Discuss Ring main. in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net
It would depend on an informed engineering judgement as to whether the conductors were securely terminated for me.Just a point.
Two rings or not, in general, what are FIRST thoughts on four (or more) cables in a circuit breaker terminal, whilst carrying out an EICR?
How long is a piece of string, maybe?
Just a point.
Two rings or not, in general, what are FIRST thoughts on four (or more) cables in a circuit breaker terminal, whilst carrying out an EICR?
How long is a piece of string, maybe?
It says to me that things have probably been done on a tight budget, i.e. the consumer unit has not got enough ways for what they want to supply.
look out for other things that may have been overlooked!
I dont think you have got mixed opinions, nobody has said this is anything other than bad practice. But the question concerns regulations, and as yet nobody has given an actual regulation that this breaches, and throwing hands up in horror does not count as a regulation.Tell me about it did think it would get so many mixed opinions! Always tell myself it doesn't hurt to have a second opinion on things and as I wasnt certain about this that's what I done. Thank you for the positive outlook and advice ?
But there's a spare way in this particular CU.
You couldn't, because by definition it would be one radial.You could put more than one radial on a MCB but its not good practice.
How is it dangerous, apart from the potential issue with the four conductors in the terminals/cage clamp (which although crap is unlikely to be an issue in real terms)?2 Rings on 32mcb is dangerous are you sure it's not 2 radials?
Still, tight budget could also mean tight on time, not got another breaker in the box?
never mind, its Friday the pub is open, just stick it in the other breaker and we are out of here!!
when you see an obvious short cut like that it makes me look for others.
I fully agree that this is incorrect and should not have been done.
But having said that what are the apparent dangers? I don't see any particular danger attributable to this.
The definition of a circuit is based around everything that is connected to a single way in a distribution board, so this would still count as one circuit, although it is nom-standard.
Just a point.
Two rings or not, in general, what are FIRST thoughts on four (or more) cables in a circuit breaker terminal, whilst carrying out an EICR?
How long is a piece of string, maybe?
right or wrong what's the common response to finding a Ring on a 20A MCB or wired in 4mm??
You could probably make sure on that if reconnecting after testing. Available breaker? Terminal and c/b condition? Circuit condition? General install condition?It would depend on an informed engineering judgement as to whether the conductors were securely terminated for me.
Ugly but not dangerous. This circuit, not me (but close enough)
In terms of overload you can overstress the 32A MCB on a ring with only 4 items plugged in, so unless this was conjoining two rings that had been chosen to separate high-demand loads it is not really any worse than a bigger single ring.
What is curious is why was this done? The OP says there is one slot free so probably this was a temporary fix for a failed MCB that has become permanent.
Hey, be careful! You don't know who's lurking.Ugly but not dangerous.
Both are rare but not in any way dangerous.right or wrong what's the common response to finding a Ring on a 20A MCB or wired in 4mm??
Yeah my first Response to OP questions was NO! this is Dangerous but thinking about it can't really find how although A break in 2 rings would be very bad.Both are rare but not in any way dangerous.
4mm is needed if the end-to-end length is over about 106m, but on a multi-floor building you could have a fair amount of that used up in the CU-to-floor run up and down so it need not be a ridiculously large area covered.
I have seen 20A BS3036 rewireable fuses used for the ring before so there may be some historic reason for that, and it is quite possible that a CU upgrade just copied the existing fuses with the nearest MCB.
The Best Practice Guide #4 has various things mentioned that are departures or non-compliance with the standard that are not unsafe so don't merit a code.But then looking at it the other way round 20A or 4mm that's actually safer but not considered standard - so what response would this cause.
None, to my mind. Certainly not the 4mm. The 20amp...only if load problems.But then looking at it the other way round 20A or 4mm that's actually safer but not considered standard - so what response would this cause.
Are we not going off piste Lads and Lasses? the original scenario was 2 separately wired RFCs connected to a single OCPD, this constitutes a single circuit, no matter how you twist and turn with it which is not only bad practice but in my opinion a dangerous situation, Discuss.
Take one leg out of each ring and link 'em (properly, of course). That'll make it miles saferAre we not going off piste Lads and Lasses? the original scenario was 2 separately wired RFCs connected to a single OCPD, this constitutes a single circuit, no matter how you twist and turn with it which is not only bad practice but in my opinion a dangerous situation, Discuss.
Going to Lollipop and other non standard circuit territory.
Could a break in a Ring cause a fire?
Possibly but probably not
Could a break in 2 Rings on a single 32A MCB cause a fire ??? that is the main thing I'm thinking now.
SC I have stated my point of view, and although an interesting post I really have nothing more to say on the subject, you questioned the dangerous statement, which is your prerogative, I just think sticking two separate systems on one OCPD forming one circuit out of two systems is inherently dangerous, I have no other arguments to continue, what next a lighting system added to a RFC circuit OCPD? or vice versa?We're not denying it's bad practice, there is seemingly unanimous support for that view, but dangerous... if they are both sized and installed correctly in every other aspect, how are they dangerous?
I'm not being facetious Pete, I'm genuinely trying to understand the thought process behind the statement.
It does not meat the regs BUT. if you exceed the loading I will be surprised but if you do the breaker will trip, ie doing its job.Question I have is, is it ok to have x2 ring main circuits on one 32amp type B MCB??
If so does this meet the current regs.
TIA.
Don't start that one but if the lighting is wired in 2.5 it's not actually dangerous is itSC I have stated my point of view, and although an interesting post I really have nothing more to say on the subject, you questioned the dangerous statement, which is your prerogative, I just think sticking two separate systems on one OCPD forming one circuit out of two systems is inherently dangerous, I have no other arguments to continue, what next a lighting system added to a RFC circuit OCPD? or vice versa?
SC I have stated my point of view, and although an interesting post I really have nothing more to say on the subject, you questioned the dangerous statement, which is your prerogative, I just think sticking two separate systems on one OCPD forming one circuit out of two systems is inherently dangerous, I have no other arguments to continue, what next a lighting system added to a RFC circuit OCPD? or vice versa?
Reply to Ring main. in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net