"NT" wrote in message
...

8

That would make every connection in the circuit safety critical. A
single bad conection then risks fire or shock, soemthing that doesnt
occur with rings.

Every connection in a ring is safety critical.
There wouldn't be any point in making them a ring if the joints weren't
safety critical.
Why bother testing them if they work properly and safely with faulty joints?


It also reduces the utility of the system, since each circuit is less
tolerant of large combination loads.

Why do rings need rules to prevent users putting large loads at one end of
the ring if they are more tolerant of large loads


Finally it offers zero safety advantage. 30A fusing protects the ring
circuit itself fine, and plug fuses protect the appliances and their
leads

Protects it from what?
Sure they will blow if you short the circuit but they don't stop the thing
from passing over current for long periods.



#It was a typical case of technocracy runnng wild,
#without informed public debate about the basic assumptions
#underlying it as feedback.
#More briefly, a muddle.

Its more the sort stuff that is too much talked about ring circuits by
those that dont understand them. There's nothing glamorous about
them, but they have saved many lives due to their excellent tolerance
of poor connections, which are a fairly common occurrence.

The problem with rings is they appear to work fine even when there are bad
connections.
The bad connections can exist for years without a user noticing.
Then they are less safe than a radial because the conductor is sized smaller
than the fuse.
Of course if you used a 20A breaker, as 2.5 mm radials do. the rings would
be somewhat safer as in a connection fault condition they revert to being a
2.5 mm radial. Unlike present rings that become a 2.5 mm radials with a 30A
fuse, which is not allowed as its unsafe.

Being as rings are seldom tested and as you say faults are a fairly common
occurrence I don't see how you can claim they are safe.


NT