Talk:Ring circuit

message: If I want to add another socket into the ring, then I have to lay 2x 2.5 mm² cables. 
If I reduce the fuse to 16 amps, as is common in other countries, then 1 cable is enough.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E6:F74D:FB00:BD08:BC33:B650:1654 (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ring circles use more wiring material than radial circuit ! 

message: I have been a working electrician for a long time and only met a 3 phase ring circuit once  - in  a (very) poorly installed workshop.  Modern 3 phase installations are invariably radial. (unsigned comment by Alastairrr)
:mmm yes when i wrote the first section i didn't mean to imply the ring itself would be three phase just that it was part of a three phase electrical installation. I can see how it could be misread though and will try and make it clearer. Plugwash
:I have certainly never heared of anyone using three phase rings though i have never seen it explicitly prohibited anywhere either. I can't think of many situations in which it would be usefull though (maybe if you wanted a LOT of 13A sockets with high total load it might be an idea but the 415V warning stickers everywhere would be a pita).Plugwash 01:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 3-phase ring mains (as distinct from ring circuits) are commonly used for the final supply distribution to consumers. 81.187.162.107 18:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  415V ring circuits? 

message: The result was not to merge into electrical wiring (UK). – Markus Kuhn (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I've removed a para about reduced resistive heating being an advantage, allowing the use of lower spec wire; whilst this may be an advantage if the ring is unbroken, it's a positive disadvantage if the ring is broken: designing too near the margin is actively unsafe in this case, and -- even worse -- the fault condition is undetectable in practice (unless you're in the habit of checking your mains sockets with a time-domain reflectometer...) -- The Anome (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material removed 

message: Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but for some reason it does seem to get overlooked a lot when discussing ring circuits.
The only way to see the pros and cons of rings is to look at what happens with any given situation with both ring and radial circuits, and see which is better/worse. To point out an issue with rings, neglect to mention that radials fare far worse, and then call this a downside of rings is sadly all too common, depsite being senseless. That this simple illogic is often repeated in articles presenting themselves as scholarly is disappointing. 
Tabby (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the material in this discussion is a summary of points made by various established experts at an IET event on the subject, with downloadable references given. Could you please clarify your criticism and provide alternative references that back up what you would like to see described? Considering that ring final circuits are considered at least bad (if not illegal) practice in parts of the world, there will no doubt some controversy remain in this discussion, but I agree that the pros and cons could be listed much better than they are at present. Markus Kuhn (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disadvantage or illogic?

message: Harmonized circuit breaker - what does it mean? I am russian and do not understand this term. BPK (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: CENELEC has been working to harmoize e;ectrical standards across the EU. When a term is proceeded with harmoized it means it is to one of those harmonized standards rather than an old national one. Plugwash (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harmonized circuit breaker 

message: The gratuitous use of this non-word is odd. The word is, as far as I can tell, propagated by handymen and the like who like to think that it has some better technical validity. I do not think that the word will appear in any technical standard, and its use should be deprecated. What is wrong with the word 'plug'?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.127.195 (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it's a ridiculous term which seems to have appeared out of nowhere.  A "plug top" is the cover which goes on top of the plug to cover up the terminals and make it a complete unit.  So next time somebody asks for a "plug top," unscrew a cover and hand him JUST the top!   87.113.45.147 (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  A 'plug top' is a colloquial term used by many British non techie folk to describe what we all know as a 'plug'.  These same folk often call the socket that goes with it a 'wall plug' or even just a 'plug'.  I believe that in may be a regional dialect thing as these terms are more common in the north of England than elsewhere. 86.166.70.84 (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

text: While sympathizing with the view that "plug top" is an odd expression, it is an established expression whose use can be traced back to the earliest appearances of plugs and sockets around the end of the nineteenth century.  It was not uncommon to refer to the combination of a plug and socket as a "plug" or "wall plug", and the term "plug top" specified the actual plug as opposed to the plug and socket.  There are many uses to be found over the intervening years, one example of which can be found at the bottom of page 14 of D.W.M. Latimer's "History of the 13 amp plug and the ring circuit." (as referenced in the main article) where Mr Latimer quotes a passage from a committee memorandum (from 1943) which includes the phrase "Two standard plug tops for the up rated 10-ampere B.S..S. three-pin socket".  Deucharman (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plug-top? 

message: Are ring circuits allowed by current building codes in the UK? -- Beland (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  31.52.11.70 (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current building codes 

message: This article mentions it, along with many others on the subject on the web, but does not explain the science behind not having more spurs than sockets on a ring. If someone who does understand it could add it tot he article, it would be good. Talltim (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the limit on the amount of spurs? 

message: In the first row, it says "Radials with a broken connection will not function (if L or N broken) ...". Is this true? I think the opposite is the case. Because a socket is fed from two sides, it will continue to function even if L or N are severed on one side (I assume by "radials" it means the remaining circuit after a ring is broken at some point). Noggo (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: But radials are only fed from one side (not both), so if you have a break then it is non-functional.  I have reverted your edit on this and a number of other mistaken changes.  However, you were right that the paragraph on poor joints had become detached. FF-UK (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, but then I wonder what the part "Radials with a broken connection will not function (if L or N broken) ..." is supposed to tell me. I would expect something that opposes (or is at least related to) the corresponding statement in the left column. The way it is now, the two statements are not really connected - or am I missing something here?. But regarding the rest I changed: I'd appreciate if not everthing were reverted as a whole, including links I added, which in my opinion didn't harm anything. Noggo (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I am not sure why it is written like that, but it is true.  "Radial circuits" are linked the first time the phrase appears (in the lead), repetitive linking is unnecessary and discouraged see MOS:REPEATLINK FF-UK (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I wasn't aware of MOS:REPEATLINK. As for the table: I'll leave that as it is for now. Not sure how I could improve that. Noggo (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  FF-UK (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible error in table at "Criticism"?