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.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

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 27/05/15 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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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 14:40, 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?

as in both made of Keratin



--
Cheers,

John.

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

"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.

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.

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 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 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?

In article ,
GB 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?

As there is with any metal. But you don't expect the copper pipes in your
central heating to fail, so why expect wiring to do so?

--
*I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder *

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

"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 27/05/2015 13:15, dennis@home wrote:
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.

Every time I have found a discontinuity in a CPC, its been at a
termination. Typically either down to being lost in a mass of
connections and improperly sized sleeving such that one wire was never
actually pushed into the terminal, or, due to being over tightened such
that it fractured at the terminal.

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

True... although I rarely find a completely non working socket (and last
time I did, it was actually a non working MCB!)

--
Cheers,

John.

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

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 |
\================================================= ================/