Ooh, I was trying *so* hard to keep out of this one for a while -/

In message ws.net,
":::Jerry::::" wrote:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
.. .

[big snips, anyway]

What happens instead is, "Oh, I wonder which appliance blew
the fuse?" Start trying them all in another circuit, and eventually
BANG!.

Err, how many appliances are you plugging into a single outlet ?...

That wasn't the point. The point was that there are multiple outlets on
a single circuit. Even with your 120V 15A radial design you might have
half a dozen or more appliances protected only by the common fuse at the
distribution board. When that fuse pops, how do you know which one of
the appliances has caused the problem?

With our 240V 30/32A rings, 30/32A, 20A and 16A radials we are allowed,
effectively, an unlimited number of sockets. My house has (ignoring the
kitchen) 24 double sockets. Because it is relatively small, these
could have been (though they aren't) supplied by a single ring or even a
single 30/32A radial. If the circuit fuse pops, that's a lot of
appliances to check.

If, on the other hand, a 13A fuse manages to correctly discriminate with
the 32A MCB (unfortunately it won't always) then the job's a lot easier.

So protecting something at a 15 A rating is less safe than doing so
at 30 A when someone replaces the fuse in a BS1364 plug with a bolt
or what ever, as has happened ?....


Well, I'm sure it *has* happened, but personally I've not come across it
ever, and I do get to see a few plugs. It was slightly easier to do in
the days of wire-it-yourself plugs, but in these days of moulded plugs
it is difficult to get anything other than a BS1361 1" fuse to fit into
the fuseholder.


The design starts by looking to see where the failures tend to
be. They tend to be in the appliances and appliance cord, i.e.
the parts which get moved around, and not in the fixed wiring
which is generally well protected from degrading effects. So
to localise such failures, protection is applied at the start
of the common failure path, which is the appliance plug. This
has a big advantage that the protection is intimately associated
with the item it protects, so when you have a faulty appliance,
there is never any question of which appliance it is (ignoring
RCD's, which are a later 'problem'), or of moving the faulty
appliance to a different socket and continuing to use it.

So still have local protection if that really is going to be a
problem.


Your point being? We already do have "local protection". It would
require a major redesign of the US system. One further step we *could*
take would be to make all socket outlets RCDs, but this would be
incredibly expensive and rather ugly. RCDs are secondary protection
anyway, and the fuse/MCB is the primary (other than earth faults in TT
systems of course).


Well, that's because prior to around 1970, it wass illegal to
supply an appliance with a plug in case it was the wrong type,
someone cut it off, and then stuck the resulting loose plug
and exposed flex into a socket. That was just one tiny part of
the problem of having multiple socket types. By 1970 (can't
remember the exact year), judgement was that sockets other than
13A were now sufficiently rare that the law could be changed to
require a BS1363 plug to be fitted to all appliances which were
expected to be plugged in to a socket.

Err, it became law in about 1990 IIRC, and as for sticking wires into
sockets, the non fitment of any plug increased that risk !


It is darned nearly impossible to stick bare wires into a BS1364
shuttered socket outlet without at least two pairs of hands. But that
wasn't the problem, the problem was that if the moulded-on plug is
unsuitable it needs to be cut off. It *could* then be inserted into a
socket, leaving live wires exposed to the touch.

Of course, having a removeable fuse in the plug helps even here, as most
appliance instructions I have read include a phrase along the lines of
"if you need to remove the moulded plug, cut it off, remove the fuse and
dispose of with your household waste."

Any responsible person cutting off a moulded plug can remove the fuse,
remove the fuse holder and (if they're feeling particularly paranoid),
bend the fuse carrier with pliers so that even if some neighbour child
digs it out of your wheelie bin from under last Friday's donner kebabs,
it would be nearly impossible for him to electrocute himself.



many people fitted a plug without then changing the supplied 13amp
fuse to the correct lower rating?...

All new appliances nowadays are required to remain safe with 16A
protection, so actually you can leave a 13A fuse in everything
sold in last 10-20 years.

But not 30A when some idiot uses a bolt to bridge the fuse....

Not continuously, no, but for short-term overloads...

....

Hmmm... I'm off to do something less stressful.

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology
.... 24 hours in a day and 24 beers in a case. Hmmmm.....

You weren't around in the days of those radial circuits? It was
common to
see both 5 and 15 amp plugs on the same circuit.

And most adaptors were multistandard, giving 2 or 3 different plug type
outlets in one. On a radial with 5&15 sockets you would therefore get
15,5 and 2A sockets & plugs, all fused at 15A.

15A fuses dont blow at 16A of course, so 2A plugs could take a lot more
than 15A before anything popped. The shortage of sockets meant various
homebrewed adaptors and leads, so there was nothing to stop a right
fool plugging more than 3kW onto a 2A plug.


And irons plugged into ceiling lights.

and heaters, with bare live element. Would take the chill off the room
before getting into bed. Typically 1kW. In practice it wouldnt take the
lighting citcuit much over 5A because lighting use was a lot more
spartan than today.

In some cases those would be bowl heaters, probably some of the most
dangerous electric heaters ever made.


Apart from education, the non supply of bayonet plugs and the
correctly rated protection of those circuits, what is there to stop
some idiot doing that today ?

Whats to stop it, apart from the non-existence of the plugs eh? Oh, and
those 2 more safety barriers you mention! too funny.


Nothing, also, irons then were probably 750w maximum, and not earthed,
so technically other than the mechanical stress on the pendant
fixture, nothing was wrong with doing that.

True by the standards of the day, if not by modern standards. The
problems we

- flex draped across hot lightbulb (2 way bulb adaptors were usually
used)
- people often burnt themselves plugging in and unplugging, resulting
in falls, back injuries etc
- people tended to get caught up in the draped flex and apply fairly
large pull forces.
- there were typically no cord grips on either the appliance flex, the
bulb holder or the rose, so things had a habit of getting pulled apart
out when Joey stepped on the flex. So as he tripped on the flex,
yanking the hot iron towards himself, the one and only light went out.
Dont forget it would be set to cotton, not synthetics.


Remember, older
lampholders were more solidly built and could probably handle up to 5
amps without a major issue.

Attitudes were a bit different then. There was no periodic domestic
testing, no PAT tests, and things were not run until they showed signs
of wear, or until the live wires became exposed above the bulb holders,
things were run until they went bang. Things getting hot or sparking
were often not seen as the no-no they are today. Bare live wires above
the bulb holders was a common problem on old installs, and owners
routinely did nothing about it. If something sparked, you kicked it.


NT

"Martin Angove" wrote in message
...
Ooh, I was trying *so* hard to keep out of this one for a while -/

In message
ws.net,
":::Jerry::::" wrote:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
.. .

[big snips, anyway]

What happens instead is, "Oh, I wonder which appliance blew
the fuse?" Start trying them all in another circuit, and
eventually
BANG!.

Err, how many appliances are you plugging into a single outlet
?...

That wasn't the point. The point was that there are multiple
outlets on
a single circuit. Even with your 120V 15A radial design you might
have
half a dozen or more appliances protected only by the common fuse
at the
distribution board. When that fuse pops, how do you know which one
of
the appliances has caused the problem?

Who is talking about 110v supply, all the supplies I ever had have
been 240v 50Hz....


With our 240V 30/32A rings, 30/32A, 20A and 16A radials we are
allowed,
effectively, an unlimited number of sockets. My house has (ignoring
the
kitchen) 24 double sockets. Because it is relatively small, these
could have been (though they aren't) supplied by a single ring or
even a
single 30/32A radial. If the circuit fuse pops, that's a lot of
appliances to check.

Exactly, if one appliance caused the circuit protection to trip you
take the whole lot down, with a radial circuit you only take one or
two down - there is nothing to stop local appliance protection being
used at the plug - belt and braces without the huge step from 3 A to
30 A if some idiot does something stupid - nor the chance of every
appliance from the 'teas-maid' to the freezer (or computer...) being
taken down by a faulty table lamp.


If, on the other hand, a 13A fuse manages to correctly discriminate
with
the 32A MCB (unfortunately it won't always) then the job's a lot
easier.

So protecting something at a 15 A rating is less safe than doing
so
at 30 A when someone replaces the fuse in a BS1364 plug with a
bolt
or what ever, as has happened ?....


Well, I'm sure it *has* happened, but personally I've not come
across it
ever, and I do get to see a few plugs. It was slightly easier to do
in
the days of wire-it-yourself plugs, but in these days of moulded
plugs
it is difficult to get anything other than a BS1361 1" fuse to fit
into
the fuseholder.
snip

Anything the size of a BS1361 1" fuse will fit though...

In message ws.net,
":::Jerry::::" wrote:



With our 240V 30/32A rings, 30/32A, 20A and 16A radials we are
allowed,
effectively, an unlimited number of sockets. My house has (ignoring
the
kitchen) 24 double sockets. Because it is relatively small, these
could have been (though they aren't) supplied by a single ring or
even a
single 30/32A radial. If the circuit fuse pops, that's a lot of
appliances to check.

Exactly, if one appliance caused the circuit protection to trip you
take the whole lot down, with a radial circuit you only take one or
two down - there is nothing to stop local appliance protection being
used at the plug - belt and braces without the huge step from 3 A to
30 A if some idiot does something stupid - nor the chance of every
appliance from the 'teas-maid' to the freezer (or computer...) being
taken down by a faulty table lamp.


This is some interesting definition of "radial" I've not heard before.
Even US-style radials are likely to have (as I understand it) several
outlets per circuit. Popping the circuit protection *is* going to take
out a lot of appliances. Popping a plug fuse in our system is going to
take out *one* appliance, or possibly a few if the fuse which pops is in
a multiple-outlet adapter.

The alternative is to have radials which feed just one or two sockets
each. That is one heck of a big distribution board in most modern
houses, and a darned expensive one to boot. *And* it will *still* take
out several appliances in one go.

I think we're all getting a bit tangled up now though. I replied to you
thinking you were defending US-style 15A or 20A radial circuits, but I
discover that you're (probably) not. If you were, I'd also take you to
task for saying "there's nothing to stop local appliance protection
being used at the plug" because I don't know, apart from GFCI outlets,
how this would be done in the US. And even GFCI outlets are (usually)
wired to protect all outlets downstream...

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology
.... Excuse me, I have to recharge my flamethrower.

":::Jerry::::" wrote:

Apart from education, the non supply of bayonet plugs and the
correctly rated protection of those circuits, what is there to stop
some idiot doing that today ?

Perhaps you could stick to prattling on about dual combi's and crappy
Toyota's - more your area of inexpertise

Talk about dim you're a 5 watter.


--

"Matt" wrote in message
...
":::Jerry::::" wrote:

Apart from education, the non supply of bayonet plugs and the
correctly rated protection of those circuits, what is there to
stop
some idiot doing that today ?

Perhaps you could stick to prattling on about dual combi's and
crappy
Toyota's - more your area of inexpertise

Talk about dim you're a 5 watter.


You total moron....

You brain dead idiot

You trolling 'boy of self abuse', answer the question.

"Martin Angove" wrote in message
...
In message
ws.net,
":::Jerry::::" wrote:



With our 240V 30/32A rings, 30/32A, 20A and 16A radials we are
allowed,
effectively, an unlimited number of sockets. My house has
(ignoring
the
kitchen) 24 double sockets. Because it is relatively small,
these
could have been (though they aren't) supplied by a single ring
or
even a
single 30/32A radial. If the circuit fuse pops, that's a lot of
appliances to check.

Exactly, if one appliance caused the circuit protection to trip
you
take the whole lot down, with a radial circuit you only take one
or
two down - there is nothing to stop local appliance protection
being
used at the plug - belt and braces without the huge step from 3 A
to
30 A if some idiot does something stupid - nor the chance of
every
appliance from the 'teas-maid' to the freezer (or computer...)
being
taken down by a faulty table lamp.


This is some interesting definition of "radial" I've not heard
before.

You are confusing what is with what (IMO) should be, yes, the ring
final circuit is far safer than what we had before but it has many
flaws - some of which can make the whole thing less safe than what
came before....

Anyway, all the radials I've ever come across have only one or two
outlets per circuit, and certainly didn't cross room or floor
boundaries.

Even US-style radials are likely to have (as I understand it)
several
outlets per circuit. Popping the circuit protection *is* going to
take
out a lot of appliances. Popping a plug fuse in our system is going
to
take out *one* appliance, or possibly a few if the fuse which pops
is in
a multiple-outlet adapter.

Yes, and so would any radial circuit with local plug protection, you
are failing to see that I'm not at all convinced that an unlimited
number of sockets can be protected by one fuse, especially when that
final protection is at twice the maximum rating allows for anything
plugged into the socket.


The alternative is to have radials which feed just one or two
sockets
each. That is one heck of a big distribution board in most modern
houses, and a darned expensive one to boot. *And* it will *still*
take
out several appliances in one go.

No it won't, it will only take out those that are on that circuit,
not ones in another room or even another floor - as is possible with
(domestic) ring circuit.


I think we're all getting a bit tangled up now though. I replied to
you
thinking you were defending US-style 15A or 20A radial circuits,
but I
discover that you're (probably) not. If you were, I'd also take you
to
task for saying "there's nothing to stop local appliance protection
being used at the plug" because I don't know, apart from GFCI
outlets,
how this would be done in the US. And even GFCI outlets are
(usually)
wired to protect all outlets downstream...


Very much a GMT chap, and even if I was a EDT chap there would not be
anything to stop the adoption of fused plugs.

In article ws.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
"Matt" wrote in message
...
":::Jerry::::" wrote:

Apart from education, the non supply of bayonet plugs and the
correctly rated protection of those circuits, what is there to stop
some idiot doing that today ?

Perhaps you could stick to prattling on about dual combi's and crappy
Toyota's - more your area of inexpertise

Talk about dim you're a 5 watter.


You total moron....

Fair response for being confused with Evil. ;-)

You brain dead idiot

Getting better.

You trolling 'boy of self abuse', answer the question.

Ah. Now there's the problem.

--
*Some days you're the dog, some days the hydrant.

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

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"Matt" wrote in message
...
":::Jerry::::" wrote:

Apart from education, the non supply of bayonet plugs and the
correctly rated protection of those circuits, what is there to
stop
some idiot doing that today ?

Perhaps you could stick to prattling on about dual combi's and
crappy
Toyota's - more your area of inexpertise

Talk about dim you're a 5 watter.

You total moron....

You brain dead idiot

You trolling 'boy of self abuse', answer the question.

Oh, I do like to see the children play. No doubt a idiot will also respond
to this too.

In article ws.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
Anyway, all the radials I've ever come across have only one or two outlets
per circuit, and certainly didn't cross room or floor boundaries.

Could that be because peoiple didn't have many electrical appliances? Less
than 30 years ago when we moved to our present house we were considered quite
odd for wanting more than one single socket in each of the bedrooms; in
planning a new (small) room I'm likely to include three double sockets whilst
the (ex) garage will require 30!

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
You trolling 'boy of self abuse', answer the question.

Oh, I do like to see the children play. No doubt a idiot will also
respond to this too.

;-)

--
*The older you get, the better you realize you were.

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

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article
ws.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
Anyway, all the radials I've ever come across have only one or
two outlets
per circuit, and certainly didn't cross room or floor boundaries.

Could that be because peoiple didn't have many electrical
appliances? Less
than 30 years ago when we moved to our present house we were
considered quite
odd for wanting more than one single socket in each of the
bedrooms; in
planning a new (small) room I'm likely to include three double
sockets whilst
the (ex) garage will require 30!


Possibly, and how many of those sockets you need will ever be used
for anything over 2Kw?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
You trolling 'boy of self abuse', answer the question.

Oh, I do like to see the children play. No doubt a idiot will also
respond to this too.

On cue the idiot responded.

In message ws.net,
":::Jerry::::" wrote:

As you are "GMT not EDT" then:

Anyway, all the radials I've ever come across have only one or two
outlets per circuit, and certainly didn't cross room or floor
boundaries.


Probably the most common radials to be found in Britain are those for
showers (no sockets, obviously), lights and cookers, however we're
talking specifically about circuits supplying socket-outlets.

There are three "standard" circuits for use with BS1363 socket outlets:

"A1" is a ring topology with 30 or 32A protection wired in 2.5mm2/1.5mm2
cable. Such a ring can serve a floor area of up to 100m2.

"A2" is radial with 30 or 32A protection wired in 4mm2/2.5mm2 cable
(though it is only really rated for "clipped direct" and many people
advocate the use of 6mm2 cable instead). This type of radial can serve
up to 75m2.

"A3" is radial with 20A protection (though possibly more often found
with 15/16A) wired in 2.5/1.5 cable and serving up to 50m2.

The IEE On Site Guide says "A ring or radial circuit, with spurs if any,
feeds permanently connected equipment and an unlimited number of
socket-outlets and fused connection units." (Appx 8)

Given that an average Valleys terraced house will have a floor area of
70 to 80m2 you can see that it is perfectly possible to wire the entire
house with one ring circuit, and it may even be possible to wire it with
one 30A radial. It will certainly be possible to wire it with two
radials of either rating (cable length aside). You can see that there
will be many more than your "one or two outlets per circuit" and that
the circuit will of necessity cross both room and floor boundaries.

Indeed, for a house shaped like a terrace (i.e. long and narrow), a
radial may be the most economical use of cable.

Therefore, from a discrimination point of view, there is absolutely no
advantage at all from running radials.

If we follow your idea of radials feeding just a few outlets - let's be
charitable and say one radial per "room" - then you begin to escalate
the cost of the system enormously. My house is unusual in that I have
three ring (East, West, Kitchen) and two radial circuits
(utility/outside, fridge). Five sockets circuits is a lot for a house
with a floor area of some 80m2 (three bed semi). With the "one radial
per room" idea though, I'd need even more!

Three bedrooms
One for hall/landing ("office" area on landing)
living room
kitchen
dining room
utility
outside
fridge

Makes a total of ten circuits; double the number. I have a 12-way board
which, at the moment, has a few spare ways. With the new regime that
board would be over-full:

10 sockets radials
2 lights
1 cooker
1 heating radial

makes 14. Also the utility/outside circuit I have installed is run from
an RCBO rather than from the RCD which commonly feeds the rings. This
RCBO takes two slots in the board so now I need 15 ways; whatever, it
means a bigger board. A 12-way board kit is available from Screwfix for
as little as £60. Bigger boards are a lot more expensive as they are
less common.

And then what about the spare ways I currently have? One of them is
earmarked for a supply to the shed I'm planning. One of them might be
used for a third lighting circuit. Perhaps the best way would be with
two 10 or 11 way boards, one exclusively for the sockets radials and one
for everything else? Never mind the cost, what's the wife going to say?

Even after all that, you *still* have multiple outlets per circuit, and
hence unfused connections (which I think were the original argument) are
still a big problem. In total we have the equivalent of 31 double
sockets in the house. This is an average of three and a bit per circuit
to the "one radial per room" plan, though two of the radials only
actually serve one double each.

I wasn't going to add any more to this thread, but I'm intrigued how you
can be such a radial fan when it doesn't (in real life) solve any
problems.

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology
.... We laughed, we sang, we danced far into the night.

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ws.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
Anyway, all the radials I've ever come across have only one or two
outlets
per circuit, and certainly didn't cross room or floor boundaries.

Could that be because peoiple didn't have many electrical appliances? Less
than 30 years ago when we moved to our present house we were considered
quite
odd for wanting more than one single socket in each of the bedrooms; in
planning a new (small) room I'm likely to include three double sockets
whilst
the (ex) garage will require 30!

I put 4 sockets with TV point, in each corner of the living room. People
were confused and thought it overkill. The TV, VCR, Stereo bits, etc took
the four up. I could arrange the furniture to just about anywhere, everyone
else had double adaptors and the TV always in the same place.

wrote in message
ups.com...

The whole point of having both a plug fuse AND a fuseboard fuse or mcb
is that if one is defeated, there is a backup still working.

The whole point of rings instead of radials is to increase safety,
reliability and socket availability.

Not really. Rings came about because of ships, to reduce the amount of
cable, and one lighting cable could be strung around the whole ship. Many
British go to Spain and take with them UK cables and CUs and fit Spanish
plugs, using rings. The Spanish authorities cut the circuit off when they
see them. The Spanish forbid rings. Cheeky *******s I know, when you see
the state of Spanish wiring. The new Euro wiring standards is to only have
radials. Not finalised or approved yet, and still up in the air, but
looking that way.

There is no evidence to prove that rings are safer than radials.

In article ws.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
Possibly, and how many of those sockets you need will ever be used
for anything over 2Kw?

One will have a heater attached whilst many of the others will be running
computers that require no more power than 2 or 3 AA batteries could provide.

But I was illustrating that times change.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"Martin Angove" wrote in message
...

I wasn't going to add any more to this thread, but I'm intrigued how you
can be such a radial fan when it doesn't (in real life) solve any
problems.

Tell that to the Europeans.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
.. .
In article ws.net,
":::Jerry::::" writes:

But not 30A when some idiot uses a bolt to bridge the fuse....

You seem to have a bizzare fixation on one issue which
is pretty much a non-sequitur, whilst still failing to
understand the safety features designed into the system
as a whole.

Bare in mind the BS1363 plugs and sockets and the ring
circuit is the most recently designed power distribution
system for portable appliances in the world (that I know
of anyway), and sought to avoid all the problems the
pre-existing systems had, and didn't compromise itself
by trying to be backwards compatible with anything that
came before (unlike most other power distribution systems
in use today). Its safety speaks for itself when compared
to other systems in the world. I won't pretend it has no
issues or it could not be improved -- there have been a
number of improvements through its nearly 60 year life.

When was it universally adopted? I think the 1960s. Rings are "not"
mandatory. Many are going to radials as rings create magnetic fields around
a house. Many people are susceptible to this. Radials avoid the problem

wrote in message
oups.com...

Yes theyre different issues, I was just responding to his unlikely
vision of an unfused plug all radial system. How he intends to
implement multiple fusing requirements into that I didnt even ask.

Most of the world have unfused plugs and radials. When installed properly
they appear safe enough. Many appliances have in-built fusing in these
countries too.

Some Continentals think we are mad. A washing machine. A fused plug
behind, which is a pain to get at. A fused spur above, over the worktop,
with a fuse in, and the ring mcb, and then an RCD. They say we overkill.
If there is a fault and the fuse blows behind the washing machine? They
thing it is silly to have a fuse in that plug, when a fused spur gives
protection above. I agree with them. I know some people who remove the
fuse and put a copper wire across the washing machine plug, so they don't
have to drag the washing machine out. A good thing? Maybe not as the
appliance may be faulty.

"Martin Angove" wrote in message
...
snip

I wasn't going to add any more to this thread, but I'm intrigued
how you
can be such a radial fan when it doesn't (in real life) solve any
problems.


Other than placing the responsibility for appliance 'final
protection' in the hands of the user (who might have little grasp of
the whys and wherefores) rather than those who do.

In article ws.net,
"Doctor Drivel" writes:

When was it universally adopted? I think the 1960s.

1946 supplement to the 11th Edition Wiring Regs was when it was
officially sanctioned, but people had started using ring circuits
beforehand. Installation was universal by 1950, except in towns
which didn't yet have a 200-250V AC mains supply (13A sockets
were not allowed on DC supplies or AC supplies with no neutral).

snip the rest of Drivel's drivel

--
Andrew Gabriel

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
eenews.net...

snip

Some Continentals think we are mad. A washing machine. A fused
plug
behind, which is a pain to get at. A fused spur above, over the
worktop,
with a fuse in, and the ring mcb, and then an RCD. They say we
overkill.
If there is a fault and the fuse blows behind the washing machine?
They
thing it is silly to have a fuse in that plug, when a fused spur
gives
protection above. I agree with them. I know some people who
remove the
fuse and put a copper wire across the washing machine plug, so they
don't
have to drag the washing machine out. A good thing? Maybe not as
the
appliance may be faulty.


That is one of the many failing with ring circuits I've tried to
illustrate, but the IEEE 'dinosaurs' just can't see the wood for the
trees....

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
.. .
In article
ws.net,
"Doctor Drivel" writes:

When was it universally adopted? I think the 1960s.

1946 supplement to the 11th Edition Wiring Regs was when it was
officially sanctioned, but people had started using ring circuits
beforehand. Installation was universal by 1950, except in towns
which didn't yet have a 200-250V AC mains supply (13A sockets
were not allowed on DC supplies or AC supplies with no neutral).


I read DD as meaning that the BS1363 plug was not universally adopted
until the 1960s.

As for radials, they are still being installed, they just have either
a FCU or BS1363 socket at the end, as of the date of sanction /
implication, the date is most telling - being a time of shortage,
final ring circuits using less raw material than radials circuits....

Doctor Drivel wrote:
Not really. Rings came about because of ships, to reduce the amount of
cable, and one lighting cable could be strung around the whole ship. Many
British go to Spain and take with them UK cables and CUs and fit Spanish
plugs, using rings. The Spanish authorities cut the circuit off when they
see them. The Spanish forbid rings. Cheeky *******s I know, when you see
the state of Spanish wiring. The new Euro wiring standards is to only have
radials. Not finalised or approved yet, and still up in the air, but
looking that way.

There is no evidence to prove that rings are safer than radials.



The fundamental difference between "continental" installations and UK
installations is that here in the UK the plug is fused. This allows for higher
capacity circuits (such as 30A rings) as you have some degree of over
current protection in the plug.

In Spain, or the Netherlands, there is no fuse in the plug, so you will need
to reduce the circuit rating to keep things safe. In NL most circuits are
fused at 16A.

So if you drop a knife on a CD player power cable it trips the fuse for that
radial.
And before anyone starts crying about the whole house being out of power
because of a CD player short: We use many radials with only a few sockets on
each.

There is little point using a ring circuit for a 16A circuit (yes, yes I
know all the arguments for and against).
Why they would be forbidden is a different question, but I have not yet come
across a situation where I would need one, as you usally have multiple
radials instead of the one or two rings common in the UK.

For exceptions (ovens, etc) you just lay 3-phase or 2 circuits. It's rare
to find an appliance that requires a single phase 16A that doesn't have
the option of a double plug in the NL.

Gerd.



--
http://busker.org | http://www.clustervision.com

:::Jerry:::: wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote
Some Continentals think we are mad. A washing machine. A fused
plug behind, which is a pain to get at.
That is one of the many failing with ring circuits I've tried to
illustrate, but the IEEE 'dinosaurs' just can't see the wood for the
trees....

That is not a failure of ring circuits. That is a failure of people who
install sockets behind the appliance, instead of to the side.

If you want to you can wire the washing machine into an unfused flex
outlet unit below the worktop and use an FCU above, or use an unfused
15A socket below the worktop.

But there are good arguments for not using general-purpose rings and
assuming load diversity when it comes to kitchen appliances anyway.

Owain

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
.. .
In article ws.net,
"Doctor Drivel" writes:

When was it universally adopted? I think the 1960s.

1946 supplement to the 11th Edition Wiring Regs was when it was
officially sanctioned, but people had started using ring circuits
beforehand. Installation was universal by 1950, except in towns
which didn't yet have a 200-250V AC mains supply (13A sockets

My mothers house was new in 1953, was 250V, 3 pin plugs and radials.
Radials are not outlawed and rings are not mandatory. Even today it is take
your choice. AFAICS, rings became common in the 1960s.

snip historical misinformation

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:58:48 +0100, Gerd Busker
wrote:

The fundamental difference between "continental" installations and UK
installations is that here in the UK the plug is fused. This allows for higher
capacity circuits (such as 30A rings) as you have some degree of over
current protection in the plug.

In Spain, or the Netherlands, there is no fuse in the plug, so you will need
to reduce the circuit rating to keep things safe. In NL most circuits are
fused at 16A.

There's not /that/ much difference between a 30A ring and 2 16A
radials. MCB's are cheap these days, also rings are harder to fault
find and the ring can get a break in it.

Anyway a 13A plug fuse can take 26A for up to 30 mins before breaking,
I'm sure a 16A MCB can do better than that.

cheers,
Pete.

In article ws.net,
"Doctor Drivel" writes:
My mothers house was new in 1953, was 250V, 3 pin plugs and radials.

There will undoubtedly be some variation across the country;
the building trade has always been quite regional. My parents
bought their house new in 1955, and by then the builders were
no longer offering round pin sockets -- a few years before you
could still ask for round pin sockets if you really wanted them.

Radials are not outlawed and rings are not mandatory. Even today it is take
your choice.

You can still install BS546 15A sockets on radials today if you
really want to, and have the installation conform to the current
wiring regs.

AFAICS, rings became common in the 1960s.

Radials were certainly gone by then, and 10 years earlier in
many places. Also note that both rings and fused plugs existed
before the 1946 supplement, but there was no standard. Fused
plugs from different manufacturers were not interchangable,
and I doubt the ring circuits were all standardised at 30A.
Some of the designs had the fuses as the plug prongs, and
some fused both prongs (as not all areas had a 'neutral').
There are tales of the fuses coming off and getting stuck
in the socket.

--
Andrew Gabriel

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

That is one of the many failing with ring circuits I've tried to
illustrate, but the IEEE 'dinosaurs' just can't see the wood for the
trees....

Even after making yourself look unclued in this thread, you still
insist the others know even less than you. Welcome to uk.diy.ld.


NT

On 24 Jul 2005, Andrew Gabriel wrote

-snip-

Well, that's because prior to around 1970, it wass illegal to
supply an appliance with a plug in case it was the wrong type,
someone cut it off, and then stuck the resulting loose plug
and exposed flex into a socket. That was just one tiny part of
the problem of having multiple socket types. By 1970 (can't
remember the exact year), judgement was that sockets other than
13A were now sufficiently rare that the law could be changed to
require a BS1363 plug to be fitted to all appliances which were
expected to be plugged in to a socket.

1970 or thereabouts? Are you sure?

I'm positive that when I moved to the UK in 1982, it was still the
practice to sell small appliances without a plug -- that was sold (and
charged for) separately.

(It got my goat: buy an expensive appliance, and then then be charged
an extra quid or so for a plug....cheap *******s....)

--
Cheers,
Harvey

"Pete C" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:58:48 +0100, Gerd Busker
wrote:

The fundamental difference between "continental" installations and UK
installations is that here in the UK the plug is fused. This allows for
higher
capacity circuits (such as 30A rings) as you have some degree of over
current protection in the plug.

In Spain, or the Netherlands, there is no fuse in the plug, so you will
need
to reduce the circuit rating to keep things safe. In NL most circuits
are
fused at 16A.

There's not /that/ much difference between a 30A ring and 2 16A
radials. MCB's are cheap these days, also rings are harder to fault
find and the ring can get a break in it.

Anyway a 13A plug fuse can take 26A for up to 30 mins before breaking,
I'm sure a 16A MCB can do better than that.

When comparing both ring and radial, IMO the ring just gets it. A radial
can have a break in it as well as a ring, and if there is a break in a
radial you know about it sooner, whereas a ring can be fed from the backend
and the fault goes undetected. A ring has two paths back to the CU (very
important for safety).

The fuse in the plug tips it for me regarding the British system. Others
can introduce these on radials for extra protection, but they haven't. The
British have for 60 years. There is nothing more annoying when an appliance
trips out the whole house, when a fuse could have just dropped out the
faulty appliance. Rings for over 50 plus years have proven to be very safe.
Installation cost is low too. The British wiring regs are regarded as the
best, and safest, in the world, and I would go along with that. BTW, and
rings are not mandatory.

wrote in message
oups.com...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

That is one of the many failing with ring circuits I've tried to
illustrate, but the IEEE 'dinosaurs' just can't see the wood for
the
trees....

Even after making yourself look unclued in this thread, you still
insist the others know even less than you. Welcome to uk.diy.ld.


You are the clueless one, how do you think anyone else in the world
survives if the UK is the only country that has a safe (what ever
that is) electrical system.

What is so dangerous about radial circuits that make them such a
non-starter, if there was anything don't you think they would have
been banned by now?

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
enews.net...

"Pete C" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:58:48 +0100, Gerd Busker
wrote:

The fundamental difference between "continental" installations
and UK
installations is that here in the UK the plug is fused. This
allows for
higher
capacity circuits (such as 30A rings) as you have some degree of
over
current protection in the plug.

In Spain, or the Netherlands, there is no fuse in the plug, so
you will
need
to reduce the circuit rating to keep things safe. In NL most
circuits
are
fused at 16A.

There's not /that/ much difference between a 30A ring and 2 16A
radials. MCB's are cheap these days, also rings are harder to
fault
find and the ring can get a break in it.

Anyway a 13A plug fuse can take 26A for up to 30 mins before
breaking,
I'm sure a 16A MCB can do better than that.

When comparing both ring and radial, IMO the ring just gets it. A
radial
can have a break in it as well as a ring, and if there is a break
in a
radial you know about it sooner, whereas a ring can be fed from the
backend
and the fault goes undetected. A ring has two paths back to the CU
(very
important for safety).

And a very dangerous way of over-loading a single 2.5mm length of
cable, the most dangerous fault that could be caused by a break in a
radial is a break to the earth - anything else will cause the circuit
to fail and unusable.


The fuse in the plug tips it for me regarding the British system.
Others
can introduce these on radials for extra protection, but they
haven't. The
British have for 60 years. There is nothing more annoying when an
appliance
trips out the whole house,

Which won't happen on a modern radial circuit [1], at worst you are
going to take out the room, OTOH a fault can and has taken out a
whole house were a ring circuit is in use...

[1] forget how they might have been wired 60 years ago.

when a fuse could have just dropped out the
faulty appliance. Rings for over 50 plus years have proven to be
very safe.
Installation cost is low too. The British wiring regs are regarded
as the
best, and safest, in the world, and I would go along with that.
BTW, and
rings are not mandatory.


How come that anyone is left alive in the US or other countries that
use radials, the problem is not the circuit but those who miss use
them - as is the case with any circuit.

"Harvey Van Sickle" wrote in message
...
On 24 Jul 2005, Andrew Gabriel wrote

-snip-

Well, that's because prior to around 1970, it wass illegal to
supply an appliance with a plug in case it was the wrong type,
someone cut it off, and then stuck the resulting loose plug
and exposed flex into a socket. That was just one tiny part of
the problem of having multiple socket types. By 1970 (can't
remember the exact year), judgement was that sockets other than
13A were now sufficiently rare that the law could be changed to
require a BS1363 plug to be fitted to all appliances which were
expected to be plugged in to a socket.

1970 or thereabouts? Are you sure?

I'm positive that when I moved to the UK in 1982, it was still the
practice to sell small appliances without a plug -- that was sold (and
charged for) separately.

Yep. It was the late 1980s/early 1990s that plugs on cords became the norm.
I recall, a TV I bought in 1987 that never had a plug.

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
enews.net...

"Pete C" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:58:48 +0100, Gerd Busker
wrote:

The fundamental difference between "continental" installations
and UK
installations is that here in the UK the plug is fused. This
allows for
higher
capacity circuits (such as 30A rings) as you have some degree of
over
current protection in the plug.

In Spain, or the Netherlands, there is no fuse in the plug, so
you will
need
to reduce the circuit rating to keep things safe. In NL most
circuits
are
fused at 16A.

There's not /that/ much difference between a 30A ring and 2 16A
radials. MCB's are cheap these days, also rings are harder to
fault
find and the ring can get a break in it.

Anyway a 13A plug fuse can take 26A for up to 30 mins before
breaking,
I'm sure a 16A MCB can do better than that.

When comparing both ring and radial, IMO the ring just gets it. A
radial
can have a break in it as well as a ring, and if there is a break
in a
radial you know about it sooner, whereas a ring can be fed from the
backend
and the fault goes undetected. A ring has two paths back to the CU
(very
important for safety).

And a very dangerous way of over-loading a single 2.5mm length of
cable,

That is possible, yet highly unlikely, and definite minus point to a ring.

the most dangerous fault that could be caused by a break in a
radial is a break to the earth - anything else will cause the circuit
to fail and unusable.


The fuse in the plug tips it for me regarding the British system.
Others
can introduce these on radials for extra protection, but they
haven't. The
British have for 60 years. There is nothing more annoying when an
appliance
trips out the whole house,

Which won't happen on a modern radial circuit [1], at worst you are
going to take out the room, OTOH a fault can and has taken out a
whole house were a ring circuit is in use...

[1] forget how they might have been wired 60 years ago.

when a fuse could have just dropped out the
faulty appliance. Rings for over 50 plus years have proven to be
very safe.
Installation cost is low too. The British wiring regs are regarded
as the
best, and safest, in the world, and I would go along with that.
BTW, and
rings are not mandatory.

How come that anyone is left alive in the US or other countries that
use radials, the problem is not the circuit but those who miss use
them - as is the case with any circuit.

The point about a ring and fused plugs is that they can suffer more abuse
than radials and still be safe.

The death rate in the UK by elecrical systems is very low.

In article Doctor Drivel wrote:

British have for 60 years. There is nothing more annoying when an appliance
trips out the whole house, when a fuse could have just dropped out the
faulty appliance.

It's actually not that bad because you have more circuits. A trip only
takes out 2 or 3 sockets.

Gerd.

In article Doctor Drivel wrote:

The death rate in the UK by elecrical systems is very low.

Compared to where though?

It's 11% of 411 in the US in 2001 :
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/a/acci...eath/stats.htm

No idea what it would be here or in Europe.

G.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
eenews.net...

snip

The point about a ring and fused plugs is that they can suffer more
abuse
than radials and still be safe.

How is protecting a 3A rated appliance at 30A more safe when some
idiot wraps a bit of wire around the blown fuse?...


The death rate in the UK by elecrical systems is very low.


More by education than circuit design, the fact that appliances now
come pre fitted with plugs and the correct fuse I suspect.

"Owain" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote
Some Continentals think we are mad. A washing machine. A fused
plug behind, which is a pain to get at.
That is one of the many failing with ring circuits I've tried to
illustrate, but the IEEE 'dinosaurs' just can't see the wood for
the
trees....

That is not a failure of ring circuits. That is a failure of people
who
install sockets behind the appliance, instead of to the side.

But is it not a failing of the design to allow such a thing, it's a
dammed sight more difficult to over-ride an MCB on the distribution
board than wrap some wire around a BS1363 type plug fuse.


If you want to you can wire the washing machine into an unfused
flex
outlet unit below the worktop and use an FCU above, or use an
unfused
15A socket below the worktop.

A FCU with a 'BS1363' type plug fuse in it can be over ridden,
leaving the appliance protected at 30A, a 15A fuse-less socket would
have to be a radial anyway.