The death penalty has been adopted by numerous countries. Do YOU think it's a good idea based on that logic? Or perhaps we are wrong for not adopting the death penalty?
Interesting analogy.
I see the point you're trying to make, and it's not completely without merit, but there is a lot more logic and engineering principles behind decisions on wiring regulations than there is behind those on capital punishment.
Were we the
only country with, or without, the death penalty, it might have more merit, but the fact is our position on ring finals is an aberration.
It's not our fault that other countries have fallen behind.
Have they really?
Are you sure there's no jingoism influencing you?
Also, other countries which don't have socket-outlet ring final circuits have ring final circuits for other uses.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with ring finals.
I believe they are inappropriate for socket circuits in domestic properties, but not necessarily in other more controlled environments.
I believe the IEE have released documentation recently on the issue of ring final circuits and that it is being discussed at a European level (it being determined that the highest standards of electrical installations and lowest death/accident count are found in the UK!!!)
They recently had a public debate about ring finals (don't know what the result was, if there was a vote, and the published documents will agree with whatever opinion you already had
)
And I'm sure that the subject gets raised in CENELEC etc meetings as we move towards greater harmonisation, but I'd be very surprised if there was some special consideration going on of the idea of introducing ring finals into other countries.
It's not my fault you don't know how to spur properly from a socket final circuit.
I do know how to.
Are you seriously going to claim that everybody does? Are you going to pretend that all the instances of "spurs from spurs" would be just as much of a problem or risk with a radial circuit as they would be with a ring?
The whole point of a ring, and perversely one of it's major problems, is the undersized cable, and the issues with spurs simply don't arise if you don't have undersized cables. Which you don't have with radials.
Think about a mid position socket on a radial and on a ring. What's the difference?
The difference, as I'm sure you know, is that the former is fed by one cable, and the latter by two.
Cut a ring at the mid point and what are you left with (spurs and all?)
Two radials, neither of which comply with
Ib <=
In <=
Iz.
It's not my fault that your reference to 433-02-01 is meaningless and devoid of logic.
It is neither.
I'm not saying that you can't make a valid engineering case for a ring in the example you gave (lighting in commercial/industrial installations) but I'd like to see you do it,
and achieve cost savings,
and comply with 433-02-01.
(Plse the IEE released document on Ring Finals!!!).
Which document is that?
By quoting this regulation willy nilly, you seem to be implying that the IEE are not complying with their own regulations by specifying 'Conventional Circuit Designs' in the On Site Guide!
No I'm not, but by saying that you seem to be implying that you are not recognising that the IEE
only allow reduced cable size rings for 30/32A socket circuits.
Ring testing more difficult? No - it's just as easy. It's a series of continuity tests. In fact very similar to an R1 + R2 test if you are familiar with correct testing procedure.
Don't try and patronise me - you'll just make yourself look stupid. I've already said that I should perhaps have worded my objection differently.
But even if testing is just as
easy, are you going to say that it does not involve any extra work?
The loading of a kitchen ring does not simply go away with radials.
Of course it does - if it's not a ring then the imbalanced loading issues no longer exist. The circuit cable is not undersized with respect to the breaker rating, and (accessory ratings notwithstanding) you could draw the entire circuit capacity from the first point and not cause the circuit any distress.
Different pros and cons emerge depending on the situation. A radial may require 6mm if demanded by installation reference method or voltage drop.
And this is how likely with 20A radials?
BS1363 accessories are not designed to accomodate 6mm cable.
Could that be, I wonder, because their design is intrinsically linked to 30-32A 7/.026-2.5mm² ring finals?
As regards faults. I presume you have statistics to support this?
No, I'll confess I don't, so I may have made an unjustified assumption, but it's trivial to show that there are more failure modes that remain undetected in use with ring finals than there are with radials.
On the contrary, problems on European radials far outweigh the problems found on UK ring finals.
I presume you have statistics to support this?
Finally, if you look on the internet, you can find quite a list of other countries which have adopted the ring final.
Genuinely, and consciously "adopted" as a departure from previous practice, and not just inherited as a result of Britain's colonial past?
