Surprised

[ipf]

One run of conduit with two lots of cable OR two runs of conduit with one lot of cable?....that really is a no brainer.
Failure to work that out may result in the Japanese way...…..Hara-kiri.

 

[7029 dave]

????? Chinese way, heard it called some names but Chinese??

Well Pete that's what we called it in London circa 1970's

 

[Pete999]

Well Pete that's what we called it in London circa 1970's

Thought it was some local name, Dave, thanks for letting me know, from now on it's "The Chinese way" in my neck of the woods. Like it, very apt.

 

[7029 dave]

Thought it was some local name, Dave, thanks for letting me know, from now on it's "The Chinese way" in my neck of the woods. Like it, very apt.

That's what I love about the forum Pete, we all have our personal journeys, and experiences, you just cannot buy that.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Out of interest, why would you choose to wire this sort of circuit as a ring final? Surely a radial is the obvious choice for something like this. One run of conduit, one run of cable.

 

[Pete999]

Out of interest, why would you choose to wire this sort of circuit as a ring final? Surely a radial is the obvious choice for something like this. One run of conduit, one run of cable.

Out of interest, why would you choose to wire this sort of circuit as a ring final? Surely a radial is the obvious choice for something like this. One run of conduit, one run of cable.

Aradial may not give sufficient coverage fused at 20Amps. It's not a new way of doing it, quite a normal design, just that there are some who don't know how to do it this way, the Chinese way is.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Aradial may not give sufficient coverage fused at 20Amps. It's not a new way of doing it, quite a normal design, just that there are some who don't know how to do it this way, the Chinese way is.

I was thinking more 4mm at 32A Pete. Domestic's all I do, so it's not something I'm likely to come across, but interested all the same

 

[littlespark]

Is the Chinese way anything to do with the similarities between single cables and
noodles

 

[Pete999]

Is the Chinese way anything to do with the similarities between single cables and
noodles

It's a London thing Mate, 7029 Dave tells me circa 1970s

 

[7029 dave]

Is the Chinese way anything to do with the similarities between single cables and
noodles

But you know what we talking about, if not I will try and tell you.

 

[Lister1987]

But you know what we talking about, if not I will try and tell you.

I'll bite, go on, explain with pretty pictures ??

 

[7029 dave]

Okay, lets try and make it easy, no pictures because aint that good with the tech on computer.

RFC, 1 piece of conduit 10 sockets in between . So piped up from CU, 2 legs out of CU, drop pair at first socket, the other to next, so you are staggering legs between sockets, on the slant. So at the end socket will finish with your 2 pairs (legs).

 

[Pretty Mouth]

I was thinking more 4mm at 32A Pete. Domestic's all I do, so it's not something I'm likely to come across, but interested all the same

I think I've worked out the answer to my own question. 4mm on a 30A BS3036 isn't permitted due to the downrating of the cable, I presume rewireables would have been the protective device of choice back in the day.

Even using an RCD for fault protection, you're only allowed a shorter circuit using 4mm (limited by voltage drop) than a RFC, even when both legs follow the same route.

 

[multimick]

is that not the same as tels way ?

 

[davesparks]

Out of interest, why would you choose to wire this sort of circuit as a ring final? Surely a radial is the obvious choice for something like this. One run of conduit, one run of cable.

The main reason for using a ring on a straight run of conduit in this manner is usually because the person designing the install has the mindset of 'multiple sockets=ring' and cannot contemplate anything else.

I've seen some installs where a group of 8 twin sockets next to each other are installed as a ring, which is just bizarre in my opinion.