In article ,
Jerry wrote:
: having fewer outlets due again to cost. Resulting in the use of
extension
: leads or bodged extra sockets.

Utter rubbish, especially at the time when ring circuits first
started being used in the UK, houses were being built with the
same number of outlets (ask anyone who has modernised a house
from the 1950s or '60s). As for bodged extra sockets, that is
exactly what occurs with ring circuits, because of the over
rating of the circuit protection, thus one can (and often does)
find sockets added to spurs, thus over loading the conductor but
not circuit protection.

Dear me. You blame a final ring circuit for its design when the problems
you mention are cause by idiots modifying it *from* a ring circuit?
It's quite simple, Jerry. Those who don't understand how things work
should leave well alone. And pay someone who does to do any work needed.

Or, and this is even more dangerous,
incomplete rings so that there are in effect two radial circuits
with any number of outlets protected at 30A rather than the more
usual 15A for a radial circuit using the same conductor size.

See above. If this is how you do wiring, find a less dangerous hobby.

:
: There is nothing wrong with radial circuits, the only two
down
: sides are amount of cabling needed and the size of the
breaker
: panel - IIRC ring circuits were introduced into the UK in an
: attempt to save on cabling, due to cost. Radial circuits are
: still, to this day, permitted.
:
: No **** Sherlock.
:

So why did you claim otherwise, making out that radial circuits
are somehow dangerous, if not an out-and-out fire risk?

You're making assumptions - yet again.

--
*Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.