Thx to the forum over the years

[Steve-S]

Beware a little long.
I served an electrical apprenticeship a long time ago, then went back to full time education immediately moving away from mainly domestic electricity work to jobs with greater reward (and interest), and not crawling around filthy lofts. There have been significant advances in domestic electrics since I was crawling around lofts as a kid, notably, LED lighting, RCDs, RCBOs, AFDDs, SPDs and screwless connectors (which have made their way onto light fittings and some 13A sockets). I recall ELCBs for specialist applications when I was a kid, few had them in homes. The only real safety advance at the time. The words 'consumer unit' were unheard of.

I have always been an admirer of the German, French, Continental main panels. They are multi row, inset into walls, have an RCD on each row with the data/comms all in one neat attractive metal enclosure. Impressive and state of the art. We would have fuse boxes under stairs where you had to lay on your stomach to get at them. Or a fuse box high up on a wall in a downstairs toilet in new builds, having to stand on the toilet to reset a breaker. Appalling. We were/are third world to their latest equipment and ways. Their breakers are also double pole all through, to our standard single pole, and their twin L & N busbars reducing wiring in the main panels. All very well thought out and neat. I noticed last week Screwfix sell the Schneider multi row metal consumer unit and the twin busbars. So some hope there we are going their way.

However, when looking at the Continental main panels (I prefer those words) below the attractive looks, I was always struck at the many circuits just a two bedroomed apartment had, as they had dedicated radials to certain appliances and socket radials and breakers to a room or two rooms at the most. In Britain it was common to see three circuits in flats in a small 'fusebox': the socket ring circuit, cooker and lights. A relative has a 35 year old house, detached, 4 bed, two bathroom with an attached garage. Heat and hot water by gas. His consumer unit was high in the garage, needing a ladder to get to, but with only a five circuits: one ring, two lights, cooker and immersion. The immersion has never been switched on as it is backup only. I immediately though cowboy cheapo builders skimping, but he said he has been there 25 years and not once has he had problems of any sort. He even has a big American fridge, washing machine, dryer and dishwasher of the one ring. And of course the TV, laptop etc. He had his consumer unit changed to a Fuse Box model with all DP RCBOs fitted at face height.

It hit me that the ring circuit was why he did not need a mass of circuits to our radial fitting Continental cousins. I have always admired the genius, simplicity and economy of the ring circuit, which the British G type fuse in plug, protecting the flex, makes possible. I would argue with Americans and Continentals defending the ring, that there was two ways back to the main panel for the earth, the cables less stressed by current, and that as we were taught it was a socket busbar run around the house. It was also economical to install. You can plug in a 3kW appliance into any socket with it fully working. We all were on the side of rings, all of us, sneering radials used for sockets circuits. I have noticed Youtube channels like Efixx and a few others, promote radials these days, which many just follow without thinking. I suspect this is under the prompting of sponsor manufacturers who want to sell MCBs, RCBOs, more cable, etc.

The big criticism from Americans and Continentals of the ring was that if the ring is severed for some reason, loose connection or just cut, one of the cables on one of the ring's 2.5mm legs could overheat drawing too much current causing a fire, as it is protected by a 32A breaker. A fair point. But I pointed out 4mm cable can be used, so no problem. They pointed out that using two 4mm conductors in one socket terminal to make the ring is cumbersome, and may put stress on the cable as the socket in pushed in. A fair point, although this applies to radial and ring circuits. They said 4mm is rarely used for sockets as they have a limit to sockets on any radial. These days safety device introduction has made the ring far, far, safer, so should be the first circuit of choice.

Well where is all this leading to you may ask. For a number of years I was considering a total flat renovation of my 2 bed flat, new bathroom, kitchen, electrics, floors, all new pipes, new combi, new doors, skirtings, etc. Then I am set for life. I was on a budget, so had to look at where savings could be made. I looked at the electrics. Skimming the forums here I gleened over the years since I was inactive in electrics, that the regs had changed markedly, and new safety devices introduced. The forum helped me here. I was aware of screwless connectors from commercial Continental applications I had seen, being impressed, but the new small Wago and In-Sure were new to me. The forum made me aware of double pole RCBO and AFDDs, and the regs relating to AFDDs and SPDs and that induction hobs were available on 13A plugs.

The forum directed me to the reg that I needed an 'expensive' AFDD on any circuit with a socket on it as the block I live in has too many floors to be exempted. So, with safety in mind and the reservations of Americans and Continentals on the ring circuit in my mind I designed the electrical installation for the flat. I ended up with 'three' circuits:

1. The hob and oven circuit. The hob can be on a 13 amp plug and oven draws about 14 amps. They both are off one 4mm T&E cable on a 32A DP RCBO. Both on a 20A isolator switches in an adjacent cupboard.

2. The ring circuit. It supplies all the sockets in the flat, as it is less than 100 square metres and one fused spur to the combi. It is in 4mm T&E cable on a DP 32A AFDD (32A is max these days for rings I read). A number of forum members mentioned having screwless lever connectors in backboxes taking the ring's load, then 2.5mm flex to the sockets. All using Wago or In-Sure lever connectors. I went this way using ferrules on the flex. Then no problems of having to use the socket terminals with two cumbersome 4mm conductors in them. The 4mm cable was easy to fit into the backboxes using the screwless lever connectors. Then the socket terminals do not take the ring's current load. This raises safety levels, just what I want. If the ring is severed the 4mm cable will not overheat, as the 32A AFDD will protect it, just what I want.

Washer/dryer and 3/4 dishwasher have sockets in adjacent cupboards. Using diversity the ring will be under the 32 amp current draw.

3. Lights. All LEDs with a DP RCBO on 1.00mm T&E cable. One dimmer in living room serving three skirting height 5A round pin light fittings for table lamps.

Only drums of 4mm and 1.00mm cable making it cheap as per metre the cable is cheaper in larger drums. The 2.5mm flex was three-core 2.5mm flex with the outer sheath removed. Quite cheap, cheaper than buying three single cores. The consumer unit was a small cheaper metal job with an SPD. It does not take up space being very small and near to a large plastic enclosure, housing the Modem, data distribution to all rooms using RJ5 sockets, etc. Trunking used so no cables seen making it very neat. Had the installation signed off. Safety levels are 'very' high for minimum cost.

Money saved meant I could buy stainless flat plate sockets and light fittings and superior shower brassware. Yet high levels of safety.

Due to the simplicity and brilliance of the ring we do not need a multitude of radial circuits and big consumer units. So thanks to the many on the many threads over the past years I picked up all this current information on safety devices, low current hobs, and regs.

 

[pc1966]

The "RFC versus Radial" debate comes up periodically and with near-religious levels of arguments, usually not relating to the actual design aspects. But for many cases the UK's fused plugs (so it is not really a "final" circuit after all, more of a distribution circuit) allows a very efficient installation due to the diversity on a 32A socket circuit, and the area covered comfortably by the RFC.

Having said that, if the UK could borrow just one idea from the EU it would have been a proper building standard for the minimum size and accessibility of CU location. For Victorian houses converted to the new-fangled electric stuff there is some excuse, but for anything built in the last half century or more the architects and builders deserve a beating for not planning electrical system in to the actual building layout.

Even though a 6A RCBO is plenty for a whole house/flat lighting with LEDs, I would always design for two circuits just so under a single-fault you have some lights in the place.

In my own work we have metal cabins with sockets wired in 4mm singles in trunking for a similar reason: we needed 4mm for the 20A radials feeding several UPS due to the grouping factor, and 4mm for supplementary bonding, so no reason to buy 2.5mm just for sockets.

 

[mainline]

Beware a little long.
I served an electrical apprenticeship a long time ago, then went back to full time education immediately moving away from mainly domestic electricity work to jobs with greater reward (and interest), and not crawling around filthy lofts. There have been significant advances in domestic electrics since I was crawling around lofts as a kid, notably, LED lighting, RCDs, RCBOs, AFDDs, SPDs and screwless connectors (which have made their way onto light fittings and some 13A sockets). I recall ELCBs for specialist applications when I was a kid, few had them in homes. The only real safety advance at the time. The words 'consumer unit' were unheard of.

I have always been an admirer of the German, French, Continental main panels. They are multi row, inset into walls, have an RCD on each row with the data/comms all in one neat attractive metal enclosure. Impressive and state of the art. We would have fuse boxes under stairs where you had to lay on your stomach to get at them. Or a fuse box high up on a wall in a downstairs toilet in new builds, having to stand on the toilet to reset a breaker. Appalling. We were/are third world to their latest equipment and ways. Their breakers are also double pole all through, to our standard single pole, and their twin L & N busbars reducing wiring in the main panels. All very well thought out and neat. I noticed last week Screwfix sell the Schneider multi row metal consumer unit and the twin busbars. So some hope there we are going their way.

However, when looking at the Continental main panels (I prefer those words) below the attractive looks, I was always struck at the many circuits just a two bedroomed apartment had, as they had dedicated radials to certain appliances and socket radials and breakers to a room or two rooms at the most. In Britain it was common to see three circuits in flats in a small 'fusebox': the socket ring circuit, cooker and lights. A relative has a 35 year old house, detached, 4 bed, two bathroom with an attached garage. Heat and hot water by gas. His consumer unit was high in the garage, needing a ladder to get to, but with only a five circuits: one ring, two lights, cooker and immersion. The immersion has never been switched on as it is backup only. I immediately though cowboy cheapo builders skimping, but he said he has been there 25 years and not once has he had problems of any sort. He even has a big American fridge, washing machine, dryer and dishwasher of the one ring. And of course the TV, laptop etc. He had his consumer unit changed to a Fuse Box model with all DP RCBOs fitted at face height.

It hit me that the ring circuit was why he did not need a mass of circuits to our radial fitting Continental cousins. I have always admired the genius, simplicity and economy of the ring circuit, which the British G type fuse in plug, protecting the flex, makes possible. I would argue with Americans and Continentals defending the ring, that there was two ways back to the main panel for the earth, the cables less stressed by current, and that as we were taught it was a socket busbar run around the house. It was also economical to install. You can plug in a 3kW appliance into any socket with it fully working. We all were on the side of rings, all of us, sneering radials used for sockets circuits. I have noticed Youtube channels like Efixx and a few others, promote radials these days, which many just follow without thinking. I suspect this is under the prompting of sponsor manufacturers who want to sell MCBs, RCBOs, more cable, etc.

The big criticism from Americans and Continentals of the ring was that if the ring is severed for some reason, loose connection or just cut, one of the cables on one of the ring's 2.5mm legs could overheat drawing too much current causing a fire, as it is protected by a 32A breaker. A fair point. But I pointed out 4mm cable can be used, so no problem. They pointed out that using two 4mm conductors in one socket terminal to make the ring is cumbersome, and may put stress on the cable as the socket in pushed in. A fair point, although this applies to radial and ring circuits. They said 4mm is rarely used for sockets as they have a limit to sockets on any radial. These days safety device introduction has made the ring far, far, safer, so should be the first circuit of choice.

Well where is all this leading to you may ask. For a number of years I was considering a total flat renovation of my 2 bed flat, new bathroom, kitchen, electrics, floors, all new pipes, new combi, new doors, skirtings, etc. Then I am set for life. I was on a budget, so had to look at where savings could be made. I looked at the electrics. Skimming the forums here I gleened over the years since I was inactive in electrics, that the regs had changed markedly, and new safety devices introduced. The forum helped me here. I was aware of screwless connectors from commercial Continental applications I had seen, being impressed, but the new small Wago and In-Sure were new to me. The forum made me aware of double pole RCBO and AFDDs, and the regs relating to AFDDs and SPDs and that induction hobs were available on 13A plugs.

The forum directed me to the reg that I needed an 'expensive' AFDD on any circuit with a socket on it as the block I live in has too many floors to be exempted. So, with safety in mind and the reservations of Americans and Continentals on the ring circuit in my mind I designed the electrical installation for the flat. I ended up with 'three' circuits:

1. The hob and oven circuit. The hob can be on a 13 amp plug and oven draws about 14 amps. They both are off one 4mm T&E cable on a 32A DP RCBO. Both on a 20A isolator switches in an adjacent cupboard.

2. The ring circuit. It supplies all the sockets in the flat, as it is less than 100 square metres and one fused spur to the combi. It is in 4mm T&E cable on a DP 32A AFDD (32A is max these days for rings I read). A number of forum members mentioned having screwless lever connectors in backboxes taking the ring's load, then 2.5mm flex to the sockets. All using Wago or In-Sure lever connectors. I went this way using ferrules on the flex. Then no problems of having to use the socket terminals with two cumbersome 4mm conductors in them. The 4mm cable was easy to fit into the backboxes using the screwless lever connectors. Then the socket terminals do not take the ring's current load. This raises safety levels, just what I want. If the ring is severed the 4mm cable will not overheat, as the 32A AFDD will protect it, just what I want.

Washer/dryer and 3/4 dishwasher have sockets in adjacent cupboards. Using diversity the ring will be under the 32 amp current draw.

3. Lights. All LEDs with a DP RCBO on 1.00mm T&E cable. One dimmer in living room serving three skirting height 5A round pin light fittings for table lamps.

Only drums of 4mm and 1.00mm cable making it cheap as per metre the cable is cheaper in larger drums. The 2.5mm flex was three-core 2.5mm flex with the outer sheath removed. Quite cheap, cheaper than buying three single cores. The consumer unit was a small cheaper metal job with an SPD. It does not take up space being very small and near to a large plastic enclosure, housing the Modem, data distribution to all rooms using RJ5 sockets, etc. Trunking used so no cables seen making it very neat. Had the installation signed off. Safety levels are 'very' high for minimum cost.

Money saved meant I could buy stainless flat plate sockets and light fittings and superior shower brassware. Yet high levels of safety.

Due to the simplicity and brilliance of the ring we do not need a multitude of radial circuits and big consumer units. So thanks to the many on the many threads over the past years I picked up all this current information on safety devices, low current hobs, and regs.

Adding more junctions to sockets cant make it safer.
Mk do quick fix screwless sockets so no need to joint flex into them, and why flex ? it's not like you're going to be removing them every day, is it ?

Having all those appliances on one ring isnt a good idea.
The maximum permitted value per RCD has been set at 30% of the nominal value, i.e. a 30mA RCD would be no more than 9mA.

Having one lighting circuit certainly isn't a good idea.

 

[nicebutdim]

I'd also have done things differently, although I agree with much of the OP's reasoning. 4mm into sockets isn't a problem and can easily be dressed to avoid any strain on conductors. If this is a modest flat with only the OP living there, it's unlikely he'll have any issues, but dedicated radial circuits for certain appliances isn't a bad idea given the standards to which such appliances are now designed and manufactured.

 

[Steve-S]

I think a few never got my aims.

1. Economical engineering
2. Safety is paramount.
3. Keeping it simple

I can have both these days. Safety is greatly enhanced by double pole AFDDs, RCBOs and screwless Wago/In-Sure connectors. While in the electrical game as a kid I came across many scorched cables, junction boxes, sockets and fused spur boxes. Most problems were screwed connections. We now have screwless connectors, that do work loose. Safety have now improved on that point.

The introduction of double pole RCBOs & AFDDs and screwless connections puts the ridiculed ring circuit in a supreme position. It is now pretty well bomb proof. On the Continent they have screwless MCBs, etc. Once available in the UK the ring is unassailable.

The Wago/In-Sure connectors in the backboxes were to eliminate screwed connections. The ring's current only runs around the ring's cable through screwless connections not through the terminals on the rear of the sockets, which is a flashpoint for problems. 4mm cable is unwieldy in a backbox, in this case it is a easy to insert into a lever Wago/In-Sure at the back of the box. The cable will 'never' be moved again.

I have seen many problems pushing back a socket with six wires on it. Sometimes they work loose as stress is on the wires. Having a rings heavy current run though the rear of sockets is something that should be avoided.

From the Wago/In-Sure the 2.5mm flex is to ensure the socket moves back not putting any stress on any terminal. 4mm is solid fixed cable, not meant to be moved in and out. Also the terminal on the socket do not pass current unless that socket draws current when an appliance is being used.

4mm cable was used as it was cheaper keeping the sockets and cooking appliance on the same gauge of cable, and if the ring breaks for any reason the cable is protected by the 32A breaker. So a problem our Continenetal cousins keep carping on about when ridiculing rings. Inserting the Wago/In-Sure connectors applies equally to radial circuits. The terminal on the first socket on a heavy current radial takes all the current. I have seen scorch marks on these terminals. The Wago/In-Sure connectors in the backboxes eliminates problem.

Using Wago/In-Sure connectors in backboxes, AFDDS and 4mm cable eliminates the current trend, backed by people who want to sell product, of needless radials. The ring is now bombproof, with no down points.

My ring only has three heavy current appliances: dishwasher, washer/dryer and toaster. Kettle is a stainless steel IKEA on the induction hob. There is not lots of earth leakage by appliances tripping the AFDD.

RCBOs, AFDDs and Wago/In-Sure connectors means we do not have to over engineer electrical systems. They can be very simple and more than deliver the power and safety. Ring is King!

If I was on the Continent, I would have a large main panel and lots of radial circuits all with AFDDs, giving me no more than what have now which is a fraction of the cost and expense.

 

[pc1966]

While I agree the RFC is a very good system for the UK (and countries using fused plugs) you seem to have far too much faith in people doing stuff correctly if the products exist to do so.

I suspect many cases of broken rings are down to some Muppet doing stuff with no knowledge or care to find out, that is a much harder problem to solve!

Certainly the Wago-style of terminals in some sockets now are a good idea, and the same for MCB/RCBO/AFDD would be nice as well, but having the knowledge and skill to use them correctly is a step up from most DIY work.

 

[littlespark]

There is not lots of earth leakage by appliances tripping the AFDD.

Wrong device?

AFDD detect arcing… momentary high frequency disconnecting and reconnecting of a live conductor.
The current isn’t leaking to earth…. It’s just not continually going where it’s supposed to.


Design is always a ---- up between safety, cost and common sense.
As others have mentioned, if a lighting circuit trips, you would want some other circuit of lights remaining to allow you to see.
Same with sockets… one fault should not take out the entire houses.


100% safe would mean no electricity at all…. Which is where common sense comes in.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Further thoughts on CU placement, the "Working at height Regulations" have a main thrust that construction and maintenance should be so designed that the work can be carried out without leaving the ground, this is carried through the CDM Regulations, so no excuse for new builds, or for re-wires?? Obviously putting the CU under the stairs or in a cupboard is stretching the point somewhat.

 

[Steve-S]

Hi, this is my first time here and third post, I was reluctant to subscribe as threads become circular and derailed going off the points far too much. I see that happening now. I never had the time to join in with threads, just wanting up to date info as my knowledge was of yesteryear. I did get the up to date info from the threads, then implemented it. I am giving the results.

I do not want to get into a circular argument, countering someone who wants to put two circuits in for everything, in case, creating redundancy. It is a 2 bed flat. All the flats I know have one lighting circuit. As it happens, I have light in the kitchen off the ring via the hob extractor fan. I also saw and bought on Ebay a 13A square pin to 5A round pin adapter, Rare items, so if my lights trip out for any reason, I can plug the table lamps into the ring's sockets.

I am designing for the here and now. What others like DIYers (I do not consider myself a DIYer) and 'muppets' do in the future is not my concern. You cannot always plan for the stupid.

The only future proofing I have, by default not design, is that I have a spare way in the main panel. If for any reason, such as maybe tripping of the ring as MA earth leakage is too high from additional appliance with electronics, the ring can be split into two radials by fitting another 32A DP AFDD and disconnecting behind one of the sockets giving lots of power at all the sockets. I have no tripping on the AFDD protected ring.

A broken ring of course is rare, if it does occur then I am covered as the cable is 4mm. It was also cheaper to keep all the cables carrying higher current (power), 4mm.

An AFDD is an MCB, RCD and arc fault detection all in one unit. Brilliant devices preventing fires.

Even if sockets were available with Wago/In-Sure lever connectors at the rear (from what I know only white MK are available) I would not run the rings current through the screwless socket. I would still use Wago/In-Sure lever connectors at the rear of the backbox to take the rings high current, keeping current only destined for a socket running through that sockets terminals. Eliminating a screwed connection at the rear of a socket is a clear plus, making the ring even more robust and bombproof. Additionally use screwless AFDDs if and when they are available then a ring as I described beats any bunch of radials hands down being 100% screwless.

 

[nicebutdim]

4mm t&e is stranded cable and more than flexible enough to dress neatly behind sockets, the terminals of which are more than capable of carrying the current intended to pass through them. I regularly wire sockets in 4mm pvc singles and sometimes tuff sheath cable which is solid core in 4mm.

I do occasionally find loose connections, but those are down to incompetence or DIY work, but those occasions are few and far between - perhaps because I mostly work in environments where people don't tinker with stuff they don't understand.

I stated previously that I didn't disagree with much of your reasoning, but would have done things differently and that's with good reason. While most appliances in the average home could easily run off one ring, customers might not like what eventually transpires when one appliance develops a fault.

I'm confident in my abilities where installation of fixed wiring is concerned, but less so about the long term reliability of domestic appliances.

Can a flat be successfully wired with a total of three circuits? Of course it can, but doing so may be less than ideal for a whole host of reasons.

 

[nicebutdim]

I'm also curious why this ring needs to be wired in 4mm cable if the OP is confident of having overcome perceived issues with loss of ring continuity?

 

[loz2754]

I'm also curious why this ring needs to be wired in 4mm cable if the OP is confident of having overcome perceived issues with loss of ring continuity?

Because he's already got 4mm² cable for the cooker. Do try and keep up!

 

[mainline]

Hi, this is my first time here and third post, I was reluctant to subscribe as threads become circular and derailed going off the points far too much. I see that happening now. I never had the time to join in with threads, just wanting up to date info as my knowledge was of yesteryear. I did get the up to date info from the threads, then implemented it. I am giving the results.

I do not want to get into a circular argument, countering someone who wants to put two circuits in for everything, in case, creating redundancy. It is a 2 bed flat. All the flats I know have one lighting circuit. As it happens, I have light in the kitchen off the ring via the hob extractor fan. I also saw and bought on Ebay a 13A square pin to 5A round pin adapter, Rare items, so if my lights trip out for any reason, I can plug the table lamps into the ring's sockets.

I am designing for the here and now. What others like DIYers (I do not consider myself a DIYer) and 'muppets' do in the future is not my concern. You cannot always plan for the stupid.

The only future proofing I have, by default not design, is that I have a spare way in the main panel. If for any reason, such as maybe tripping of the ring as MA earth leakage is too high from additional appliance with electronics, the ring can be split into two radials by fitting another 32A DP AFDD and disconnecting behind one of the sockets giving lots of power at all the sockets. I have no tripping on the AFDD protected ring.

A broken ring of course is rare, if it does occur then I am covered as the cable is 4mm. It was also cheaper to keep all the cables carrying higher current (power), 4mm.

An AFDD is an MCB, RCD and arc fault detection all in one unit. Brilliant devices preventing fires.

Even if sockets were available with Wago/In-Sure lever connectors at the rear (from what I know only white MK are available) I would not run the rings current through the screwless socket. I would still use Wago/In-Sure lever connectors at the rear of the backbox to take the rings high current, keeping current only destined for a socket running through that sockets terminals. Eliminating a screwed connection at the rear of a socket is a clear plus, making the ring even more robust and bombproof. Additionally use screwless AFDDs if and when they are available then a ring as I described beats any bunch of radials hands down being 100% screwless.

I'm also curious why this ring needs to be wired in 4mm cable if the OP is confident of having overcome perceived issues with loss of ring continuity?

I would have done it differently as well.

I think lamp sockets are unless run off the lighting circuit and two way between the door and side of bed is pointless as a bed should have a double socket each side so could plug a lamp in there if wanting lamps on the ring.

4mm ring in a small flat is a total overkill.
A few 20 amp radials and a couple of lighting circuits would have been fine.

I seems that the over riding thought in using a ring is to cut down on the use of more AFDDs

Oops hang on the lights have tripped I’ll just try and find that adapter for the table lamps.

I’ve seen wagos melt and go open when using flex to an immersion heater.

More joints is less safe simple.

Hi, this is my first time here and third post, I was reluctant to subscribe as threads become circular and derailed going off the points far too much. I see that happening now. I never had the time to join in with threads, just wanting up to date info as my knowledge was of yesteryear. I did get the up to date info from the threads, then implemented it. I am giving the results.

I do not want to get into a circular argument, countering someone who wants to put two circuits in for everything, in case, creating redundancy. It is a 2 bed flat. All the flats I know have one lighting circuit. As it happens, I have light in the kitchen off the ring via the hob extractor fan. I also saw and bought on Ebay a 13A square pin to 5A round pin adapter, Rare items, so if my lights trip out for any reason, I can plug the table lamps into the ring's sockets.

I am designing for the here and now. What others like DIYers (I do not consider myself a DIYer) and 'muppets' do in the future is not my concern. You cannot always plan for the stupid.

The only future proofing I have, by default not design, is that I have a spare way in the main panel. If for any reason, such as maybe tripping of the ring as MA earth leakage is too high from additional appliance with electronics, the ring can be split into two radials by fitting another 32A DP AFDD and disconnecting behind one of the sockets giving lots of power at all the sockets. I have no tripping on the AFDD protected ring.

A broken ring of course is rare, if it does occur then I am covered as the cable is 4mm. It was also cheaper to keep all the cables carrying higher current (power), 4mm.

An AFDD is an MCB, RCD and arc fault detection all in one unit. Brilliant devices preventing fires.

Even if sockets were available with Wago/In-Sure lever connectors at the rear (from what I know only white MK are available) I would not run the rings current through the screwless socket. I would still use Wago/In-Sure lever connectors at the rear of the backbox to take the rings high current, keeping current only destined for a socket running through that sockets terminals. Eliminating a screwed connection at the rear of a socket is a clear plus, making the ring even more robust and bombproof. Additionally use screwless AFDDs if and when they are available then a ring as I described beats any bunch of radials hands down being 100% screwless.

Cables have been terminated into sockets for decades and when done properly won’t fail it’s usually the socket pins themselves.

 

[Steve-S]

4mm t&e is stranded cable and more than flexible enough to dress neatly behind sockets, the terminals of which are more than capable of carrying the current intended to pass through them. I regularly wire sockets in 4mm pvc singles and sometimes tuff sheath cable which is solid core in 4mm.

I do occasionally find loose connections, but those are down to incompetence or DIY work, but those occasions are few and far between - perhaps because I mostly work in environments where people don't tinker with stuff they don't understand.

I stated previously that I didn't disagree with much of your reasoning, but would have done things differently and that's with good reason. While most appliances in the average home could easily run off one ring, customers might not like what eventually transpires when one appliance develops a fault.

I'm confident in my abilities where installation of fixed wiring is concerned, but less so about the long term reliability of domestic appliances.

Can a flat be successfully wired with a total of three circuits? Of course it can, but doing so may be less than ideal for a whole host of reasons.

Hi, When I was an electrician I saw far too many problems with sockets and their terminals. One was crushing the cables between the back of the backbox and the back of the socket, forcing cables partially out of terminals (common problem). To rectify is make it easy to push back the socket using 2.5mm flex. One solution is avoid high current through socket terminals. As a kid I could see it was a weak point. Another additional solution was avoid screwed terminals. I did all that. I explained all this in previous posts.

I found lots of loose connections, and also on my own installation ten years after installation, of which I used MK sockets which were the cream at the time.

If there is a fault on a ring it is a matter of unplugging all appliances, or switching off all sockets and fused spurs then switch back on. If fine then the wiring is fine. Then switch back on the appliances one by one to get the fault. Not a problem, not needing multiple rings or radials.

I share your concerns about reliability of domestic appliances, and their safety aspect. Cheap Turkish fridges prone to fires that would not even trip with an RCBO. Maybe an AFDD would trip. I read an AFDD would have tripped on the cheap fridge that caught fire in Grenfell, hence AFDDs at last in high rises, and 'recommended' on all circuits. AFDDs have made rings near bombproof, with adjustments as have outlined.

Flats and houses were successfully wired with three circuits for sure. I gave the example of the 4 bed house with five circuits, could have been four as the backup immersion was never ever used. We over engineer, creating excessive cost.

Mr Mainine, the circular argument is emerging. Read what I wrote it is all there. The 4mm was because of three points which I previously made:

1. It was cheaper to stadardise on the cooker radial and ring using one size of cable.
2. It also is a safety backup in case the ring is broken for any reason. The cable will not cook.
3. The ring can be split into two radials if the need is there and still deliver high volumes of power at all sockets being 4mm.

The Continental setup using expensive multiple circuits does not have the protection I have with only three. I could have gone all the way and had AFDDs on all three circuits, but cost was a consideration after the assessment of risk on the cooker and lighting circuits.

 

[nicebutdim]

Hi, When I was an electrician I saw far too many problems with sockets and their terminals. One was crushing the cables between the back of the backbox and the back of the socket, forcing cables partially out of terminals (common problem). To rectify is make it easy to push back the socket using 2.5mm flex. One solution is avoid high current through socket terminals. As a kid I could see it was a weak point. Another additional solution was avoid screwed terminals. I did all that. I explained all this in previous posts.

I found lots of loose connections, and also on my own installation ten years after installation, of which I used MK sockets which were the cream at the time.

If there is a fault on a ring it is a matter of unplugging all appliances, or switching off all sockets and fused spurs then switch back on. If fine then the wiring is fine. Then switch back on the appliances one by one to get the fault. Not a problem, not needing multiple rings or radials.

I share your concerns about reliability of domestic appliances, and their safety aspect. Cheap Turkish fridges prone to fires that would not even trip with an RCBO. Maybe an AFDD would trip. I read an AFDD would have tripped on the cheap fridge that caught fire in Grenfell, hence AFDDs at last in high rises, and 'recommended' on all circuits. AFDDs have made rings near bombproof, with adjustments as have outlined.

Flats and houses were successfully wired with three circuits for sure. I gave the example of the 4 bed house with five circuits, could have been four as the backup immersion was never ever used. We over engineer, creating excessive cost.

Mr Mainine, the circular argument is emerging. Read what I wrote it is all there. The 4mm was because of three points which I previously made:

1. It was cheaper to stadardise on the cooker radial and ring using one size of cable.
2. It also is a safety backup in case the ring is broken for any reason. The cable will not cook.
3. The ring can be split into two radials if the need is there and still deliver high volumes of power at all sockets being 4mm.

The Continental setup using expensive multiple circuits does not have the protection I have with only three. I could have gone all the way and had AFDDs on all three circuits, but cost was a consideration after the assessment of risk on the cooker and lighting circuits.

The problems you describe resulted from poor design and blind implementation of that design.

Increased cable size does not resolve the issue of crushed and cut cables - all things being even it would increase the risk, so I'll assume you chased in appropriately sized boxes and avoided the issue in the same manner as any other competent person would.

I'll also assume the lever connectors used are rated for full potential circuit current for the type of conductor selected. That's another rabbit hole I'm happy to avoid.

We've had another member, who posted from a couple of different accounts, propose an almost identical installation to your own, with sockets spurred from lever connector joints, minimal number of circuits to reduce afdd cost etc. That member also shunned discussion of their ideas, but it must be understood that this is a discussion forum, where members share opinions, and not an online pulpit toward which no dissent can be directed.

I repeat again that I'm happy for you to install as you see fit, but the rest of us are obliged to take many other factors into consideration.

 

[Steve-S]

I’ve seen wagos melt and go open when using flex to an immersion heater.

New to me. Was it undersized? Why did it melt? The feedback on Wago types of lever connections is solid and positive. One Youtube video tests a Wago and other types connectors, with the Wago only melting after around 70 amps when after around 10-11 minutes.

It is best you read and get the points put across. I don't fully disagree with what you have posted, but most of I do. I am not into repeating myself.

 

[nicebutdim]

New to me. Was it undersized? Why did it melt? The feedback on Wago types of lever connections is solid and positive.

Better to select on the basis of specification, than feedback.

 

[mainline]

New to me. Was it undersized? Why did it melt? The feedback on Wago types of lever connections is solid and positive.

It's quite well known that especially push fit wagos are better when used with solid core rather than flex.

 

[mainline]

We've had another member, who posted from a couple of different accounts, propose an almost identical installation to your own, with sockets spurred from lever connector joints, minimal number of circuits to reduce afdd cost etc. That member also shunned discussion of their ideas, but it must be understood that this is a discussion forum, where members share opinions, and not an online pulpit toward which no dissent can be directed.

I didn't like to say

 

[James]

Have seen them fail with built in connectors on fluorescent light fittings many times over. They are not the solution to every problem.
however they are good and I do use them when the application is suitable.

 

[Steve-S]

It's quite well known that especially push fit wagos are better when used with solid core rather than flex.

So the answer is fit ferrules then, Which should be on stranded cable anyhow.

Back to the melting of the Wago type of connector. We need to know the detailed circumstances.

 

[Steve-S]

Have seen them fail with built in connectors on fluorescent light fittings many times over. They are not the solution to every problem.
however they are good and I do use them when the application is suitable.

Obviously the light manufacturers own brand of push in. Avoid cheap fittings I suppose. The Wago and In-Sure have excellent reputations.

 

[mainline]

So the answer is fit ferrules then, Which should be on stranded cable anyhow.

If you're talking about the Wago 221 with levers, the manufacturer's say no ferrules are necessary

If you're talking about the Wago 2273 leaf spring terminals without levers, then these are only compatible with solid core wires. So you can't use stranded wires, even with a ferrule. In the event you manage to stick a wire with ferrule in the wago, you'll probably manage to push it half way in, but the indents left by the crimping tool on the ferrule will catch on the leaf spring and it will stay stuck there forever, can't push it in, can't pull it out. Also a big adantage of wago 2273 is the wires can turn inside the terminal which really helps when squeezing all the wires inside a junction box, and that can't happen with a ferrule. It's definitely not listed for use with stranded wires, no matter what's on the tip, so a definite no

Back to the melting of the Wago type of connector. We need to know the detailed circumstances.

Who's we ? 3kw immersion with long periods of use 2.5mm t&e into wago 221 feeding 2.5 flex to the heater melted the wago and went open circuit.
I crimped it in the end in a junction box, no problems since.

I have seen the video comparing wago, choc box and crimp and if I remember correctly they all went well past the rated current.

Screw type connections are everywhere and like already said have been used and reliable for decades
Lever type connections haven't yet been time proven, especially where moisture is present, I wonder how a wago spring would handle 20yrs in a damp environment.


What connectors did you use on your pair of 4mm down to 2.5mm flex ????

 

[Mike Johnson]

We've had another member, who posted from a couple of different accounts, propose an almost identical installation to your own, with sockets spurred from lever connector joints, minimal number of circuits to reduce afdd cost etc. That member also shunned discussion of their ideas, but it must be understood that this is a discussion forum, where members share opinions, and not an online pulpit toward which no dissent can be directed.

Well said, not a sarcastic comment, but meant.

 

[nicebutdim]

So the answer is fit ferrules then, Which should be on stranded cable anyhow.

Ferrules are intended to protect fine stranded conductors from damage and to marshall them into one single core. Coarse stranded conductors, such as those found in 4mm T&E, do not benefit from use of ferrules.

Obviously the light manufacturers own brand of push in. Avoid cheap fittings I suppose. The Wago and In-Sure have excellent reputations.

Harland & Wolff had a long established reputation as excellent shipbuilders, yet that was of little comfort to those who perished on the Titanic.


Of the Wago connectors commonly sold in the UK, there are clearly printed recommendations on each pack and also available from the manufacturer's website.

773 push fit connectors are suitable for use with solid and coarse stranded conductors.
2273 push fit connectors are suitable for use with solid conductors.
2773 push fit connectors are suitable for use with solid and coarse stranded conductors.
222 lever connectors are suitable for use with solid, coarse stranded and fine stranded conductors.
221 lever connectors are suitable for use with solid, coarse stranded and fine stranded conductors.

Rated current varies between connector type and more than one rating may be printed on individual connectors. For confirmation of rating approved in UK, one needs to check Wago data sheets and be aware of any specific details found therein which may affect this rating.

InSure connectors I know less about and apply a personal current limit of 6A to those I'm trying to use up.

 

[mainline]

Ferrules are intended to protect fine stranded conductors from damage and to marshall them into one single core. Coarse stranded conductors, such as those found in 4mm T&E, do not benefit from use of ferrules.



Harland & Wolff had a long established reputation as excellent shipbuilders, yet that was of little comfort to those who perished on the Titanic.


Of the Wago connectors commonly sold in the UK, there are clearly printed recommendations on each pack and also available from the manufacturer's website.

773 push fit connectors are suitable for use with solid and coarse stranded conductors.
2273 push fit connectors are suitable for use with solid conductors.
2773 push fit connectors are suitable for use with solid and coarse stranded conductors.
222 lever connectors are suitable for use with solid, coarse stranded and fine stranded conductors.
221 lever connectors are suitable for use with solid, coarse stranded and fine stranded conductors.

Rated current varies between connector type and more than one rating may be printed on individual connectors. For confirmation of rating approved in UK, one needs to check Wago data sheets and be aware of any specific details found therein which may affect this rating.

InSure connectors I know less about and apply a personal current limit of 6A to those I'm trying to use up.

Use of these type of connectors isn't as straight forward as sometimes thought.

For instance, when using some ideal junction boxes they are rated at 16 amps even if you're using 32 amp connectors.

O/P hasn't replied to the question of what make/type of connector he used to make the 4 mm / flex /singles spur, although he was on this morning.

 

[nicebutdim]

Use of these type of connectors isn't as straight forward as sometimes thought.

For instance, when using some ideal junction boxes they are rated at 16 amps even if you're using 32 amp connectors.

O/P hasn't replied to the question of what make/type of connector he used to make the 4 mm / flex /singles spur, although he was on this morning.

That's what I meant by checking data sheet for specific information which may affect rating.

 

[Steve-S]

That's what I meant by checking data sheet for specific information which may affect rating.

Good point. The In-Sure 'blue' junction box is rated at 24 amps according to Screwfix, even if the blue In-Sure Gen 2 Lever 32A connectors are used inside. The similar grey Wago junction box is rated at 41 amps.

I never used any of these boxes. I did use 16A screwless Dboxes for LED downlights on a 3A DP RCBO.

I used Wago connectors. I would be happy using the In-Sure blue lever connectors which going by Youtube, etc, have good rep, appearing to be equally as good, and I believe cheaper than Wago for similar products.

 

[Steve-S]

We've had another member, who posted from a couple of different accounts, propose an almost identical installation to your own, with sockets spurred from lever connector joints, minimal number of circuits to reduce afdd cost etc. That member also shunned discussion of their ideas, but it must be understood that this is a discussion forum, where members share opinions, and not an online pulpit toward which no dissent can be directed.

He, and others, may have been the one who tagged me onto using Wago screwless, although I have seen radials wired that way on the Continent, to avoid heavy current drawing radials current running though socket terminals. I have seen radials in a star formation with each socket's cable running back to a terminal block near the main panel with one cable back to the breaker. Lots of cable but failure points mainly clustered on one easy to get to and test point

If I recall a few here were on about having all sockets as spurs off a ring on this forum. Since a kid I always thought a ring's current must run 'not' through the ring's cable not through the terminals of the socket, for safety reasons I have outlined. But never mind. Others have come up with good nuggets of various info over the past three years or so.

I am on pulpit. Fist I thank those who gave me the info of the latest equipment and regs available. Cannot recall names. I would never have known that a ring is now limited to a 32A breaker. I have seen a few 4mm rings with 40-45A breakers in the past, now they are against regs. I am preaching what I did, and justifying it, not coming for advice. I am a professional. People telling me to add more expensive needless circuits will go in one ear and out the other.

Once again thanks to those positive people in the past (names unknown).

 

[DPG]

He, and others, may have been the one who tagged me onto using Wago screwless, although I have seen radials wired that way on the Continent, to avoid heavy current drawing radials current running though socket terminals. I have seen radials in a star formation with each socket's cable running back to a terminal block near the main panel with one cable back to the breaker. Lots of cable but failure points mainly clustered on one easy to get to and test point

If I recall a few here were on about having all sockets as spurs off a ring on this forum. Since a kid I always thought a ring's current must run 'not' through the ring's cable not through the terminals of the socket, for safety reasons I have outlined. But never mind. Others have come up with good nuggets of various info over the past three years or so.

I am on pulpit. Fist I thank those who gave me the info of the latest equipment and regs available. Cannot recall names. I would never have known that a ring is now limited to a 32A breaker. I have seen a few 4mm rings with 40-45A breakers in the past, now they are against regs. I am preaching what I did, and justifying it, not coming for advice. I am a professional. People telling me to add more expensive needless circuits will go in one ear and out the other.

Once again thanks to those positive people in the past (names unknown).

Not sure there's much point posting on a forum if you don't want to hear alternative views.

But having said that, I would still have two separate lighting circuits. If it's coming down to the cost of one RCBO then things are pretty tight.

 

[nicebutdim]

He, and others, may have been the one who tagged me onto using Wago screwless, although I have seen radials wired that way on the Continent, to avoid heavy current drawing radials current running though socket terminals. I have seen radials in a star formation with each socket's cable running back to a terminal block near the main panel with one cable back to the breaker. Lots of cable but failure points mainly clustered on one easy to get to and test point

If I recall a few here were on about having all sockets as spurs off a ring on this forum. Since a kid I always thought a ring's current must run 'not' through the ring's cable not through the terminals of the socket, for safety reasons I have outlined. But never mind. Others have come up with good nuggets of various info over the past three years or so.

I am on pulpit. Fist I thank those who gave me the info of the latest equipment and regs available. Cannot recall names. I would never have known that a ring is now limited to a 32A breaker. I have seen a few 4mm rings with 40-45A breakers in the past, now they are against regs. I am preaching what I did, and justifying it, not coming for advice. I am a professional. People telling me to add more expensive needless circuits will go in one ear and out the other.

Once again thanks to those positive people in the past (names unknown).

Radial circuits can be wired in various different ways. Of course once it deviates from the traditional linear form, testing and fault finding become less straightforward and its simplicity is lost.

I take your point about full load of a circuit being drawn through socket terminals, but that's what those terminals are designed to carry. Those terminals as acting in the same manner as your Wago junction. I'd much rather pay the extra cost of sockets with lever connectors, than add additional and unnecessary joints.

 

[Steve-S]

I take your point about full load of a circuit being drawn through socket terminals, but that's what those terminals are designed to carry. Those terminals as acting in the same manner as your Wago junction. I'd much rather pay the extra cost of sockets with lever connectors, than add additional and unnecessary joints.

Modern sockets have 'grub' screws that are far from suitable for carrying a ring's near full load under a sustained time period. I saw too many of them scorched. I worked on a few rewires after fires as well. It sharpens the mind. Modern technology, screwless connectors, means the ring's current load can only be in the cable and 'only' the cable.

There is only one lever connection socket on the market to my knowledge, the white MK, which is not cheap. I wanted stainless flatplate, so the MK were out. It is cheaper to use Wagos in a backbox than the MKs. A high current can still run though the socket even with an MK lever connection. I want no current through the socket unless that socket is drawing current. Another reason is that pushing back six stiff solid cables can put stress on the cable and socket terminals, as I have already explained. This stress can force a loose connection and part move cable out of the terminal when pushed back. Seen too many of them loose and too many with scorch marks.

One novel and notable radial I saw was by a guy I worked with who was just out of electricians apprenticeship. He was just married doing up his kitchen and rewiring in his new old house. He was short of money of course.

Each socket in the kitchen had an individual 1.5mm cable to it. 1.5mm takes 14.5A to around 20A, so fine for any 13A socket in the kitchen. All were single sockets. Single backboxes were bolted together with short pieces of conduit to make twins. They all went back to an enclosure near the main panel. Inside was three terminal strips (L, N & E), having got hold of them for nothing. All the conductors of the 1.5mm cables terminated at terminals. He used three busbars from a main panel to link all the Ls, Ns & Es on each of the terminals. A short length of around 12-18 inches of 6mm from the terminal strip to a 32A MCB in the main panel. The 6mm was attached to the three busbars by drilling a hole in the busbars using a brass nut & bolt with shakeproof washers. 6mm had a lug. 6mm cable was left over from the cooker radial. I noticed all the weak points were at one point at the terminal strip, all spread out. No terminal connection would have more than 13 amps run through it. Not one screwed terminal was taking the full radial's current, as all circuits went into the terminals/busbars. I pointed that out, of which he never noticed, being proud of himself when realising it.

He explained that the 1.5mm is about half the price of 2.5mm cable. The length was short enough from the main panel to the kitchen.

At the time the norm was to have expensive fused spurs over worktops with 2.5mm to a socket on the appliances under. He put sockets in adjacent cupboards to appliances, avoiding all the unneeded expensive fuse spurs. His was was buttons to install and better and safer than what was normally done.

He also had a 1.5mm ring for the rest of house with a 20A MCB. He figured no heavy current appliance would ever be on that ring. But a 13A fan heater would work if the need was there. I believe a ring cannot be less that 2.5mm these days, or more than 32A MCB.

All lighting was 1.5mm. All the rewire was 1.5mm except the 6mm cooker supply. Totally safe at the time.

Necessity (being broke) is the mother of invention.

 

[DPG]

Modern sockets have 'grub' screws that are far from suitable for carrying a ring's near full load under a sustained time period. I saw too many of them scorched. I worked on a few rewires after fires as well. It sharpens the mind. Modern technology, screwless connectors, means the ring's current load can only be in the cable and 'only' the cable.

There is only one lever connection socket on the market to my knowledge, the white MK, which is not cheap. I wanted stainless flatplate, so the MK were out. It is cheaper to use Wagos in a backbox than the MKs. A high current can still run though the socket even with an MK lever connection. I want no current through the socket unless that socket is drawing current. Another reason is that pushing back six stiff solid cables can put stress on the cable and socket terminals, as I have already explained. This stress can force a loose connection and part move cable out of the terminal when pushed back. Seen too many of them loose and too many with scorch marks.

One novel and notable radial I saw was by a guy I worked with who was just out of electricians apprenticeship. He was just married doing up his kitchen and rewiring in his new old house. He was short of money of course.

Each socket in the kitchen had an individual 1.5mm cable to it. 1.5mm takes 14.5A to around 20A, so fine for any 13A socket in the kitchen. All were single sockets. Single backboxes were bolted together with short pieces of conduit to make twins. They all went back to an enclosure near the main panel. Inside was three terminal strips (L, N & E), having got hold of them for nothing. All the conductors of the 1.5mm cables terminated at terminals. He used three busbars from a main panel to link all the Ls, Ns & Es on each of the terminals. A short length of around 12-18 inches of 6mm from the terminal strip to a 32A MCB in the main panel. The 6mm was attached to the three busbars by drilling a hole in the busbars using a brass nut & bolt with shakeproof washers. 6mm had a lug. 6mm cable was left over from the cooker radial. I noticed all the weak points were at one point at the terminal strip, all spread out. No terminal connection would have more than 13 amps run through it. Not one screwed terminal was taking the full radial's current, as all circuits went into the terminals/busbars. I pointed that out, of which he never noticed, being proud of himself when realising it.

He explained that the 1.5mm is about half the price of 2.5mm cable. The length was short enough from the main panel to the kitchen.

At the time the norm was to have expensive fused spurs over worktops with 2.5mm to a socket on the appliances under. He put sockets in adjacent cupboards to appliances, avoiding all the unneeded expensive fuse spurs. His was was buttons to install and better and safer than what was normally done.

He also had a 1.5mm ring for the rest of house with a 20A MCB. He figured no heavy current appliance would ever be on that ring. But a 13A fan heater would work if the need was there. I believe a ring cannot be less that 2.5mm these days, or more than 32A MCB.

All lighting was 1.5mm. All the rewire was 1.5mm except the 6mm cooker supply. Totally safe at the time.

Necessity (being broke) is the mother of invention.

No need to use 1.5mm for lighting these days. You've missed a cost saving there.

And no need for an FCU feeding under counter sockets - use a plain 20A switch. Then you don't have two 13A fuses in series, not knowing which will blow first.

Each of the above would save money, but it's not good to put saving money above good practice. Just saying.

 

[nicebutdim]

The fact also remains that full load current never passes through socket terminals, but through connection terminals designed for that very purpose.

OP's approach simply moves that connection back in the box and adds an additional connection at each point.

Regardless of how reliable spring connectors might be, double the number of connections means double the potential points of failure. I don't dislike the theory, but this system (on each occasion a different member has suggested it) seems to result from tunnel vision that shuts out anything which isn't positive. Many spectacular engineering failures have resulted from that sort of thinking.

 

[Steve-S]

No need to use 1.5mm for lighting these days. You've missed a cost saving there.

And no need for an FCU feeding under counter sockets - use a plain 20A switch. Then you don't have two 13A fuses in series, not knowing which will blow first.

Each of the above would save money, but it's not good to put saving money above good practice. Just saying.

I doubt you read the post properly. He used only 1.5mm for all, except the cooker, as it was cheap to buy in large drums. He was near broke spending a lot of money on a house deposit, the mortgage payments and the partial renovation. He did have a 1.5 inch plastic pipe as a big conduit, from near the main panel to the kitchen, so threading in a 2.5mm cable afterwards was easy enough. I described what 'he' did decades ago to save money and yet a had a safe installation. Just another approach that was safe and conformed to the then regs. You suggesting what he should have done is meaningless.

After I Ieft the electricians game I met him about 15 years later. I mentioned in jest his 1.5mm rewire and the terminal box near the main panel which was a 'star' radial. He said it is was still there working well and safe. He had fitted an RCD on the whole house by then, the only addition.

 

[Steve-S]

The fact also remains that full load current never passes through socket terminals, but through connection terminals designed for that very purpose.

The terminals of the rear of a socket 'are' the socket terminals. A full current load ''WILL' pass through the terminals. I have explained the many cons of having solid wire connected into these socket terminals.

In my time as an electrician, and times after, I have lost count of the times I have undone a socket's screws, pulled it out then one or more the conductors popped out of the terminal. Only the pressure of the socket pushing the cables in to the rear of the backbox made a connection, which I am sure created an arc. This connection was taking the full rings load as well.

Connecting largely inflexible 'solid' cables to these terminals in such a restricted space as in a backbox is asking for trouble. The problem is eliminated by ensuring the ring's current only stays in the cable. Screwless connectors make far better connection that will never work loose. They apply the correct torque to the conductor. Avoiding screwed connections must be a prime aim, and was mine.

I assessed this 'tunnel vision' mentioned on this thread, after seeing many scorch marks in electrical installations and doing the odd rewire after electrical fires. I went along with it. Saying that, it was a synch to fit the sockets using flex cable and lever screwless connectors. So quick. No cable will pop out of the rear terminal for sure, as there is no stress on the terninal.

I also assessed the low current drawing induction hobs of 13 amps after guys on this forum mentioned them. I though they all drew about 30 amps. I bought one.

 

[nicebutdim]

The terminals of the rear of a socket 'are' the socket terminals. A full current load ''WILL' pass through the terminals. I have explained the many cons of having solid wire connected into these socket terminals.

In my time as an electrician, and times after, I have lost count of the times I have undone a socket's screws, pulled it out then one or more the conductors popped out of the terminal. Only the pressure of the socket pushing the cables in to the rear of the backbox made a connection, which I am sure created an arc. This connection was taking the full rings load as well.

Connecting largely inflexible 'solid' cables to these terminals in such a restricted space as in a backbox is asking for trouble. The problem is eliminated by ensuring the ring's current only stays in the cable. Screwless connectors make far better connection that will never work loose. They apply the correct torque to the conductor. Avoiding screwed connections must be a prime aim, and was mine.

I assessed this 'tunnel vision' mentioned on this thread, after seeing many scorch marks in electrical installations and doing the odd rewire after electrical fires. I went along with it. Saying that, it was a synch to fit the sockets using flex cable and lever screwless connectors. So quick. No cable will pop out of the rear terminal for sure, as there is no stress on the terninal.

I also assessed the low current drawing induction hobs of 13 amps after guys on this forum mentioned them. I though they all drew about 30 amps. I bought one.

The problems you overcame were problems caused by incompetence, rather than poor design and it seems strange that an electrician would question their own competency in wiring their own home. I don't consider your design to be poor, but you have doubled the number of potential points of failure in the circuit and there is no getting around that fact. I'm also not suggesting that cables will ever fall out of constant tension connectors, but they can (and do) fail on occasion - just as any component can, so I see no good reason for increasing their number unnecessarily.

Getting back to the subject of poorly termiated screw connections; these seem to mostly occur in places where DIYers are likely to tinker. Cables should not be under strain at the back of accessories and as an electrician it shouldn't trouble you to dress cables in a manner which avoids such stress - especially when using 4mm stranded cable which provides a greater degree of flexibility as well as filling terminals well enough to avoid loose connections. I think this is the root of my perplexion - a DIYer may seek a novel means of overcoming the problems you perceived, but an electrician shouldn't be the least bit troubled by them as they shouldn't exist in any installation wired by competent hands.

 

[Steve-S]

No. The problems 'were' POOR DESIGN. Good design means installation is easy, quick, mistakes designed out and safe. Another circular argument, when not getting points made. You sound like someone carping about losing a skill because of deskilling. Sounds like plumbers who whined when copper came along because their lead joint wiping skills were no longer needed.

I always admired the simplicity and economy of rings and all those I knew at the time thought they were superb. They eliminate many radial circuits. We always defended them.

I looked at the bad points of rings and considered how to eliminate them.

1. Ring being broken then splitting into two radials off the one 32A MCB then 2.5mm cable protected by an MCB that is too big creating a fire risk.
Solution?
Up the cable to 4mm.

2. Ring's heavy current not running through the cable, being run through the terminals at the rear of a socket. Potential bad connection at the rear of the socket due to stressed cables. Until 'recently' this was difficult to eliminate.
Solution?
Screwless connectors in backboxes now make it possible to have ring's current not run through socket terminals.

3. Ring out of balance with too much current on one leg, which could be a fire risk using 2.5mm cable.
Solution?
a) Connect leg 1) of ring to sockets 1, 3, 5, etc. Connect leg 2) to sockets 2, 4, 6, etc.
b) Use 4mm cable.

Other points that apply to rings and radials:

1. Conductors bunching under stress being forced out of terminals at rear of sockets in packed backboxes.
Solution?
Use lever screwless connectors in backboxes to take the cable's current load, with a flex from the lever screwless connectors to the sockets terminals. No stress on sockets terminal with socket moving into position with ease.

2. Arcing due to lose screwed terminals.
Solution?
a) Use screwless connectors, as terminals do not work loose.
b) Use an AFDD to isolate circuit if arcing detected.

The ring using screwless connectors, ensuring circuit's current runs through the cable and protected by an AFDD is now near bombproof. All we need is screwless connectors in the rear of sockets (available but limited) and on MCB/RCBO/AFDDs (available on the Continent, but can be imported). Then no many needless expensive circuits.

Note: if you think screwed terminals only loosen after a DIYer had screwed it up, you must not have been around too much.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

No. The problems 'were' POOR DESIGN. Good design means installation is easy and safe. Another circular argument, when not getting points made. You sound like someone carping about losing a skill because of deskilling. Sounds like plumbers who whined when copper came along because their lead joint wiping skills were no longer needed.

I always admired the simplicity and economy of rings and all those I knew at the time thought they were superb. They eliminate many radial circuits. We always defended them.

I looked at the bad points of rings and considered how to eliminate them.

1. Ring being broken then splitting into two radials off the one 32A MCB then 2.5mm cable protected by an MCB that is too big creating a fire risk.
Solution?
Up the cable to 4mm.

2. Ring's heavy current not running through the cable, being run through the terminals at the rear of a socket. Potential bad connection at the rear of the socket due to stressed cables. Until 'recently' this was difficult to eliminate.
Solution?
Screwless connectors in backboxes now make it possible to have ring's current not run through socket terminals.

3. Ring out of balance with too much current on one leg, which could be a fire risk using 2.5mm cable.
Solution?
a) Connect leg 1) of ring to sockets 1, 3, 5, etc. Connect leg 2) to sockets 2, 4, 6, etc.
b) Use 4mm cable.

Other points that apply to rings and radials:

1. Conductors bunching under stress being forced out of terminals at rear of sockets in packed backboxes.
Solution?
Use lever screwless connectors in backboxes to take the cable's current load, with a flex from the lever screwless connectors to the sockets terminals. No stress on sockets terminal with socket moving into position with ease.

2. Arcing due to lose screwed terminals.
Solution?
a) Use screwless connectors, as terminals do not work loose.
b) Use an AFDD to isolate circuit if arcing detected.

The ring using screwless connectors, ensuring circuit's current runs through the cable and protected by an AFDD is now near bombproof. All we need is screwless connectors in the rear of sockets (available but limited) and on MCB/RCBO/AFDDs (available on the Continent, but can be imported). Then no many needless expensive circuits.

Note: if you think screwed terminals only loosen after a DIYer had screwed it up, you must not have been around too much.

If you don't trust yourself to correctly terminate 2 conductors into a screw terminal, what makes you think that you'll manage it with 1?

 

[nicebutdim]

No. The problems 'were' POOR DESIGN. Good design means installation is easy, quick, mistakes designed out and safe. Another circular argument, when not getting points made. You sound like someone carping about losing a skill because of deskilling. Sounds like plumbers who whined when copper came along because their lead joint wiping skills were no longer needed.

Not much 'deskilling' in removing screwed connections at the rear of sockets. Connecting accessories is a necessary, but tedious aspect of the trade which I'd quite happily see the back of and I'm sure many others agree.

I always admired the simplicity and economy of rings and all those I knew at the time thought they were superb. They eliminate many radial circuits. We always defended them.

I looked at the bad points of rings and considered how to eliminate them.

1. Ring being broken then splitting into two radials off the one 32A MCB then 2.5mm cable protected by an MCB that is too big creating a fire risk.
Solution?
Up the cable to 4mm.

A broken ring is unlikely to lead to fire - most especially in modern installations where distribution doesn not rely on a single circuit to serve the whole property. Rings wired in 4mm are quite common outside of domestic installations, where required by design considerations as opposed to perceived risk of fire.

2. Ring's heavy current not running through the cable, being run through the terminals at the rear of a socket. Potential bad connection at the rear of the socket due to stressed cables. Until 'recently' this was difficult to eliminate.
Solution?
Screwless connectors in backboxes now make it possible to have ring's current not run through socket terminals.

Screwless connections now carry this current and twice as many connections as before.

3. Ring out of balance with too much current on one leg, which could be a fire risk using 2.5mm cable.
Solution?
a) Connect leg 1) of ring to sockets 1, 3, 5, etc. Connect leg 2) to sockets 2, 4, 6, etc.
b) Use 4mm cable.

Again these are design considerations which should be applied to every installation. Both of your points are routinely implemented, but other solutions exist and would be considered at the design stage.

Other points that apply to rings and radials:

1. Conductors bunching under stress being forced out of terminals at rear of sockets in packed backboxes.
Solution?
Use lever screwless connectors in backboxes to take the cable's current load, with a flex from the lever screwless connectors to the sockets terminals. No stress on sockets terminal with socket moving into position with ease.

Such stresses result from poor design or installation - the latter most often resulting from incompentent alteration.

2. Arcing due to lose screwed terminals.
Solution?
a) Use screwless connectors, as terminals do not work loose.
b) Use an AFDD to isolate circuit if arcing detected.

You missed 'c)' Competent installation.
Arc fault detection devices detect certain types of arc and can fail. I'd much rather rely on competent installation, possibly backed up by electronic monitoring, than electronic monitoring alone.

The ring using screwless connectors, ensuring circuit's current runs through the cable and protected by an AFDD is now near bombproof. All we need is screwless connectors in the rear of sockets (available but limited) and on MCB/RCBO/AFDDs (available on the Continent, but can be imported). Then no many needless expensive circuits.

I'd like to see more than sockets with screwless connections and overall number of joints limited to those strictly necessary.

Note: if you think screwed terminals only loosen after a DIYer had screwed it up, you must not have been around too much.

If you could take this convincing argument to the IET and press regulatory changes, I'd be very happy to never again connect screw terminations at the back of sockets, although I'm not sure that DIY incompetence in terminating domestic wiring accessories will result in anything other than further regulation barring homeowners from tinkering in matters of which they lack basic understanding.

 

[DPG]

Wonder what happened to John-SJW. Steve you'd have liked him - he had some similar ideas to yours.

Mind you he was very stubborn and a bit obnoxious to be honest.

 

[Steve-S]

A broken ring is unlikely to lead to a fire, but it 'can'. This reservation is mainly by Continentals and Americans. Use 4mm cable then problem, and risk, has 'gone'.

1. Conductors bunching under stress being forced out of terminals at rear of sockets in packed backboxes.
Solution?
Use lever screwless connectors in backboxes to take the cable's current load, with a flex from the lever screwless connectors to the sockets terminals. No stress on sockets terminal with socket moving into position with ease.

 

[nicebutdim]

A broken ring is unlikely to lead to a fire, but it 'can'. This reservation is mainly by Continentals and Americans. Use 4mm cable then problem, and risk, has 'gone'.

Risk of fire from 2.5mm cable potentially operating above its recommended loading against the risk of fire from potential overheating of high resistance joint in a circuit containing twice the required number of connections?

I've ignored the highlighted sections in your quote as those points have been addressed several times now. You may choose to ignore that which does not suit your thinking, but my previous comments stand if you'd like a response to those points.

 

[mainline]

Wonder what happened to John-SJW. Steve you'd have liked him - he had some similar ideas to yours.

Mind you he was very stubborn and a bit obnoxious to be honest.

Yes, I remember him saying things like “I don't like repeating myself” or something along those lines.

I do disagree though when you say he was a bit obnoxious,.

 

[Steve-S]

Wonder what happened to John-SJW. Steve you'd have liked him - he had some similar ideas to yours.

Mind you he was very stubborn and a bit obnoxious to be honest.

I may have got some from him. I read many posts, not noting names only content, as threads went on and on.
One thing is clear now, with the aid of screwless connectors and AFDDs, rings are bombproof. A must have. Not the radials promoted by Youtubers, and companies on Youtube, to sell more cable, MSBs, RCBOs, bigger main panels etc.

Look at the regs, it says some high rises need an AFDD on each circuit with a socket. And they recommend an AFDD on 'all' socket circuits. Perplexingly none mandatory on electric showers which are the most troublesome developing arcs, usually at the N terminal.

Have a radial to just the washing machine with only one plug on it? An expensive AFDD is needed. I have seen dedicated radials to washing machines, dishwashers and tumble dryers. All with 13A plugs. So, what do we have? The regs say have four AFDDs. Ouch! So best to hard wire the three appliances then only an AFDD on the socket circuit. Or better still have them all on a ring with an AFDD and screwless connectors. And have it 4mm to be sure, with the added luxury to split into two radials if the needed arises.

 

[Steve-S]

Risk of fire from 2.5mm cable potentially operating above its recommended loading against the risk of fire from potential overheating of high resistance joint in a circuit containing twice the required number of connections?

Risk of fire from a 2.5mm cable is eliminated by upping to 4mm.

A high resistance joint can come about by ramming sockets into boxes stressing the many cables and terminal connections behind, which is 'common'. You fail to see that this is a problem. I saw it regularly, sometimes with scorch marks to prove the point, which alerted me to eliminate the problem, at least on my installation. The problem is easily eliminated.

 

[mainline]

I may have got some from him. I read many posts, not noting names only content, as threads went on and on.
One thing is clear now, with the aid of screwless connectors and AFDDs, rings are bombproof. A must have. Not the radials promoted by Youtubers, and companies on Youtube, to sell more cable, MSBs, RCBOs, bigger main panels etc.

Look at the regs, it says some high rises need an AFDD on each circuit with a socket. And they recommend an AFDD on all socket circuits. None needed on electric shower which are the most troublesome developing arcs, usually at the N terminal.

Have a radial to just the washing machine with only one plug on it? An expensive AFDD is needed. I have seen dedicated radials to washing machines, dishwashers and tumble driers. All with 13A plugs. So, what do we have? The regs say have four AFDDs. Ouch! So best to hard wire the three appliances then only an AFDD on the socket circuit. Or better still have them all on a ring with an AFDD and screwless connectors. And have it 4mm to be sure, with the added luxury to split into two radials if the needed arises.

I'm guessing even a really religious churchgoer would tire in the end of the vicar saying the same stuff.

 

[Steve-S]

I'm guessing even a really religious churchgoer would tire in the end of the vicar saying the same stuff.

I have found vicars keep saying the same stuff as it does not sink too well with most.

 

[nicebutdim]

Risk of fire from a 2.5mm cable is eliminated by upping to 4mm.

A resistance joint can come about by ramming sockets into boxes stressing the many cables and terminal connections behind, which is 'common'. You fail to see that this is a problem. I saw it regularly, sometimes with scorch marks to prove the point, which alerted me to eliminate the problem, at least on my installation. The problem is easily eliminated.

So you've eliminated one perceived risk and replaced it with another.

Again I repeat that no competent person stresses terminations in the way you describe and thus we return to the issue of incompetence. An incompetent person might drive a plate screw through insulation. An incompetent person might leave basic insulation chaffing against unprotected metal entry to a box. An incompetent person might partake in all manner of problematic or potentially dangerous actions and no amount of 4mm cable or lever connectors will change that.

 

[Mike Johnson]

I hope you guys are enjoying the ride you'r being taken on.