On 31/05/2015 13:06, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
news:556ae132$0$61678$b1db1813
I have loads of building related horror stories being friends with the
head of building control.

And was this friend the one that told you that you needed planning
permission to install two satellite dishes?


Why would I want two dishes?
I haven't had two dishes for a decade or more.

On 31/05/2015 15:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
From the guy that said a socket would catch fire if it passed anything
over 20A.

If you bypassed the plug fuse and loaded up the socket to 20A continuous
I'd not be surprised if it eventually caught fire or melted. Or the plug
would, of course.

You may not even need to bypass the fuse - while there is a statistical
variation in fuses, some examples of the 13A plug fuse may pass 20.4A
indefinitely.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 31/05/2015 13:37, wrote:
On Sunday, 31 May 2015 11:18:47 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
nt wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 30 May 2015 23:02:12 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
nt wrote in message
...


Its common for 13A loads to draw well above 13A short term.

I am sure that a 13A load is a 13A load.

Then you've got something to learn about heating elements and
motors

Its the same mentality as people that think a 3A fuse pops at
3.0001A insantly.


Maybe you should learn the difference between a short term overload
and an inrush current.

The point dear chap is that there are circumstances under which
motors draw a good deal more than their rated current, eg when
overloaded, stalled, bearings misbehaving etc.

This is why motors of that sort typically have additional protection
from a direct online starter with thermal current limitation. As with
any electrical appliance, if it needs overload protection, then its the
responsibility of the appliance manufacturer to include it, and not of
the electrical circuit designer to provide it. The circuit protection is
there to protect the user and the circuit itself (and hence the
property), but not the appliance.

The assertion that 13A
loads always draw 13A is just naive, ditto the notion that if you
draw anything over 20A from a double socket it catches fire.

As Adam said though, its important to distinguish between inrunsh
current, fault current, and failure mode current. Being sloppy with
terminology only adds confusion to discussion.

I've seen so many criticisms of ring circuits and they always come
down to failing to grasp quite basic concepts. Things like the
difference between rated current and actual ability, complete failure
to grasp what effect exceeding continuous current rating has, and in
Mr. Lovegrove's case, failing to notice that his criticisms of rings
are in fact advantages compared to radials.


NT



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 31/05/2015 16:06, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2015 12:54, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 31/05/2015 09:40, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 30/05/2015 22:11, John Rumm wrote:

So a user has to know what design decisions have been made so he can
avoid doing something that compromises them.

The user will have to trust that the designer and installer had a
clue,
or else they might risk having shorter than expected service life
from
their cable or sockets.

But the users doesn't know the rules and may well put several high
demand loads on for days at a time, say heaters and dehumidifiers
after a flood as you appear to think no one would ever have a reason
to do so.

Not 9kW.




I have seen about 15kW used like that. No idea what they were plugged
into. 5 or 6 fan heaters and the windows open to get rid of the moist
air.

They were using a dehumidifier 3 hours ago.


They didn't have easy access to dehumidifiers 30 years ago. They did
have spurs with more than one socket on them though so they could have
been on a spur for all you know. That would have been fine though as it
was permitted in the regs.

Since a spur serving multiple sockets would need to be fused, you are
correct.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 31/05/2015 16:25, John Rumm wrote:
On 31/05/2015 16:06, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2015 12:54, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 31/05/2015 09:40, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 30/05/2015 22:11, John Rumm wrote:

So a user has to know what design decisions have been made so he
can
avoid doing something that compromises them.

The user will have to trust that the designer and installer had a
clue,
or else they might risk having shorter than expected service life
from
their cable or sockets.

But the users doesn't know the rules and may well put several high
demand loads on for days at a time, say heaters and dehumidifiers
after a flood as you appear to think no one would ever have a reason
to do so.

Not 9kW.




I have seen about 15kW used like that. No idea what they were plugged
into. 5 or 6 fan heaters and the windows open to get rid of the moist
air.

They were using a dehumidifier 3 hours ago.


They didn't have easy access to dehumidifiers 30 years ago. They did
have spurs with more than one socket on them though so they could have
been on a spur for all you know. That would have been fine though as it
was permitted in the regs.

Since a spur serving multiple sockets would need to be fused, you are
correct.



It didn't need to be thirty years ago.
It is a requirement made since then in an attempt to make rings *safer*.
I expect they will want to reduce the breaker to 20A soon.

On 31/05/15 16:07, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2015 13:06, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
news:556ae132$0$61678$b1db1813
I have loads of building related horror stories being friends with the
head of building control.

And was this friend the one that told you that you needed planning
permission to install two satellite dishes?


Why would I want two dishes?
I haven't had two dishes for a decade or more.


Not even for the porridge?


--
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 31/05/2015 13:06, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
news:556ae132$0$61678$b1db1813
I have loads of building related horror stories being friends with the
head of building control.

And was this friend the one that told you that you needed planning
permission to install two satellite dishes?


Why would I want two dishes?
I haven't had two dishes for a decade or more.


The Google streetview of your house suggests otherwise.

Maybe Google photoshopped on the second dish for fun.


--
Adam

wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 31 May 2015 14:55:28 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
nt wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 31 May 2015 11:18:47 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
nt wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 30 May 2015 23:02:12 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
nt wrote in message
...


Its common for 13A loads to draw well above 13A short term.

I am sure that a 13A load is a 13A load.

Then you've got something to learn about heating elements and motors

Its the same mentality as people that think a 3A fuse pops at 3.0001A
insantly.


Maybe you should learn the difference between a short term overload and
an
inrush current.

The point dear chap is that there are circumstances under which motors
draw
a good deal more than their rated current, eg when overloaded, stalled,
bearings misbehaving etc. The assertion that 13A loads always draw 13A is
just naive, ditto the notion that if you draw anything over 20A from a
double socket it catches fire.

I've seen so many criticisms of ring circuits and they always come down
to
failing to grasp quite basic concepts. Things like the difference between
rated current and actual ability, complete failure to grasp what effect
exceeding continuous current rating has, and in Mr. Lovegrove's case,
failing to notice that his criticisms of rings are in fact advantages
compared to radials.



I know far more about electrical installations than you.

Go **** yourself

From the guy that said a socket would catch fire if it passed anything
over 20A.



If you want to get technical about it then look at the posts in the thread.
I never said that.

You thick ****.

--
Adam

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Notice you've missed the point that houses these days have usually got
some form of built in heating. And usually more than one ring. The only
place most houses use a lot of plugged in power is in the kitchen, and
sensible people fit a separate ring, or even two, there.

There is no point to miss.
You still think rings are safe because people don't do things that
compromise them. You haven't shown that they can't be compromised.

History proves they can't be 'compromised' whatever you mean by that.

If they were unsound in principle, they'd have been outlawed years ago.
Like you should have been.

--
*My dog can lick anyone

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

On 31/05/2015 16:58, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 31/05/2015 13:06, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
news:556ae132$0$61678$b1db1813
I have loads of building related horror stories being friends with the
head of building control.

And was this friend the one that told you that you needed planning
permission to install two satellite dishes?


Why would I want two dishes?
I haven't had two dishes for a decade or more.


The Google streetview of your house suggests otherwise.

Maybe Google photoshopped on the second dish for fun.



Maybe you are stupid enough to think its my house?

On 31/05/2015 18:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Notice you've missed the point that houses these days have usually got
some form of built in heating. And usually more than one ring. The only
place most houses use a lot of plugged in power is in the kitchen, and
sensible people fit a separate ring, or even two, there.

There is no point to miss.
You still think rings are safe because people don't do things that
compromise them. You haven't shown that they can't be compromised.

History proves they can't be 'compromised' whatever you mean by that.

If they were unsound in principle, they'd have been outlawed years ago.

More and more bits of it have been/ are being outlawed in each new
edition of the regs.

Like you should have been.


Is that your normal answer when you have lost?

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
If they were unsound in principle, they'd have been outlawed years ago.

More and more bits of it have been/ are being outlawed in each new
edition of the regs.

There have been minor revisions. None were retrospective.

Like you should have been.


Is that your normal answer when you have lost?

I take it you don't have rings in your house since you consider them such
a hazard?
Or are you simply full of ****?

--
*Plagiarism saves time *

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

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 31/05/2015 16:58, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 31/05/2015 13:06, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
news:556ae132$0$61678$b1db1813
I have loads of building related horror stories being friends with the
head of building control.

And was this friend the one that told you that you needed planning
permission to install two satellite dishes?


Why would I want two dishes?
I haven't had two dishes for a decade or more.


The Google streetview of your house suggests otherwise.

Maybe Google photoshopped on the second dish for fun.



Maybe you are stupid enough to think its my house?



It certainly was your house.

Have you moved?:-)

Now if you have moved it would not cost me much to find your new address.

Your call.

I am smarter than you.


--
Adam

On 31/05/2015 16:37, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2015 16:25, John Rumm wrote:
On 31/05/2015 16:06, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2015 12:54, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 31/05/2015 09:40, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 30/05/2015 22:11, John Rumm wrote:

So a user has to know what design decisions have been made so he
can
avoid doing something that compromises them.

The user will have to trust that the designer and installer had a
clue,
or else they might risk having shorter than expected service life
from
their cable or sockets.

But the users doesn't know the rules and may well put several high
demand loads on for days at a time, say heaters and dehumidifiers
after a flood as you appear to think no one would ever have a reason
to do so.

Not 9kW.




I have seen about 15kW used like that. No idea what they were plugged
into. 5 or 6 fan heaters and the windows open to get rid of the moist
air.

They were using a dehumidifier 3 hours ago.


They didn't have easy access to dehumidifiers 30 years ago. They did
have spurs with more than one socket on them though so they could have
been on a spur for all you know. That would have been fine though as it
was permitted in the regs.

Since a spur serving multiple sockets would need to be fused, you are
correct.



It didn't need to be thirty years ago.

WTF has that got to do with anything? Concentrate on now, and don't tit
about with straw men.

There are loads of practices that were standard in the past. that we
consider less safe than practices now. Will you be arguing that lighting
circuits are unsafe now because in the past (pre 1966) they were not
earthed?

It is a requirement made since then in an attempt to make rings *safer*.

Nothing to do with rings. You can have spurs from a backbone radial as
well.

However I am glad you appreciate that the design standards are in
general improving.

I expect they will want to reduce the breaker to 20A soon.

Can't think of any realistic justification for that. You would have to
deprecate 20A radials at the same time.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 31/05/2015 16:58, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 31/05/2015 13:06, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
news:556ae132$0$61678$b1db1813
I have loads of building related horror stories being friends with the
head of building control.

And was this friend the one that told you that you needed planning
permission to install two satellite dishes?


Why would I want two dishes?
I haven't had two dishes for a decade or more.


The Google streetview of your house suggests otherwise.

Maybe Google photoshopped on the second dish for fun.



Maybe you are stupid enough to think its my house?




Whoops. I just checked.

You do still live at DY4 7QL.


--
Adam

On 31/05/2015 19:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
If they were unsound in principle, they'd have been outlawed years ago.

More and more bits of it have been/ are being outlawed in each new
edition of the regs.

There have been minor revisions. None were retrospective.

The revisions never are AFAICS.
However the fact that they have revised them shows they started life
with problems and they still have problems.


Like you should have been.


Is that your normal answer when you have lost?

I take it you don't have rings in your house since you consider them such
a hazard?

I have rings, I also know what not to do because of their design faults.
In fact this house is so old it still has rewireable fuses and I haven't
got round to replacing the box.

Or are you simply full of ****?

On 31/05/2015 19:42, John Rumm wrote:
On 31/05/2015 16:37, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2015 16:25, John Rumm wrote:
On 31/05/2015 16:06, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2015 12:54, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 31/05/2015 09:40, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 30/05/2015 22:11, John Rumm wrote:

So a user has to know what design decisions have been made so he
can
avoid doing something that compromises them.

The user will have to trust that the designer and installer had a
clue,
or else they might risk having shorter than expected service life
from
their cable or sockets.

But the users doesn't know the rules and may well put several high
demand loads on for days at a time, say heaters and dehumidifiers
after a flood as you appear to think no one would ever have a
reason
to do so.

Not 9kW.




I have seen about 15kW used like that. No idea what they were plugged
into. 5 or 6 fan heaters and the windows open to get rid of the moist
air.

They were using a dehumidifier 3 hours ago.


They didn't have easy access to dehumidifiers 30 years ago. They did
have spurs with more than one socket on them though so they could have
been on a spur for all you know. That would have been fine though as it
was permitted in the regs.

Since a spur serving multiple sockets would need to be fused, you are
correct.



It didn't need to be thirty years ago.

WTF has that got to do with anything? Concentrate on now, and don't tit
about with straw men.

You don't know how old a ring circuit is yet you claim its not a problem.


There are loads of practices that were standard in the past. that we
consider less safe than practices now. Will you be arguing that lighting
circuits are unsafe now because in the past (pre 1966) they were not
earthed?

Don't be silly, that's exactly the opposite of what I am arguing about.


It is a requirement made since then in an attempt to make rings *safer*.

Nothing to do with rings. You can have spurs from a backbone radial as
well.

So?
We can argue about those if you want but what was the last time you saw one?


However I am glad you appreciate that the design standards are in
general improving.

I expect they will want to reduce the breaker to 20A soon.

Can't think of any realistic justification for that. You would have to
deprecate 20A radials at the same time.

Why?

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 31/05/2015 11:40, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
The UK 13 amp ring had been around for over 60 years. At one point -
long
before central heating was the norm - it was also common to have just
one
ring for the entire house.


Back in the days when a heater would have cost a weeks wages and not £10
in asda.
People back then wouldn't have had more than one or two heaters to use.

Notice you've missed the point that houses these days have usually got
some form of built in heating. And usually more than one ring. The only
place most houses use a lot of plugged in power is in the kitchen, and
sensible people fit a separate ring, or even two, there.

There is no point to miss.

You still think rings are safe because people don't do things that
compromise them.

No, we know that rings are safe regardless of what people do with them.

You haven't shown that they can't be compromised

No one ever said that they can't be abused. The point
is that a within spec ring handles that abuse fine.

as you can't show that despite Rod supporting you.

You may as well say they can have a radial with 2.5 mm cable and a 40A
breaker as they are only going to plug a few phone chargers in it.
Its safe because they aren't going to overload it according to your logic.

Safe even when they do abuse a within spec ring.

You also think you can make it safer by having more than one of them.

It clearly is less likely to be abused if there is more than one of them.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 31/05/2015 12:54, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 31/05/2015 09:40, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 30/05/2015 22:11, John Rumm wrote:

So a user has to know what design decisions have been made so he can
avoid doing something that compromises them.

The user will have to trust that the designer and installer had a
clue,
or else they might risk having shorter than expected service life
from
their cable or sockets.

But the users doesn't know the rules and may well put several high
demand loads on for days at a time, say heaters and dehumidifiers
after a flood as you appear to think no one would ever have a reason
to do so.

Not 9kW.




I have seen about 15kW used like that. No idea what they were plugged
into. 5 or 6 fan heaters and the windows open to get rid of the moist
air.

They were using a dehumidifier 3 hours ago.

They didn't have easy access to dehumidifiers 30 years ago.

They did actually.

They did have spurs with more than one socket on them though so they could
have been on a spur for all you know. That would have been fine though as
it was permitted in the regs.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 31/05/2015 19:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
If they were unsound in principle, they'd have been outlawed years ago.

More and more bits of it have been/ are being outlawed in each new
edition of the regs.

There have been minor revisions. None were retrospective.

The revisions never are AFAICS.
However the fact that they have revised them shows they started life with
problems and they still have problems.

It mostly shows that there are better ways of doing things now.

Most obviously with earth being added to lighting circuits etc.

Like you should have been.

Is that your normal answer when you have lost?

I take it you don't have rings in your house since you consider them such
a hazard?

I have rings, I also know what not to do because of their design faults.
In fact this house is so old it still has rewireable fuses and I haven't
got round to replacing the box.

Or are you simply full of ****?

On 31/05/2015 20:07, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2015 19:42, John Rumm wrote:
On 31/05/2015 16:37, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2015 16:25, John Rumm wrote:
On 31/05/2015 16:06, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2015 12:54, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 31/05/2015 09:40, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 30/05/2015 22:11, John Rumm wrote:

So a user has to know what design decisions have been made so he
can
avoid doing something that compromises them.

The user will have to trust that the designer and installer had a
clue,
or else they might risk having shorter than expected service life
from
their cable or sockets.

But the users doesn't know the rules and may well put several high
demand loads on for days at a time, say heaters and dehumidifiers
after a flood as you appear to think no one would ever have a
reason
to do so.

Not 9kW.




I have seen about 15kW used like that. No idea what they were
plugged
into. 5 or 6 fan heaters and the windows open to get rid of the
moist
air.

They were using a dehumidifier 3 hours ago.


They didn't have easy access to dehumidifiers 30 years ago. They did
have spurs with more than one socket on them though so they could have
been on a spur for all you know. That would have been fine though
as it
was permitted in the regs.

Since a spur serving multiple sockets would need to be fused, you are
correct.



It didn't need to be thirty years ago.

WTF has that got to do with anything? Concentrate on now, and don't tit
about with straw men.

You don't know how old a ring circuit is yet you claim its not a problem.

Ah so now we are extending an argument to absurdity huh?

If you have a ancient electrical system where practices as you described
were common, then you probably have plenty of other things to worry
about, not least you won't have enough sockets to go plugging in daft
loads in one room.

Yes den, is you have crap electrical system that is 60 years old, a user
may well do something to cause it damage just by farting near it.

None of this has any relevance on modern designs and practices.

There are loads of practices that were standard in the past. that we
consider less safe than practices now. Will you be arguing that lighting
circuits are unsafe now because in the past (pre 1966) they were not
earthed?

Don't be silly, that's exactly the opposite of what I am arguing about.

I think you have lost track of what you *are* arguing.

It is a requirement made since then in an attempt to make rings *safer*.

Nothing to do with rings. You can have spurs from a backbone radial as
well.

So?

I was highlighting that your logic was flawed (i.e. the change in
practice was to make spurs safer, not rings).

You seem to now be agreeing.

We can argue about those if you want but what was the last time you saw
one?

What a backbone radial? A couple of years ago on a rewire of a '30s
bungalow with loft conversion.

However I am glad you appreciate that the design standards are in
general improving.

I expect they will want to reduce the breaker to 20A soon.

Can't think of any realistic justification for that. You would have to
deprecate 20A radials at the same time.

Why?

By application of your argument...

You are claiming that a ring circuit is a flawed design because you can
place a high sustained load at one end of it, and as a result overload
the cable making up the short leg of the ring. Exactly the same
situation would apply with a radial - cable de-rated to 20, protected at
20, and a sustained 26A load on it.

Unless you have some ground breaking new research to highlight on this
topic, can we stop now since we have done this before?



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 31/05/2015 19:57, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 31/05/2015 16:58, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 31/05/2015 13:06, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
news:556ae132$0$61678$b1db1813
I have loads of building related horror stories being friends with
the
head of building control.

And was this friend the one that told you that you needed planning
permission to install two satellite dishes?


Why would I want two dishes?
I haven't had two dishes for a decade or more.


The Google streetview of your house suggests otherwise.

Maybe Google photoshopped on the second dish for fun.



Maybe you are stupid enough to think its my house?




Whoops. I just checked.

You do still live at DY4 7QL.

That second satellite dish was still there on the 2012 photo... wonder
if these are new EU decades?


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I take it you don't have rings in your house since you consider them
such a hazard?

I have rings, I also know what not to do because of their design faults.

You live on your own, then? Figures.

In fact this house is so old it still has rewireable fuses and I haven't
got round to replacing the box.

So even the basic wiring almost certainly doesn't match current regs.

I'd suggest you remove the moat in your eye before worrying about the ones
in others.

Or are you simply full of ****?

As the above still applies.

--
*Taxation WITH representation ain't much fun, either.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I take it you don't have rings in your house since you consider them
such a hazard?

I have rings, I also know what not to do because of their design faults.

You live on your own, then? Figures.

In fact this house is so old it still has rewireable fuses and I haven't
got round to replacing the box.

So even the basic wiring almost certainly doesn't match current regs.

I'd suggest you remove the moat in your eye

Its unlikely that he has enough tears to fill one
of those even after the worst of your insults.

before worrying about the ones in others.

On 31/05/2015 23:44, John Rumm wrote:


Unless you have some ground breaking new research to highlight on this
topic, can we stop now since we have done this before?





And you still haven't shown that you can't overload bits of a ring, you
just claim people don't do it which is another thing entirely.
You are correct about it getting boring though and its attracting Rod.

/You are correct about it getting boring though and its attracting Rod. /q

Yes, a lack of fresh air does that to my tomato plants ......

Jim K

On Sunday, 31 May 2015 15:56:10 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
nt wrote:
From the guy that said a socket would catch fire if it passed anything
over 20A.

If you bypassed the plug fuse and loaded up the socket to 20A continuous
I'd not be surprised if it eventually caught fire or melted. Or the plug
would, of course.

The 20A rating applies across the 2 sockets in a double socket, each is rated 13A.


NT

On Sunday, 31 May 2015 16:17:45 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 31/05/2015 13:37, nt wrote:
On Sunday, 31 May 2015 11:18:47 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
nt wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 30 May 2015 23:02:12 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
nt wrote in message
...


Its common for 13A loads to draw well above 13A short term.

I am sure that a 13A load is a 13A load.

Then you've got something to learn about heating elements and
motors

Its the same mentality as people that think a 3A fuse pops at
3.0001A insantly.


Maybe you should learn the difference between a short term overload
and an inrush current.

The point dear chap is that there are circumstances under which
motors draw a good deal more than their rated current, eg when
overloaded, stalled, bearings misbehaving etc.

This is why motors of that sort typically have additional protection
from a direct online starter with thermal current limitation. As with
any electrical appliance, if it needs overload protection, then its the
responsibility of the appliance manufacturer to include it, and not of
the electrical circuit designer to provide it. The circuit protection is
there to protect the user and the circuit itself (and hence the
property), but not the appliance.

Plate ratings are nominal, appliances don't always follow that rating IRL, and many motors are designed to keep working happily at higher current draw. And heating element faults resulting in higher current draw than rated are widespread.


The assertion that 13A
loads always draw 13A is just naive, ditto the notion that if you
draw anything over 20A from a double socket it catches fire.

As Adam said though, its important to distinguish between inrunsh
current, fault current, and failure mode current. Being sloppy with
terminology only adds confusion to discussion.

I was simply pointing out that what he said was factually wrong.


NT

On Sunday, 31 May 2015 18:39:28 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Notice you've missed the point that houses these days have usually got
some form of built in heating. And usually more than one ring. The only
place most houses use a lot of plugged in power is in the kitchen, and
sensible people fit a separate ring, or even two, there.

There is no point to miss.
You still think rings are safe because people don't do things that
compromise them. You haven't shown that they can't be compromised.

History proves they can't be 'compromised' whatever you mean by that.

If they were unsound in principle, they'd have been outlawed years ago.
Like you should have been.

Any type of final circuit can be abused and made unsafe if the user is bizarrely determined. Rings are no exception, they merely have some safety, reliability & cost advantages over radials.


NT

On Sunday, 31 May 2015 16:58:43 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 31/05/2015 13:06, ARW wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
news:556ae132$0$61678$b1db1813

Why would I want two dishes?
I haven't had two dishes for a decade or more.


The Google streetview of your house suggests otherwise.

Maybe Google photoshopped on the second dish for fun.

Google can be weird though. It showed my house as having a different number of stories than it has. Several of us looked at it and no-one managed to work out what was going on. Also it does sometimes display picture content from years ago.


NT

In article ,
wrote:
On Sunday, 31 May 2015 18:39:28 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Notice you've missed the point that houses these days have usually
got some form of built in heating. And usually more than one ring.
The only place most houses use a lot of plugged in power is in the
kitchen, and sensible people fit a separate ring, or even two,
there.

There is no point to miss. You still think rings are safe because
people don't do things that compromise them. You haven't shown that
they can't be compromised.

History proves they can't be 'compromised' whatever you mean by that.

If they were unsound in principle, they'd have been outlawed years ago.
Like you should have been.

Any type of final circuit can be abused and made unsafe if the user is
bizarrely determined. Rings are no exception, they merely have some
safety, reliability & cost advantages over radials.

old fashioned, metal shafts from potentioemeters could be cut to replace a
fuse. Allows much more than 13A to be drawn.


NT

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

dennis@home wrote

And you still haven't shown that you can't overload bits of a ring

The point is that the design handles that fine.

And you can overload a radial too, and that handles it fine as well.

On Monday, 1 June 2015 20:42:18 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
dennis@home wrote

And you still haven't shown that you can't overload bits of a ring

The point is that the design handles that fine.

And you can overload a radial too, and that handles it fine as well.

A quick look at what happens when current specs are exceeded may help explain why rings & radials aren't a problem in real use. As current gets ever higher - note this applies to long term overcurrent, not short term:
- current within spec == temp, resistance & service lifetime within spec
- temp climbs above rated, shortening service life some due to increased rate of oxidation of metal & loss of plasticiser from vpc
- temp higher shortens service life ever more, with pvc getting very soft but still working
- slow carbonising of hard plastic, limited migration of conductors in pvc
- more rapid contact oxidation
- charring of plastic, great migration of conductors in pvc
- eventually fire

The current specs of ring & radial parts are those at which very long service life can be expected, not those above which fire occurs.

Short term overcurrent has much less effect.


NT

wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dennis@home wrote

And you still haven't shown that you can't overload bits of a ring

The point is that the design handles that fine.

And you can overload a radial too, and that handles it fine as well.

A quick look at what happens when current specs are exceeded
may help explain why rings & radials aren't a problem in real use.

As current gets ever higher - note this applies to long term overcurrent,
not short term:

In practice you don't get much long term overcurrent with
the GPOs on rings or radials being discussed, essentially
because the breaker or fuse ensures that that doesn't happen.
You just don't get any of the effect you list below with what
the breaker or fuse allows long term.

- current within spec == temp, resistance & service lifetime within spec
- temp climbs above rated, shortening service life some due to increased
rate of oxidation of metal & loss of plasticiser from vpc
- temp higher shortens service life ever more, with pvc getting very soft
but still working
- slow carbonising of hard plastic, limited migration of conductors in pvc
- more rapid contact oxidation
- charring of plastic, great migration of conductors in pvc
- eventually fire

You don't get any of that last with long term over
current because the breaker or fuse prevents that.

The current specs of ring & radial parts are
those at which very long service life can be
expected, not those above which fire occurs.

Short term overcurrent has much less effect.

On Tuesday, 2 June 2015 10:57:49 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

You don't get any of that last with long term over
current because the breaker or fuse prevents that.

Take a look at fuse curves


NT

wrote
Rod Speed wrote

You don't get any of that last with long term over
current because the breaker or fuse prevents that.

Take a look at fuse curves

Don't need to, I know what they say.

You don't get any of the effects you listed with
the long term over current that the fuse allows.

On 2015-05-28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And the requirements of a final circuit ring is that it isn't. Devices
which take a high extended load - like say space heating or water heating
- are covered separately.

It's the beauty of a ring. It's eminently suitable for the sort of actual
use it gets in domestic premises. Lots of relatively low current devices
used intermittently. And a large number of outlets to avoid having
trailing cables.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

The real problems in most new houses (new flats from houses, &c.) are
the lack of "large number of outlets" (typically 2 double sockets per
room) & the sharing of RCDs across circuits. IMHO the regulations for
electrical work for someone else to use (i.e., for sale or rental)
ought to require something like a double socket every 3 metres (in
order to reduce the need for extension leads stretched all over the
place) & to prohibit shared RCDs (in order to reduce the frequency as
well as the impact of trips).

On 2015-05-29, ARW wrote:

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 29/05/2015 11:20, John Rumm wrote:

All that is required is a bit of common sense from the designer of the
circuit, and a user can do as they please.


So three 3kW heaters on the end of a ring then?


Is that how you heat your house?

Is that how anyone heats their house?

That would be 9kW of localised heat.

Move em around with you from room to room?

On 2015-05-30, dennis@home wrote:

On 30/05/2015 22:11, John Rumm wrote:

So a user has to know what design decisions have been made so he can
avoid doing something that compromises them.

The user will have to trust that the designer and installer had a clue,
or else they might risk having shorter than expected service life from
their cable or sockets.

But the users doesn't know the rules and may well put several high
demand loads on for days at a time, say heaters and dehumidifiers after
a flood as you appear to think no one would ever have a reason to do so.

The highest power domestic dehumidifier I've seen is 600 W (including
the built-in pump).

On 2015-05-31, dennis@home wrote:

I have loads of building related horror stories being friends with the
head of building control. I have been around one site where about 20
houses had all developed cracks and were slowly moving down a slope
after less than six months. One where the lean to was assembled from
concrete blocks with nothing in between them, just waiting for a windy day.

To be fair, that doesn't sound like an *electrical* problem.