Fault on socket circuit

[Grant McLaren]

So just like this post your using guess work to carry out jobs. You are a chancer who has no idea what you are doing.

Please tell me Dillb, how is it that by downgrading a 32amp to 20amp is a bad thing or bad practice. Please explain the logic. Surely, it is more risky to follow your practice and assume, because the RFC is continuous that some cowboy hasn't come along and spur off the ring with no protection.

 

[elsparko]

Please tell me Dillb, how is it that by downgrading a 32amp to 20amp is a bad thing or bad practice. Please explain the logic. Surely, it is more risky to follow your practice and assume, because the RFC is continuous that some cowboy hasn't come along and spur off the ring with no protection.

how do you know that someone hasnt done as you say? by testing!

 

[Grant McLaren]

So just like this post your using guess work to carry out jobs. You are a chancer who has no idea what you are doing.

Please tell me Dillb, how is it that by downgrading a 32amp to 20amp is a bad thing or bad practice.

Well I was just wondering Spoon, if Grant has, either given Money to the NICEIC (Thanks for that Dillb) or he is registered, begs some questions how on Earth (judging by some of Grants statement) was this acheived? and was the assessment carried out in the Assessors Vehicle.

Please explain the logic. Surely, it is more risky to follow your practice and assume, because the RFC is continuous that some cowboy hasn't come along and spur off the ring with no protection.

 

[Dillb]

Please tell me Dillb, how is it that by downgrading a 32amp to 20amp is a bad thing or bad practice. Please explain the logic. Surely, it is more risky to follow your practice and assume, because the RFC is continuous that some cowboy hasn't come along and spur off the ring with no protection.

Becasue thats what testing is for.

 

[Pete999]

I'm out!

 

[Dillb]

Please tell me Dillb, how is it that by downgrading a 32amp to 20amp is a bad thing or bad practice.


Please explain the logic. Surely, it is more risky to follow your practice and assume, because the RFC is continuous that some cowboy hasn't come along and spur off the ring with no protection.

You do know how to calculate R1+R2 for a RFC to ensure there are no spurs on it dont you?

 

[Pete999]

Please tell me Dillb, how is it that by downgrading a 32amp to 20amp is a bad thing or bad practice.


Please explain the logic. Surely, it is more risky to follow your practice and assume, because the RFC is continuous that some cowboy hasn't come along and spur off the ring with no protection.

If it's just 1 socket being spurred off of a RFC what protection would be required?

 

[Grant McLaren]

Becasue thats what testing is for.

So if you do a RFC and the readings are acceptable, do you assume the ring is not broken and that someone hasn't spurred off the ring?

 

[Grant McLaren]

If it's just 1 socket being spurred off of a RFC what protection would be required?

How would you know it's just one socket?

 

[Dillb]

So if you do a RFC and the readings are acceptable, do you assume the ring is not broken and that someone hasn't spurred off the ring?

If r1, r2, rn , R1+R2 reading are all in order then there womt be a break or spur on the circuit

 

[Pete999]

How would you know it's just one socket?

Deleted, losing the will to carry on answering daft questions, from someone who ought to know better.

 

[Spoon]

If it's just 1 socket being spurred off of a RFC what protection would be required?

I know this.... I know this.....

 

[Strima]

 

[elsparko]

View attachment 42417

 

[Andy78]

I think the OP has some valid points.

Be back soon, I just have to pop out to collect my boots from the cobblers. Oh and the missus asked me to pop in the butchers and get some tripe. And some balony.
And the pet bull in the garden needs cleaning up after too.

 

[Grant McLaren]

If it's just 1 socket being spurred off of a RFC what protection would be required?

Besides, a single double socket has the potential to draw 26amps,

If r1, r2, rn , R1+R2 reading are all in order then there womt be a break or spur on the circuit

I don't think that's right. r1,rn,r2 at the CU would only tell the ring is continuous, but it wouldn't tell you if someone had spurred off it. The R1+R2 at the CU, I'm less sure about, but I still don't think it will tell you someone has spurred off the ring. But this is besides the point: is a socket circuit protected by a 20amp safer that a 32amp?

 

[Spoon]

So now, as well as assuming the RFC is broke you are assuming there are multiple spar sockets coming from said broken circuit.....

 

[Strima]

View attachment 42418

You still got room after that pizza?

 

[Strima]

Besides, a single double socket has the potential to draw 26amps,

I don't think that's right. r1,rn,r2 at the CU would only tell the ring is continuous, but it wouldn't tell you if someone had spurred off it. The R1+R2 at the CU, I'm less sure about, but I still don't think it will tell you someone has spurred off the ring. But this is besides the point: is a socket circuit protected by a 20amp safer that a 32amp?

Ring testing isn't solely at the CU. r1+rn and r1+r2 should also be tested at each point, this would identify any spurs and faults etc.

 

[Dillb]

Besides, a single double socket has the potential to draw 26amps,

I don't think that's right. r1,rn,r2 at the CU would only tell the ring is continuous, but it wouldn't tell you if someone had spurred off it. The R1+R2 at the CU, I'm less sure about, but I still don't think it will tell you someone has spurred off the ring. But this is besides the point: is a socket circuit protected by a 20amp safer that a 32amp?

Most standard twin sockets are only rated at 20amps if memory serves me correctly, so you had better swap them for singles too then.

You have proven you have a limited knowledge of testing as you should carry out a R1+R2 at every point of connection on a RFC to ensure there are no spurs connected too it.