out....

I know they are certainly not a one fits all soloution for every socket circuit, but I definatly would prefer to have the option to install one where it is suitable.

Agreed. I must say, I favour radials. I find them more straight-forward to install, easier to fault-find and less open to abuse, either during installation or use.

However, I like having the option of installing an RFC should the whim take me.

 

[dingbat]

The only reason 'electricians' install ring final circuits is because they've always done it. Sixty-odd years on, it's about time they stopped.

I think it is very condescending to infer that professional electricians should not be installing a ring final circuit, which is just as much an accepted form of circuit design as the radial.

Call it condescending if you like, but I speak from a position of some strength here, experiencing daily, as I do, electricians from all over the country who have no idea how to install a ring correctly. (And certainly no clue how to test one)

The word 'professional' and the word 'electrician' do not always fit in the same sentence and I am dismayed by the sheer lack of professionalism - with regard to knowledge and understanding - of the majority of 'electricians' I encounter.

'Accepted' does not necessarily mean correct and the use of ring circuits for moveable loads was a mistake from the off.

As a nod to Rob (RF) I'll concede that a ring with correctly spatially distributed outlets in, say, a kitchen, for the predominantly fixed loads can make some sense, but almost anywhere else it is a fundamental error of judgement.

 

[ebee]

I am a Ringer and proud of it!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The only reason 'electricians' install ring final circuits is because they've always done it. Sixty-odd years on, it's about time they stopped.

I think it is very condescending to infer that professional electricians should not be installing a ring final circuit, which is just as much an accepted form of circuit design as the radial.

Call it condescending if you like, but I speak from a position of some strength here, experiencing daily, as I do, electricians from all over the country who have no idea how to install a ring correctly. (And certainly no clue how to test one)

The word 'professional' and the word 'electrician' do not always fit in the same sentence and I am dismayed by the sheer lack of professionalism - with regard to knowledge and understanding - of the majority of 'electricians' I encounter.

'Accepted' does not necessarily mean correct and the use of ring circuits for moveable loads was a mistake from the off.

As a nod to Rob (RF) I'll concede that a ring with correctly spatially distributed outlets in, say, a kitchen, for the predominantly fixed loads can make some sense, but almost anywhere else it is a fundamental error of judgement.

On balance I think that dingbat was right, or if not he was certainly not wrong enough to be called condescending.

It behoves an electrician to consider how and by whom his installation will be used and supervised after he has left. If it's a domestic installation he should realise that there will be unskilled people making changes to it. The existence of unskilled people is why there are some Wiring Regulations which only apply if they are going to be around.

To argue that if people don't know what they are doing they shouldn't do it is perfectly valid, but to assume that because of that valid argument they won't do it is utter folly.

The fact is that ring finals do create problems when ignorant people try to alter and extend them, and for that reason I think they should be avoided. I think the default position should be radials, and rings not installed unless there are good reasons why a radial cannot be used, and I would like to see the installation of new ring finals deprecated in future amendments/versions of the regs.

 

[fabgav]

Will this be okay to do then? ...r will this be creating essentially 2 spurs??

 

[fabgav]

actually, looking at that it would be better to go top right, top middle middle midde bottom middle - onto 'spur' and make the spur the last in circuit then when i add the next two i take them from bottom middle socket which would then make the spur an actuall spur correct?

 

[LoveRocket]

That's fine.

That's one of the benefits of a radial - there's no such thing as a spur! The whole circuit is radial, so any 'spurs' are just branches. Spurs are only a problem on rings as the cable on the spur cannot carry the full ring current

As long as your fuse/MCB is correctly rated to protect the cable (ie 20A for 2,5mm) you can wire a radial circuit in any topology.

 

[fabgav]

good good, thanks everyone then i've got it in my head what i need to do, cheers

 

[davelx]

That's fine.

That's one of the benefits of a radial - there's no such thing as a spur!

Oh yes there is! Check the corrigenda to the 17th ed.wiring regs. There's a pointer to them in a recent post by ericmark, IIRC.

 

[dingbat]

That's one of the benefits of a radial - there's no such thing as a spur!

Actually, a spur is defined as "A branch from a ring or radial final circuit" (P.29 of t'good book)



But, you're quite right about the 'okayness' of it.

Fabgav, your 16A circuit breaker (not 'miniature, unless it's a BS 3871, by the way) will do fine and if it never trips in service there's no reason to change it.

 

[dingbat]

I am a Ringer and proud of it!

Aye, but you're also from t'wrong side of t'Pennines.

 

[fabgav]

Fabgav, your 16A circuit breaker (not 'miniature, unless it's a BS 3871, by the way) will do fine and if it never trips in service there's no reason to change it.

confused again now, its a MCB BS EN 60898

that no good?

 

[dingbat]

confused again now, its a MCB BS EN 60898

that no good?

Nah. The old standard BS 3871 described them as miniature circuit breakers, but that was replaced by BS EN 60898: 1991, which only refers to them as circuit breakers.

(The manufacturers still call 'em MCBs, but that doesn't mean they are correct. In case you think me too pedantic, these are the same manufacturers who think that the 'L' on a socket terminal means 'live', but what can you do, eh? Believe it or not, many sparks think the same... but then they also believe there is such a conductor as a 'main earth' We have a long way to go...sigh...)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Fabgav, your 16A circuit breaker (not 'miniature, unless it's a BS 3871, by the way).

What does the M stand for then?

 

[dingbat]

I refer you to the reply above.