This may be a stupid question but hey, what the hell, I'll ask it anyway.

In almost every diagram I've ever seen regarding ring or radial circuits,
the cable comes into one socket and then on to the next, from there it goes
on to the next and so on, in a daisy-chain sort of arrangement.

Would the circuit layout shown below be acceptable? If I can put the
junction box where I want to, it'll sure save me hours of sweat, frustration
and tears )

TIA
John

Single
2.5T&E-----------DS-------JB----------FCU (300W load)
from CU (700W) ¦
(20A MCB) max ¦
¦
2.8kW load

"John" wrote in message
...
This may be a stupid question but hey, what the hell, I'll ask it anyway.

In almost every diagram I've ever seen regarding ring or radial circuits,
the cable comes into one socket and then on to the next, from there it
goes on to the next and so on, in a daisy-chain sort of arrangement.

Would the circuit layout shown below be acceptable? If I can put the
junction box where I want to, it'll sure save me hours of sweat,
frustration and tears )

TIA
John

Single
2.5T&E-----------DS-------JB----------FCU (300W load)
from CU (700W) ¦
(20A MCB) max ¦
¦
2.8kW load
It would be fine. Options to consider though are, 1.Use a fused connection
unit instead of a JB, 2. Bring a cable back from FCU to the MCB creating a
ring which will allow 30A instead of 20A and allow for future expansion

In article ,
"John" writes:
This may be a stupid question but hey, what the hell, I'll ask it anyway.

In almost every diagram I've ever seen regarding ring or radial circuits,
the cable comes into one socket and then on to the next, from there it goes
on to the next and so on, in a daisy-chain sort of arrangement.

Would the circuit layout shown below be acceptable? If I can put the
junction box where I want to, it'll sure save me hours of sweat, frustration
and tears )

TIA
John

Single
2.5T&E-----------DS-------JB----------FCU (300W load)
from CU (700W) |
(20A MCB) max |
|
2.8kW load

That's fine (providing my correction of your drawing to
use a fixed width font is what you really intended).
The 2.8kW load needs to be on an FCU, but the FCU can be
at the appliance end of the branch. If it is a water
heater over 20 litres (IIRC) or the main room heating for
some area of the house, or some other fixed load which is
likely to remain on at full power for long periods, then
it needs to be on a dedicated circuit with no allowance
for diversity.

Subject of course to meeting other regs (JB remains
accessible, cable not routed through thermal insulation
or a warm area without uprating it, cable not too long
for voltage drop or earth fault loop impedance, etc).

--
Andrew Gabriel

"Bob Watkinson" wrote in message
...

"John" wrote in message
...
This may be a stupid question but hey, what the hell, I'll ask it anyway.

In almost every diagram I've ever seen regarding ring or radial circuits,
the cable comes into one socket and then on to the next, from there it
goes on to the next and so on, in a daisy-chain sort of arrangement.

Would the circuit layout shown below be acceptable? If I can put the
junction box where I want to, it'll sure save me hours of sweat,
frustration and tears )

TIA
John

Single
2.5T&E-----------DS-------JB----------FCU (300W load)
from CU (700W) ¦
(20A MCB) max ¦
¦
2.8kW load
It would be fine. Options to consider though are, 1.Use a fused connection
unit instead of a JB, 2. Bring a cable back from FCU to the MCB creating a
ring which will allow 30A instead of 20A and allow for future expansion

Thanks Bob. You raise some good points but they're exactly what I'm trying
to avoid ) The house will probably be completely rewired in two or three
years anyway (when we build an extension on the back) so I don't want to
have to go to all that extra trouble now if I don't need to.

The radial circuit (DS------FCU) already exists so I just want to lift the
one floorboard at each end of the room and tee-off the existing cable to
provide a new point for the new load. As long as that's an OK way of doing
things, it'll do me for now.

Thanks again,
John.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Single
2.5T&E-----------DS-------JB----------FCU (300W load)
from CU (700W) |
(20A MCB) max |
|
2.8kW load

That's better.

If it is a water heater over 20 litres (IIRC)

15 litres.

Also the floor area served by a 20 A radial circuit shouldn't exceed 50 m^2.

--
Andy

"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Single
2.5T&E-----------DS-------JB----------FCU (300W load)
from CU (700W) |
(20A MCB) max |
|
2.8kW load

That's better.

If it is a water heater over 20 litres (IIRC)

15 litres.

Also the floor area served by a 20 A radial circuit shouldn't exceed 50
m^2.

--
Andy

Thanks Andy and Andrew but I'm very puzzled. What have you done to my little
piece of ASCII art and why do you think it's better?? )

When I drew it (if that's what you can call it), I had the 2.5T&E, the DS,
the JB and the FCU all in a straight line, with an almost vertical line
going down from the JB to the 2.8kW load. When I look at it now, the first
two downward lines have moved to the left to be somewhere between the DS and
the JB and the third downward line - along with the "2.8kW load" - has moved
even further to the left and is now inbetween the 2.5T&E and the DS! How on
earth can that look better to you?

Barman, I'll have a pint of whatever these two good chaps are drinking
please )

Cheers,
John.

In article ,
"John" writes:
Thanks Andy and Andrew but I'm very puzzled. What have you done to my little
piece of ASCII art and why do you think it's better?? )

You are presumably using some proportional spaced font to
write and read articles. Since most people won't be using
the same font as you, most people won't see what you intended.
Use a fixed width font (e.g. courier) for Usenet, at least
when horizontal positioning in things like ASCII art, tables,
etc is expected to be readable by anyone else. Also a good
idea to avoid tabs (which wasn't a trap you fell into, but
people often do).

--
Andrew Gabriel

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"John" writes:
Thanks Andy and Andrew but I'm very puzzled. What have you done to my
little
piece of ASCII art and why do you think it's better?? )

You are presumably using some proportional spaced font to
write and read articles. Since most people won't be using
the same font as you, most people won't see what you intended.
Use a fixed width font (e.g. courier) for Usenet, at least
when horizontal positioning in things like ASCII art, tables,
etc is expected to be readable by anyone else. Also a good
idea to avoid tabs (which wasn't a trap you fell into, but
people often do).

--
Andrew Gabriel

Aha, it's all clear now ) I'm just using Outlook Express on the default
settings that are used when installing WinXP for the first time (which
appears to be Times New Roman for Usenet, although I do prefer Arial for
email). I've just looked in "View" "Text Size" and seen an option for
"Fixed" and I now understand!

Cheers mate,

John.

In article ,
John wrote:
I do prefer Arial

shudder

--
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

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 18:05:48 +0100,it is alleged that John Cartmell
spake thusly in uk.d-i-y:

In article ,
John wrote:
I do prefer Arial

shudder

Aww there are worse things.

Comic Sans anyone? g

fx=running very fast

--
There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.
- Ken Olson, President of DEC, 1977

In article t,
Chip wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 18:05:48 +0100,it is alleged that John Cartmell
spake thusly in uk.d-i-y:

In article ,
John wrote:
I do prefer Arial

shudder

Aww there are worse things.

But not produced by desecrating such a beautiful font like Helvetica.

Comic Sans anyone? g

It's OK. At least it does an everyday job of filling a gap in the market.
Arial just fools the unwary into accepting bad design.

fx=running very fast
duck! ;-)

--
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