Yeah true but like I say , I mostly see this at CB terminalsIf the circuit breaker has a cage connector I agree, but not when putting a multi strand cable into a standard screw connector, can't guarantee the whole of the cable is connected securely the strands that are not under the screw are a potential ark point.
I'v been retired for over ten years so I don't see it at all, except for any work I do for myself, so if I see it it's my fault. 
I have just put in a set of Aico multi detectors and the 1.5mm cable I used was multi strand so both ends have bootlaces, and I thought it looked good even if I do say so myself.
I have just put in a set of Aico multi detectors and the 1.5mm cable I used was multi strand so both ends have bootlaces, and I thought it looked good even if I do say so myself. 
.
[automerge]1597955099[/automerge]
May I be the devil's advocate?
2 small ring final circuits could be connected in series to provide one rfc and thus could be connected to one OCPD. Quote Reply Report Edit
Source URL: Ring main. - https://www.electriciansforums.net/threads/ring-main.185730/
[automerge]1597955099[/automerge]
May I be the devil's advocate?
2 small ring final circuits could be connected in series to provide one rfc and thus could be connected to one OCPD. Quote Reply Report Edit
Source URL: Ring main. - https://www.electriciansforums.net/threads/ring-main.185730/
Last edited:
N
nicebutdim
Surely two ring finals connected in series would no longer constitute two circuits and, as such, would only be once circuit connected to the MCB?
To be clear; I'm asking a question, rather than telling you that you're wrong
Absolutely no chance should there be 2 RFC in a 32A MCB. Neither should there be a 2.5mm2 radial let alone 2,3 or 4. It is covered in the regs and is further legislated against in test and inspection.
Firstly assuming it is 2 RFC then it is in-fact an interconnected ring main which is the whole purpose of the ring final test to avoid. The reason for avoiding is simple should either of the two rings of an interconnection become open circuit then the circuit becomes two or even four radials.
Which also answers all other scenarios the 2.5mm2 Cables of a radial circuit on 32amp supply will become over loaded and be a potential fire hazard.
Also it becomes problematic when conducting test or fault finding.
You're right, 2 RFCs in 1 OCPD = 1 circuitSurely two ring finals connected in series would no longer constitute two circuits and, as such, would only be once circuit connected to the MCB?
To be clear; I'm asking a question, rather than telling you that you're wrong
W
Wilko
Hi - apologies if I’m just restating something already said as I’m late to the thread.
Early on @SparkyChick asked for the “Reg That Says No” to putting 2 RFC into one OCPD. My thought is Chapter 43, protection against overload. RFCs are a bit of a load management exercise and now we have possibly offended Reg 433.1.1(i) where the rated current of the protective device ( In ) is less than the design current ( Ib ).
Early on @SparkyChick asked for the “Reg That Says No” to putting 2 RFC into one OCPD. My thought is Chapter 43, protection against overload. RFCs are a bit of a load management exercise and now we have possibly offended Reg 433.1.1(i) where the rated current of the protective device ( In ) is less than the design current ( Ib ).
R
radiohead
Great contribution....I have been thinking for a while now that 325 posts in what this thread really needs is someone to re-say what has already been said several dozen times. Genius.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
davesparks
Legislated against? Please do expand on this and tell us which piece of legislation you are referring to?
You can find and view all current UK legislation documents for free here: Legislation.gov.uk - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/
All I can say is... subjectively it's wrong. Objectively it complies with the regulations, if you disagree and would like to convince me otherwise, please explain (a) how it violates the figure 8 test (the purpose of which is to look for interconnections between the legs of the ring at a point other than the origin, interconnections that could if ill-informed alterations were made result in a situation with the potential to overload a cable) and (b) which regulations it violates and why.
It's wrong, we all know it's wrong... explaining why with actual regulations is a little trickier. Please don't cite Appendix 15 (Informative)... it is not a regulation. Without wanting to offend, it's the regulations equivalent of 'The dummies guide to the ring final circuit as defined by regulation 433.1.204'. It provides a lot of compliant examples, but listing all possibilities would be an impossibility which is why it's informative, it's a quick start guide if you will. As best as I can tell the only actual regulation specifically about 32A ring circuits is 433.1.204, it's entirely possible I've missed some but I've looked hard whilst writing some of my replies to this thread because I wanted to be certain I was objectively correct, but I'm all ears if I've missed some.
Maybe we should look at this another way... how would you code this arrangement if you came across it on an EICR? Which regulations would you cite as those it breaks and why?
Remember... I'm really just playing devil's advocate but I am getting a little tired of late of the blind following of rules. The regulations are the bare minimum, we need to be able to think for ourselves, so if you feel like telling me which code Codebreakers applies to this situation, go right ahead and explain what justifies such a code, backing your explanation up with actual regulations and how the arrangement breaks them.
And for another fun exercise in analysing the twisted mind of this old bint... lets suppose I have a ring circuit and I ran out of 2.5mm on the job, only got an off cut left that's about 18 inches long, only had two more double sockets to sort out... kitchen job, all the cables clipped direct or in the void of a dot and dab wall, so I run a length of 6mm from a convenient place (before anyone asks how I managed to squeeze 2 x 2.5mm and 1 x 6mm in accessory terminals.. I love the new 3 way slimline Wago connectors that take 0.5mm to 6mm cable.. awesome for this kind of thinking... nice maintenance free Wagobox tucked out the way, great it was) to the first of the doubles and as they are next to each other, I use the off cut of 2.5mm to supply the other. Does that comply with the design criteria for a ring circuit supplied by a 32A OCPD? If not, why not? And if this complies... how does the situation described in the OP not?
It's wrong, we all know it's wrong... explaining why with actual regulations is a little trickier. Please don't cite Appendix 15 (Informative)... it is not a regulation. Without wanting to offend, it's the regulations equivalent of 'The dummies guide to the ring final circuit as defined by regulation 433.1.204'. It provides a lot of compliant examples, but listing all possibilities would be an impossibility which is why it's informative, it's a quick start guide if you will. As best as I can tell the only actual regulation specifically about 32A ring circuits is 433.1.204, it's entirely possible I've missed some but I've looked hard whilst writing some of my replies to this thread because I wanted to be certain I was objectively correct, but I'm all ears if I've missed some.
Maybe we should look at this another way... how would you code this arrangement if you came across it on an EICR? Which regulations would you cite as those it breaks and why?
Remember... I'm really just playing devil's advocate but I am getting a little tired of late of the blind following of rules. The regulations are the bare minimum, we need to be able to think for ourselves, so if you feel like telling me which code Codebreakers applies to this situation, go right ahead and explain what justifies such a code, backing your explanation up with actual regulations and how the arrangement breaks them.
And for another fun exercise in analysing the twisted mind of this old bint... lets suppose I have a ring circuit and I ran out of 2.5mm on the job, only got an off cut left that's about 18 inches long, only had two more double sockets to sort out... kitchen job, all the cables clipped direct or in the void of a dot and dab wall, so I run a length of 6mm from a convenient place (before anyone asks how I managed to squeeze 2 x 2.5mm and 1 x 6mm in accessory terminals.. I love the new 3 way slimline Wago connectors that take 0.5mm to 6mm cable.. awesome for this kind of thinking... nice maintenance free Wagobox tucked out the way, great it was) to the first of the doubles and as they are next to each other, I use the off cut of 2.5mm to supply the other. Does that comply with the design criteria for a ring circuit supplied by a 32A OCPD? If not, why not? And if this complies... how does the situation described in the OP not?
Best EV Chargers by Electrical2Go! The official electric vehicle charger supplier.
OFFICIAL SPONSORS
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
Advert
Thread Information
Advert
Advert
TrueNAS JBOD Storage Server
-
-
Understanding TrueNAS JBOD Servers: A Comprehensive Guide- Started by Dan
- Replies: 8
-
