Ring main,going going gone

[Ian1981]

to take this a step further.... a 2.5mm ring final, run under the upstairs floor, with single 2.5mm drops to each socket (connections suitably terminated in M/F enclosures), so each socketoutlet would be a single point spur, no reg. to prevent this. would you do it?

Initially no because it just sounds lazy.
Other factors and influences may require it tho but I can’t think of any at the moment
We talking twin and earth cables?

 

[telectrix]

Initially no because it just sounds lazy.
Other factors and influences may require it tho but I can’t think of any at the moment

an example would be on a rewire, where the cable drops were in small dia.conduit/tube, only large enough to accommodate 1 x 2.5mm T/E.
using this method or chasing out expensive decor, what would you do?

 

[Octopus]

to take this a step further.... a 2.5mm ring final, run under the upstairs floor, with single 2.5mm drops to each socket (connections suitably terminated in M/F enclosures), so each socket outlet would be a single point spur, no reg. to prevent this. would you do it?

Personally no .......... because it would mean lots of inaccessible MF joints but this style of "ring" was used a lot in the 1960's and 1970's

The older houses on my estate have this but the "connections" are at the sockets, so 3 x imperial cable rammed into sockets ..... the fun starts when DIYers start replacing the sockets with ones sourced in big sheds that can't accommodate 3 x imperial cables

 

[Pete999]

to take this a step further.... a 2.5mm ring final, run under the upstairs floor, with single 2.5mm drops to each socket (connections suitably terminated in M/F enclosures), so each socketoutlet would be a single point spur, no reg. to prevent this. would you do it?

Yep see nothing wrong with that Tel.

 

[Ian1981]

an example would be on a rewire, where the cable drops were in small dia.conduit/tube, only large enough to accommodate 1 x 2.5mm T/E.
using this method or chasing out expensive decor, what would you do?

I’d imagine that the client must be aware that surface damage to decor is more than likely to occur and if they where that picky about damage I’d probably not do the job as it sounds more hassle than it’s worth.
This is theoretical right?

 

[telectrix]

Personally no .......... because it would mean lots of inaccessible MF joints but this style of "ring" was used a lot in the 1960's and 1970's

The older houses on my estate have this but the "connections" are at the sockets, so 3 x imperial cable rammed into sockets ..... the fun starts when DIYers start replacing the sockets with ones sourced in big sheds that can't accommodate 3 x imperial cables

also see my post #42 which is in agreement with your post #39.

 

[telectrix]

I’d imagine that the client must be aware that surface damage to decor is more than likely to occur and if they where that picky about damage I’d probably not do the jobs as it sounds more hassle than it’s worth.

recentlydone job for customer. where used existing capping/tube drops where posssible. minimised repairs to decor, but as a previous set of threads, the bugger owes me £750 unpaid ballance. GRRRRR. time for a CCJ.

 

[Ian1981]

recentlydone job for customer. where used existing capping/tube drops where posssible. minimised repairs to decor, but as a previous set of threads, the bugger owes me £750 unpaid ballance. GRRRRR. time for a CCJ.

£750 is a lot of beer tokens

 

[Marcus Vaughan]

Nobody has yet come up with a good reason or a good reg against such a circuit.

543.2.9

I’ve Not got my book with me right now - but I believe it states that the CPC’s of a ring final need to be taken all the way back to the origin of the circuit, and for me the origin of a circuit is where the OCPD is. I think the ring of the lollipop is exactly that - a ring. If that ring is wired in 2.5mm and on a 32amp MCB, and the ring continuity is broken....

 

[Toneyz]

Except muppet assessors who go around misleading people ........

You say that but we all interpret the regs in our own way it doesn't sometimes mean both is wrong but would do something in different ways and still comply with the regs this forum survives on us having different viewpoints.

 

[Toneyz]

543.2.9

I’ve Not got my book with me right now - but I believe it states that the CPC’s of a ring final need to be taken all the way back to the origin of the circuit, and for me the origin of a circuit is where the OCPD is. I think the ring of the lollipop is exactly that - a ring. If that ring is wired in 2.5mm and on a 32amp MCB, and the ring continuity is broken....

What about a ring that the CPC is the metal conduit?

 

[Marcus Vaughan]

What about a ring that the CPC is the metal conduit?

Sorry - not following what you are asking here?

 

[DPG]

543.2.9

I’ve Not got my book with me right now - but I believe it states that the CPC’s of a ring final need to be taken all the way back to the origin of the circuit, and for me the origin of a circuit is where the OCPD is. I think the ring of the lollipop is exactly that - a ring. If that ring is wired in 2.5mm and on a 32amp MCB, and the ring continuity is broken....

That's the reg covering a standard RFC though isn't it? We aren't talking about a standard 'paint by numbers' RFC.

 

[Toneyz]

Except muppet assessors who go around misleading people ........

I don't think they are trying to mislead people it's more the view as Pete has it's not a conventional way of doing things. with standard circuit arrangements, it is easier for the next guy as it is "standard".

 

[Wilko]

543.2.9

Now you've gone and done it !
Don't think I can connect both ends of the ring CPC to the earthing terminal at the circuit origin if they're out there in the kitchen.

 

[Toneyz]

I know that the NIC did a tech bit in P.E mag about testing hybrid circuits and both parts were tested separately.

 

[Kamikaze]

For anyone that is interested!

543.2.9 - Except where the circuit protective conductor is formed by a metal covering or enclosure containing all of the conductors of the ring, the circuit protective conductor of every ring final circuit shall also be run in the form of a ring having both ends connected to the earthing terminal at the origin of the circuit.

 

[DPG]

As Anthony says, the 2 parts can be tested separately.

 

[Ian1981]

The regulations can’t accommodate every type of circuit arrangement that’s how I read it.
It’s obvious that a standard ring final circuit shall start and finish at the OCPD all conductors.
Why would the regulations go into every different circuit arrangement?

 

[DPG]

Ian1981 - exactly. The regs are big enough already without trying to cover every single eventuality.