On 27/05/15 08:16, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/05/2015 23:05, wrote:


bad connection. Radials suffer much worse from them than rings.

A ring has more connections so a bad one is more likely.
The effects are different.

Nurse! he's woken up! 👿

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 26/05/2015 23:05, wrote:


bad connection. Radials suffer much worse from them than rings.

A ring has more connections so a bad one is more likely.

Yes, but a ring continues to work fine when a bad connection happens.

The effects are different.

And rings handle a single bad connection fine.

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Don't have a break in the circuit, then. It's not like a vacuum cleaner
where the flex can get damaged in use.


But they do get breaks so that's a silly argument.

Do they? Not here. I install such things with care.

--
*Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how it remains so popular?*

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

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
You should be worried that every stupid/ignorant comment gets blamed on
you.

I couldn’t care less what terminal ****wits like you and him do.

Oh, but you do. Plenty of your posts prove just that.

--
*How does Moses make his tea? Hebrews it.*

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

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 26/05/2015 23:05, wrote:


bad connection. Radials suffer much worse from them than rings.

A ring has more connections so a bad one is more likely.
The effects are different.

and if there is a break in a radial circuit it is very obvious. Not so
in a ring.

A break in the earth circuit in a radial is going to be obvious? Maybe
only when it kills you.

The ECC is the thinnest wire so most likely to break. With a ring there
are two. Unlike a radial.

--
*I finally got my head together, now my body is falling apart.

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

On 27/05/2015 08:24, charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 26/05/2015 23:05, wrote:


bad connection. Radials suffer much worse from them than rings.

A ring has more connections so a bad one is more likely.
The effects are different.

and if there is a break in a radial circuit it is very obvious. Not so in a
ring.

What about a disconnected earth? No obvious symptom in either case - but
more likely on a radial.

TBH this question comes up from time to time, and there is no simple
"circuit type x is better because" type of answer - each has pros and cons.

Have a look at:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?..._circuit_types



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 27/05/15 10:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 26/05/2015 23:05, wrote:


bad connection. Radials suffer much worse from them than rings.

A ring has more connections so a bad one is more likely.
The effects are different.

and if there is a break in a radial circuit it is very obvious. Not so
in a ring.

A break in the earth circuit in a radial is going to be obvious? Maybe
only when it kills you.

Rings were good before RCDs because fundamentally most
faults-live-to-case - and we had metal cases then - gave a blown fuse.

RCDS will trip on faults to earth no matter how generated: there is less
requirement for a absolutely guqaranteed earth


The ECC is the thinnest wire so most likely to break.

Questionable logic. Which breaks more easily? - a human hair or a matchstick

With a ring there
are two. Unlike a radial.

Finally, a Fact.




--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
You should be worried that every stupid/ignorant comment gets blamed on
you.

I couldn't care less what terminal ****wits like you and him do.

Oh, but you do.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 26/05/2015 23:05, wrote:


bad connection. Radials suffer much worse from them than rings.

A ring has more connections so a bad one is more likely.
The effects are different.

and if there is a break in a radial circuit it is very obvious. Not so
in a ring.

A break in the earth circuit in a radial is going to be obvious? Maybe
only when it kills you.

The ECC is the thinnest wire

Yes.

so most likely to break.

But not necessarily the most likely to have seen
the screw holding it in stop holding it in.

With a ring there are two. Unlike a radial.

En el artículo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

Oh, but you do. Plenty of your posts prove just that.

He's a bot. Posts the same unimaginative old ****e every time.

RodBot: http://tinyurl.com/RodSpeedBot

--

On 27/05/2015 10:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Don't have a break in the circuit, then. It's not like a vacuum cleaner
where the flex can get damaged in use.


But they do get breaks so that's a silly argument.

Do they? Not here. I install such things with care.


Step one to a disaster.

On 27/05/2015 10:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 26/05/2015 23:05, wrote:


bad connection. Radials suffer much worse from them than rings.

A ring has more connections so a bad one is more likely.
The effects are different.

and if there is a break in a radial circuit it is very obvious. Not so
in a ring.

A break in the earth circuit in a radial is going to be obvious? Maybe
only when it kills you.

The ECC is the thinnest wire so most likely to break. With a ring there
are two. Unlike a radial.


I wouldn't make such statements without evidence.
The thin wire is more flexible so wont break so easy if it suffers movement.

Inspections probably find more earth faults because they show up in
tests while none working sockets get fixed before the tests.

On 27/05/2015 11:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/15 10:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 26/05/2015 23:05, wrote:


bad connection. Radials suffer much worse from them than rings.

A ring has more connections so a bad one is more likely.
The effects are different.

and if there is a break in a radial circuit it is very obvious. Not so
in a ring.

A break in the earth circuit in a radial is going to be obvious? Maybe
only when it kills you.

Rings were good before RCDs because fundamentally most
faults-live-to-case - and we had metal cases then - gave a blown fuse.

RCDS will trip on faults to earth no matter how generated: there is less
requirement for a absolutely guqaranteed earth


The ECC is the thinnest wire so most likely to break.

Questionable logic. Which breaks more easily? - a human hair or a
matchstick

With a ring there
are two. Unlike a radial.

Finally, a Fact.





ITYM there are supposed to be two, but there is noway the home owner
will know and its too expensive to have them tested properly every year
or five.

On 27/05/2015 10:32, Rod Speed wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 26/05/2015 23:05, wrote:


bad connection. Radials suffer much worse from them than rings.

A ring has more connections so a bad one is more likely.

Yes, but a ring continues to work fine when a bad connection happens.

And that is good because?


The effects are different.

And rings handle a single bad connection fine.

But they dont, they can overload because they are no longer a ring.
The average user can't know if its faulty or if they are overloading it
because of that fault.
Just because something continues to work when faulty doesn't mean its a
good thing, in the majority of cases you want to know its gone faulty.
If you want a ring to continue working with the fault you need different
cable or a different breaker.

It would be nice if something told you it had broken so you can get it
fixed, I used to do this with fault tolerant computer systems all the
time, they were useless if you didn't fix them before the next fault
took them down.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The ECC is the thinnest wire so most likely to break.

Questionable logic. Which breaks more easily? - a human hair or a
matchstick

And your 'logic' doesn't take the type of material into account?

--
*Windows will never cease *

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

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 27/05/2015 10:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Don't have a break in the circuit, then. It's not like a vacuum cleaner
where the flex can get damaged in use.


But they do get breaks so that's a silly argument.

Do they? Not here. I install such things with care.


Step one to a disaster.

Oh I have the proof that it works. How many houses have you re-wired,
dennis?

And I take it you have plenty experience of broken circuits?

The faults like this I've come across almost 100% come down to poor
workmanship.

--
*Rehab is for quitters

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

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
The ECC is the thinnest wire so most likely to break. With a ring there
are two. Unlike a radial.


I wouldn't make such statements without evidence. The thin wire is more
flexible so wont break so easy if it suffers movement.

Carry on. You're certainly proving you have no experience of such things.

Tell me, dennis, just why would there be any 'movement' in any part of a
properly installed final ring circuit?

--
*My designated driver drove me to drink

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

On 27/05/2015 13:25, dennis@home wrote:
On 27/05/2015 10:32, Rod Speed wrote:

Yes, but a ring continues to work fine when a bad connection happens.

And that is good because?

Just why are you rising to the bait?





And rings handle a single bad connection fine.

But they dont, they can overload because they are no longer a ring.
The average user can't know if its faulty or if they are overloading it
because of that fault.
Just because something continues to work when faulty doesn't mean its a
good thing, in the majority of cases you want to know its gone faulty.
If you want a ring to continue working with the fault you need different
cable or a different breaker.

I did wonder whether the cable is overspecified to allow for this. There
must be loads of ring mains with breaks or dodgy connections, but the
number of electrical fires is fairly small.



It would be nice if something told you it had broken so you can get it
fixed, I used to do this with fault tolerant computer systems all the
time, they were useless if you didn't fix them before the next fault
took them down.

On 27/05/15 13:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The ECC is the thinnest wire so most likely to break.

Questionable logic. Which breaks more easily? - a human hair or a
matchstick

And your 'logic' doesn't take the type of material into account?

which breaks more easily a human hair or a chicken feather quill?

same material


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/15 13:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The ECC is the thinnest wire so most likely to break.

Questionable logic. Which breaks more easily? - a human hair or a
matchstick

And your 'logic' doesn't take the type of material into account?

which breaks more easily a human hair or a chicken feather quill?

same material

As in both animal products?

You get more nutty by the day.

--
*You! Off my planet!

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

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...

ITYM there are supposed to be two, but there is noway the home owner will
know and its too expensive to have them tested properly every year or
five.

http://martindale-electric.co.uk/mar...tor-p-285.html

Under £50


--
Adam

On 27/05/2015 17:54, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...

ITYM there are supposed to be two, but there is noway the home owner
will know and its too expensive to have them tested properly every
year or five.

http://martindale-electric.co.uk/mar...tor-p-285.html


Under £50



How does that know the ring is broken?
It would test a radial but would only partly test a ring and can't
identify a missing connection between power points.

On 27/05/2015 14:40, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/15 13:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The ECC is the thinnest wire so most likely to break.

Questionable logic. Which breaks more easily? - a human hair or a
matchstick

And your 'logic' doesn't take the type of material into account?

which breaks more easily a human hair or a chicken feather quill?

same material

As in both animal products?

You get more nutty by the day.


As in the same material as are finger nails and rhino horn.

On 27/05/2015 14:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
The ECC is the thinnest wire so most likely to break. With a ring there
are two. Unlike a radial.


I wouldn't make such statements without evidence. The thin wire is more
flexible so wont break so easy if it suffers movement.

Carry on. You're certainly proving you have no experience of such things.

Tell me, dennis, just why would there be any 'movement' in any part of a
properly installed final ring circuit?


Why do faults occur in electrical circuits if there is no movement?

On 27/05/2015 14:10, GB wrote:


I did wonder whether the cable is overspecified to allow for this.

No it isn't in a 2.5 mm2 circuit.

There must be loads of ring mains with breaks or dodgy connections,
but the number of electrical fires is fairly small.

They are small numbers in all the modern wiring systems.
Radials don't catch fire often either.

On 27/05/2015 20:00, dennis@home wrote:
On 27/05/2015 14:10, GB wrote:


I did wonder whether the cable is overspecified to allow for this.

No it isn't in a 2.5 mm2 circuit.


I was merely inferring from the small number of fires that the 2.5 mm2
cable is probably more than needed in most circumstances. For example,
cable is more likely to overheat if the house is hot, but users are less
likely to have a high power appliance like an electric fire switched on
when the weather is hot. That sort of thing.

In any case, who would design a system without a sizeable safety factor
built in?

There must be loads of ring mains with breaks or dodgy connections,
but the number of electrical fires is fairly small.

They are small numbers in all the modern wiring systems.
Radials don't catch fire often either.

On 27/05/2015 19:56, dennis@home wrote:
On 27/05/2015 14:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Tell me, dennis, just why would there be any 'movement' in any part of a
properly installed final ring circuit?


Why do faults occur in electrical circuits if there is no movement?

There must be thermal expansion and contraction, surely?

On 27/05/2015 20:16, GB wrote:
On 27/05/2015 20:00, dennis@home wrote:
On 27/05/2015 14:10, GB wrote:


I did wonder whether the cable is overspecified to allow for this.

No it isn't in a 2.5 mm2 circuit.


I was merely inferring from the small number of fires that the 2.5 mm2
cable is probably more than needed in most circumstances. For example,
cable is more likely to overheat if the house is hot, but users are less
likely to have a high power appliance like an electric fire switched on
when the weather is hot. That sort of thing.

In any case, who would design a system without a sizeable safety factor
built in?

Apparently there are a set of rules you have to follow to ensure you
don't damage a ring.

Like not plugging two 3k heaters in at the same end of the ring.

All these rules are well known and followed by all users.
If users choose to break the rules then its their fault and not the
system designers.

dennis@home wrote:
On 27/05/2015 14:10, GB wrote:

I did wonder whether the cable is overspecified to allow for this.

No it isn't in a 2.5 mm2 circuit.

its wholly able to support real life ring loads. Running hotter merely reduces its service life from near infinity.


There must be loads of ring mains with breaks or dodgy connections,
but the number of electrical fires is fairly small.

They are small numbers in all the modern wiring systems.
Radials don't catch fire often either.

there are lots of fires of electrical origin


dennis@home wrote:

Apparently there are a set of rules you have to follow to ensure you
don't damage a ring.

Like not plugging two 3k heaters in at the same end of the ring.

All these rules are well known and followed by all users.
If users choose to break the rules then its their fault and not the
system designers.


all cobblers of course.


NT

"GB" wrote in message
...


I did wonder whether the cable is overspecified to allow for this. There
must be loads of ring mains with breaks or dodgy connections, but the
number of electrical fires is fairly small.


Most ring circuits are underloaded. If there is a bad connection at a socket
then the socket usually packs up before the wiring (there may be some small
localised wire damage).

The minimum Iz of the cable for a ring is 20A. That's the maximum a double
socket can supply without burning out.


--
Adam

On 27/05/2015 20:50, wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 27/05/2015 14:10, GB wrote:

I did wonder whether the cable is overspecified to allow for this.

No it isn't in a 2.5 mm2 circuit.

its wholly able to support real life ring loads. Running hotter merely reduces its service life from near infinity.


There must be loads of ring mains with breaks or dodgy connections,
but the number of electrical fires is fairly small.

They are small numbers in all the modern wiring systems.
Radials don't catch fire often either.

there are lots of fires of electrical origin

There aren't lots of fires so there can't be lots of electrical fires.
Most would be from appliances and not the fixed wiring anyway.

Fires are about 50% less in number than 10 years ago (in houses).

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 27/05/2015 10:32, Rod Speed wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 26/05/2015 23:05, wrote:


bad connection. Radials suffer much worse from them than rings.

A ring has more connections so a bad one is more likely.

Yes, but a ring continues to work fine when a bad connection happens.

And that is good because?


The effects are different.

And rings handle a single bad connection fine.

But they dont, they can overload because they are no longer a ring.
The average user can't know if its faulty or if they are overloading it
because of that fault.
Just because something continues to work when faulty doesn't mean its a
good thing, in the majority of cases you want to know its gone faulty.
If you want a ring to continue working with the fault you need different
cable or a different breaker.

It would be nice if something told you it had broken so you can get it
fixed, I used to do this with fault tolerant computer systems all the
time, they were useless if you didn't fix them before the next fault took
them down.

In practice you need to have two bad connections for the ring
to stop working and that is no worse than a spur failing with one.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 27/05/2015 10:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Don't have a break in the circuit, then. It's not like a vacuum cleaner
where the flex can get damaged in use.


But they do get breaks so that's a silly argument.

Do they? Not here. I install such things with care.


Step one to a disaster.

Oh I have the proof that it works. How many houses have you re-wired,
dennis?

And I take it you have plenty experience of broken circuits?

The faults like this I've come across almost 100% come down to poor
workmanship.

....by so-called professionals.
--
bert

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 27/05/2015 14:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
The ECC is the thinnest wire so most likely to break. With a ring there
are two. Unlike a radial.


I wouldn't make such statements without evidence. The thin wire is more
flexible so wont break so easy if it suffers movement.

Carry on. You're certainly proving you have no experience of such things.

Tell me, dennis, just why would there be any 'movement' in any part of a
properly installed final ring circuit?


Why do faults occur in electrical circuits if there is no movement?

The way the wires are attached is usually the problem.

On Wednesday, 27 May 2015 21:03:28 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
"GB" wrote in message
...


I did wonder whether the cable is overspecified to allow for this. There
must be loads of ring mains with breaks or dodgy connections, but the
number of electrical fires is fairly small.


Most ring circuits are underloaded. If there is a bad connection at a socket
then the socket usually packs up before the wiring (there may be some small
localised wire damage).

The minimum Iz of the cable for a ring is 20A. That's the maximum a double
socket can supply without burning out.

No, its the maximum current a double socket is rated to provide continuously without getting hot. It takes more to burn it out.


NT

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 27/05/2015 14:10, GB wrote:


I did wonder whether the cable is overspecified to allow for this.

No it isn't in a 2.5 mm2 circuit.

It is actually, essentially because very few rings have
anything like 13A going thru them for long and so
even if the ring is in fact electrically two spurs due to
a fault, that doesn’t see the wire the 13A is going
thru catch fire.

There must be loads of ring mains with breaks or dodgy connections, but
the number of electrical fires is fairly small.

They are small numbers in all the modern wiring systems.
Radials don't catch fire often either.

Because the insulation has been designed to ensure that it
doesn’t even when the wire is overloaded in a theoretical sense.

On Wednesday, 27 May 2015 21:04:25 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 27/05/2015 20:50, nt wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 27/05/2015 14:10, GB wrote:

I did wonder whether the cable is overspecified to allow for this.

No it isn't in a 2.5 mm2 circuit.

its wholly able to support real life ring loads. Running hotter merely reduces its service life from near infinity.


There must be loads of ring mains with breaks or dodgy connections,
but the number of electrical fires is fairly small.

They are small numbers in all the modern wiring systems.
Radials don't catch fire often either.

there are lots of fires of electrical origin

There aren't lots of fires so there can't be lots of electrical fires.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/410287/Fire_Statistics_Great_Britain_2013-14___PDF_Version_.pdf

'Fire and Rescue Services in Great Britain attended 212,500 fires in 2013-14'
'258 deaths in dwellings in 2013-14'

% of domestic fires due to:
Electrical distribution 12%
Space heating 4%
Other electrical 12%


NT

GB wrote:
If there is a break in the circuit, all the sockets may still work. The
circuit breaker won't trip. Yet one arm of the ring is taking all the
load that's meant to be divided between the two. Isn't that going to
lead to overheating?

That's why one of the installation/periodic review tests is to test ring
continuity - you test the continuity going into one end of the ring and
coming out of the other end of the ring.

I've got new tenants moving into my shop so have done my usual intra-tenant
testing, and still passes fine after being re-wired in 1997. I did my Mum's
house a few years ago which was rewired in the 1970s, also perfectly happy.
How is a cable likely to break is it never moves?

jgh

On 27/05/2015 21:03, ARW wrote:
"GB" wrote in message
...


I did wonder whether the cable is overspecified to allow for this.
There must be loads of ring mains with breaks or dodgy connections,
but the number of electrical fires is fairly small.


Most ring circuits are underloaded. If there is a bad connection at a
socket then the socket usually packs up before the wiring (there may be
some small localised wire damage).
The minimum Iz of the cable for a ring is 20A. That's the maximum a
double socket can supply without burning out.

Let me ask a question to make sure I have understood correctly. A ring
main takes 30A. Any more and the circuit breaker trips. If there are no
glitches in the wiring that is carried over two cables with a minimum
current carrying capacity of 20A each, ie 40A total? So, there is a bit
of a safety margin.

I leant an extension lead to a very experienced builder working in my
house stripping some wallpaper with a steamer. I just left him to it. 30
minutes later the power circuit failed. The steamer was well within the
power rating of the extension lead, but only if it was uncoiled, which
the builder had not done. The whole thing had melted, not just the cable
reel but the insulation off the wires. The insulation was the
consistency of custard. It's a bit frightening, actually.

On 27/05/2015 22:20, wrote:
GB wrote:
If there is a break in the circuit, all the sockets may still work. The
circuit breaker won't trip. Yet one arm of the ring is taking all the
load that's meant to be divided between the two. Isn't that going to
lead to overheating?

That's why one of the installation/periodic review tests is to test ring
continuity - you test the continuity going into one end of the ring and
coming out of the other end of the ring.

I've got new tenants moving into my shop so have done my usual intra-tenant
testing, and still passes fine after being re-wired in 1997. I did my Mum's
house a few years ago which was rewired in the 1970s, also perfectly happy.

We moved in here in 1998, and it was all rewired then. Nobody has tested
anything since then, I am afraid. I am no different in this respect than
any of the other tens of millions of householders in the UK, I expect.


How is a cable likely to break is it never moves?

At the joins? That reminds me that we have a loose power point in the
garage that I ought to fix back.



jgh