XPost: uk.tech.broadcast, uk.tech.digital-tv, uk.rec.audio
XPost: sci.electronics.repair
From: mapson.scarts@btinternet.INVALID
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
news:5258a88b0bdave@davenoise.co.uk...
: In article ,
: Jerry wrote:
: > : having fewer outlets due again to cost. Resulting in the
use of
: > extension
: > : leads or bodged extra sockets.
:
: > Utter rubbish, especially at the time when ring circuits
first
: > started being used in the UK, houses were being built with
the
: > same number of outlets (ask anyone who has modernised a house
: > from the 1950s or '60s). As for bodged extra sockets, that is
: > exactly what occurs with ring circuits, because of the over
: > rating of the circuit protection, thus one can (and often
does)
: > find sockets added to spurs, thus over loading the conductor
but
: > not circuit protection.
:
: Dear me. You blame a final ring circuit for its design when the
problems
: you mention are cause by idiots modifying it *from* a ring
circuit?
In a perfect world even "wire nuts" would be OK... But once again
Plowman misses the point, one can't -without tampering with the
panel and breakers- over load a radial circuit or appliance lead,
the same is not true of spurs or appliance lead off a ring
circuits.
: It's quite simple, Jerry. Those who don't understand how things
work
: should leave well alone. And pay someone who does to do any
work needed.
Indeed, *you* should stick to twiddling your knob(s) Mr Plowman
and pay someone to do any electrical work!
:
: > Or, and this is even more dangerous,
: > incomplete rings so that there are in effect two radial
circuits
: > with any number of outlets protected at 30A rather than the
more
: > usual 15A for a radial circuit using the same conductor size.
:
: See above. If this is how you do wiring, find a less dangerous
hobby.
No it most certainly is not how I do wiring (and I doubt that
anyone would intentionally do so), but I'm not sure you wouldn't,
as it is clear that whilst you can read and work to the
regulations you do not understand the whys and wherefores behind
them.
Ring circuits were a fudge of the then electrical standards,
brought about by the need to lower the cost -of post war-
housing, they are most certainly not "the best thing since sliced
bread", with a radial if the circuit becomes split then anything
down-stream of the split stops working or becomes
intermittent -which thus prompts investigation, if there is a
split in a ring circuit nothing is noticed until either an
electrical overload of the conductors/connectors -thus possible
fire- occurs or the integrity of the circuit is tested - in most
houses only luck decides which happens first.
:
: > :
: > : > There is nothing wrong with radial circuits, the only two
: > down
: > : > sides are amount of cabling needed and the size of the
: > breaker
: > : > panel - IIRC ring circuits were introduced into the UK in
an
: > : > attempt to save on cabling, due to cost. Radial circuits
are
: > : > still, to this day, permitted.
: > :
: > : No shit Sherlock.
: > :
:
: > So why did you claim otherwise, making out that radial
circuits
: > are somehow dangerous, if not an out-and-out fire risk?
:
: You're making assumptions - yet again.
:
Not at all, although you exhibit signs that you either have
(premature) senile debenture or you don't actually bother to read
(and understand) what you are replying to;
["rrusston" said]
"It's the goofy room wiring in loops and the goofy
sockets the Brits use I think are ridiculous."
[Plowman replied]
"You need to look up fires caused by poorly specified
house distribution systems in the US, before criticising
the UK. It is many times worse than here."
Later Plowman had to admit that it is the hardware and *not the
circuit design* that causes the problem, if the US used ring
circuits with the same hardware the self same problems with
regards to electrical fires would exists just the same.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
