Fused spur question for 3Kw heater

[Harry Bloomfield]

it's a good point.

Not really - would the average person know or care whether they were distributing the load around the ring, when they were plugging something. I wouldn't and I certainly ought to know better.

 

[EFLImpudence]

We would seem to be discussing a ring circuit.

Yes, but a pointless (pun intended) one installed for no reason nor advantage.

 

[JohnW2]

Where things need to be plugged in, is where things need to be plugged it - usually there is little choice as to which socket to use and certainly never considered by a user.

Exactly, and there's no reason (maybe even the converse to some extent) why the question of where 'things need to be plugged in' has anything to do with the locations, or wiring arrangements, of the sockets - so, by my reckoning, if they just 'plugged things in where they needed to be plugged in', they would be no less chance of 'overloading' some of the circuit with your (very unusual) arrangement than in would be with conventional wiring, would they?

The other way to wire a long straight run of sockets on a wall, would be for each socket to be wired in turn, with the final socket at the far end - having a long run back to the consumer unit. Are you suggesting that might be a better way of laying out the circuit John?

Isn't that the 'normal' way?

If a circuit consists literally of (only) what you describe (just one line of sockets in a straight line), then the argument for it to be wiring as a ring of any sort (and wired in any fashion) is pretty weak.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Exactly, and there's no reason (maybe even the converse to some extent) why the question of where 'things need to be plugged in' has anything to do with the locations, or wiring arrangements, of the sockets - so, by my reckoning, if they just 'plugged things in where they needed to be plugged in', they would be no less chance of 'overloading' some of the circuit with your (very unusual) arrangement than in would be with conventional wiring, would they?

Nothing unusual about it, it was absolutely standard practice I can assure you and for the very good reasons I explained earlier - it minimises volts drop and evens out the load along both ends of the ring. Were the cables singles in conduit, it would also make it much easier drawing shorter lengths in as well as using up shorter cable lengths.

If a circuit consists literally of (only) what you describe (just one line of sockets in a straight line), then the argument for it to be wiring as a ring of any sort (and wired in any fashion) is pretty weak.

Kind Regards, John

All I did was for the sake of discussion, lay the usual ring out serving an irregular area layout, into a a run along a wall - to make discussion simpler. I do appreciate a radial circuit along a wall might well be a more sensible method, but that was not the point.

 

[JohnW2]

Nothing unusual about it, it was absolutely standard practice I can assure you and for the very good reasons I explained earlier - it minimises volts drop and evens out the load along both ends of the ring.

No necessarily, and that's what I don't get about your argument.

As you've said, things "get plugged in where they need to be plugged in" - and if those places ("where they need to be plugged in") happen to be in every alternate socket (which is no less likely, perhaps more likely, than in adjacent sockets) they would all be on the same arm of the ring.

Since, as you say "things get plugged in where they need to be plugged in", unless the designer is a clairvoyant, there's nothing that he/she can do to anticipate "what will be plugged into which socket" - so the 'alternate socket' wiring arrangement is no more likely to be 'better' than 'adjacent socket' wiring, is it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

As you've said, things "get plugged in where they need to be plugged in" - and if those places ("where they need to be plugged in") happen to be in every alternate socket (which is no less likely, perhaps more likely, than in adjacent sockets) they would all be on the same arm of the ring.

..and the chances of that happening are very unlikely.

Since, as you say "things get plugged in where they need to be plugged in", unless the designer is a clairvoyant, there's nothing that he/she can do to anticipate "what will be plugged into which socket" - so the 'alternate socket' wiring arrangement is no more likely to be 'better' than 'adjacent socket' wiring, is it?

The designer/installer can to a large extent ensure the ring is evenly loaded, especially true in the wall example I gave.

 

[JohnW2]

The designer/installer can to a large extent ensure the ring is evenly loaded, especially true in the wall example I gave.

As I said, not necessarily, but I can't think of any clearer way to explain why than what I have already written.

What do you think the designer is going to guess - that a number of large loads will be plugged into adjacent sockets, or 'every other one'?

Kind Regards, John