Ring main troubleshooting

[JohnW2]

Do you think that ring circuits are outside the norm today?

You're really just playing with words, and individual opinions/interpretations of them (in this case, the word "norm").

I think that I've written what is really the only objective thing that can really be said - that the proportion of new sockets circuits installed today is lower (perhaps appreciably lower - I don't know) than it was in the past.

In terms of what is in-service in existing installations, I presume that a substantial majority of sockets circuits will be rings - which some people might feel means that such is "the norm".

 

[EFLImpudence]

You're really just playing with words,

No. As is frequently the case it is you who starts playing with words.


Was there any need to comment on what I wrote?

Namely.

Fits in with what? I thought they - rings - were quite the norm still today.

Now it seems you agree.

 

[JohnW2]

Too busy to spend much time on trivial arguments about words, but ...

No. As is frequently the case it is you who starts playing with words. ... Was there any need to comment on what I wrote?

I only felt a 'need' because you asked what eBee meant by "an era where ring finals were quite the norm", and it seemed to me that nearly everyone would have their own (personal) idea of what that meant.

Namely. .... Now it seems you agree.

I didn't agree. As I said, it depends upon what an individual means/understands by "the norm (100%, 90%, 75%, 51% or what?) and, very importantly, whether one is talking about existing installations or recently-designed circuits. Rings are very common in existing installations but less common in recently-designed circuits.

 

[ebee]

Fits in with what? I thought they - rings - were quite the norm still today.

Fits in with my age - we were brung up on rings, some believed they were the "Bees Knees" of circuits and you could not possibly be an electrician if you did not do rings for all socket circuits.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Ok. When did that cease to be the case?

 

[securespark]

Fits in with my age - we were brung up on rings, some believed they were the "Bees Knees" of circuits and you could not possibly be an electrician if you did not do rings for all socket circuits.

When I started in '83, you weren't a real electrician unless:

You didn't use PPE
You only used 1.5 for lighting circuits, 1 milli was for cissies.
You had got several electric shocks, at least one from your "mates" via a wind up IR tester.

 

[JohnW2]

When I started in '83, you weren't a real electrician unless:
You didn't use PPE
You only used 1.5 for lighting circuits, 1 milli was for cissies.
You had got several electric shocks, at least one from your "mates" via a wind up IR tester.

I wonder to what extent things are different now?

 

[Murdochcat]

I use rings in kitchens. Radials elsewhere.

Trouble with rings is that seemingly few so called sparks know how to test and diagnose faults on them.

 

[Murdochcat]

You're really just playing with words, and individual opinions/interpretations of them (in this case, the word "norm").

When I read this I thought it must be the 1st of April again

But

Too busy to spend much time on trivial arguments about words, but ...

Really? Are you sure about that?

YOU even started a thread complaining about ME as I kept on commenting when YOU ruined thread after thread playing with words and taking topics on for page after page.


ha, ha, ha.

 

[ebee]

Ok. When did that cease to be the case?

Well that`s a good question, some do think like that.

Rings can be a good idea but so can radials.

Most of us who were brung up on rings do not flinch with their use but even I will admit that if they had not been invented until today I would be dubious and hesitant about using them.
Anyway they have stood the test of time, yes the can be (and often are) abused but designed and installed with some genuine thought they can be a godsend or just plain OK.

Like I said, both rings and radials have pros and cons.

Just one of the few examples - sometimes folk design and install a ring that is, in essence, a radial then right at the last point in the radial a return leg is added to make it a ring - **** poor design by a numpty. Other ways of distributing loads around a ring in a silly thoughtless fashion exist as well in practice.
Radials can be abused similarly but not as often and often not to as great an extent in that regard though.
Some folks think up the strangest "solutions" and that happens in all walks of life not just electrics.
I bet we all have examples of absurd ideas in abundance that have, at the time, given us a chuckle or somesuch.

 

[JohnW2]

Most of us who were brung up on rings do not flinch with their use but even I will admit that if they had not been invented until today I would be dubious and hesitant about using them.

I suspect that many/most of us feel similarly. It is undeniably a little odd that (in the absence of any restrictions on the location of sockets) it is acceptable for a cable to be potentially 'under-protected", provided only that it is considered "not likely" (very different from 'impossible') that part of the cable could be "overloaded for long periods" - given that it would be easy enough to 'properly protect' the cable.

However, there are many things which, for whatever reason, have become so well-established as 'acceptable' that they are likely to persist for a very long time (in many cases 'for ever'), even though they would very probably be instantly outlawed if they first appeared for the first time today - tobacco, alcohol, aspirin and paracetamol come immediately to mind, but there are countless other examples.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

Indeed a few years back I was given a script from my GP and went to the chemist - aspirin , at the counter the young lady asked "Have you taken aspirin before?" I retorted "Our genration were brought up on aspirin!" how times have changed LOL

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed a few years back I was given a script from my GP and went to the chemist - aspirin , at the counter the young lady asked "Have you taken aspirin before?" I retorted "Our genration were brought up on aspirin!" how times have changed LOL

In relation to things which are 'accepted' because they have been established for so long, even though they would probably be regarded as unacceptable if they first appeared today, I actually wonder whether we (most of the world) would have domestic electricity supplies of 200V+ if the electricity networks were designed (and the voltage decided/chosen) for the first time today!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

In relation to things which are 'accepted' because they have been established for so long, even though they would probably be regarded as unacceptable if they first appeared today, I actually wonder whether we (most of the world) would have domestic electricity supplies of 200V+ if the electricity networks were designed (and the voltage decided/chosen) for the first time today!

240 (220?) is a fair compromise between safety and efficiency, the US has to either use more copper, or use two phases at 220v for the heavier duty appliances.

 

[JohnW2]

240 (220?) is a fair compromise between safety and efficiency, the US has to either use more copper, or use two phases at 220v for the heavier duty appliances.

Yes, that's what people say - that it is a 'compromise', essentially between 'safety' and current (hence efficiency, cost and resources needed for wiring).

However, I'm not sure what sort of 'compromise' it really is, given that 200V is already plenty high enough to kill - so why not, say, 500V or even 1000V ?