This discussion is not solely about the definition of a spur.
I think you'll find it is, for it is the definition of a spur which means that the paragraph in the OSG restricting unfused spurs to one socket does not apply to branches on radial circuits, because they by definition are not spurs.
This discussion is about the standard circuits arrangements and the guidance in the OSG app. 8 and what has been taught in colleges for years, is assessed by electrical schemes and is practised by electricians.
I have no doubt that you are not the only person to be wrong about this matter. Maybe you were incorrectly taught by someone who was wrong himself.
But it's a shame that you aren't able to actually read what is written, think about what is meant, and see that you've been wrong.
There is no distinction made (as regards to radial socket final circuits and socket ring final circuits in relation to the guidance of connecting spurs) in IEE publications,
Yes there is - there is the definition in the IEE Wiring Regulations which clearly, explicitly and unambiguously defines a spur as a branch from a ring final.
NICEIC do not write the regulations.
Part P Schemes, C&G syllabus, college courses etc.
Nor are those the regulations, but they could easily be incorrect, or you cold have misunderstood what they were trying to teach you.
If anyone can show me that the majority of the above actually make a distinction and specify that socket radials can be indefinitely 'branched', I would be happy to see it.
They don't have to. As long as the circuit, whatever its shape, complies with all the relevant regulations on overcurrent protection, worst case fault loop resistance etc etc then it complies with the regulations and it is allowed.
Ring finals are a special case because a branch from a ring final, i.e. a spur, will not comply with the relevant regulations if it has more than one socket or fixed appliance on it, and therefore such a spur needs to to be fused, as explained in the OSG section on spurs in Appendix 8.
The NICEIC refer to radials and rings as Final Circuits and then proceed to define what is and isn't acceptable for 'Final Circuits'.
As I said, they don't write the regulations, and as I observed, I doubt that you have a monopoly on being wrong.
Note, it does not say 'Ring Final Circuits', or 'Radial Final Circuits', it refers only to 'Final Circuits' when commenting on 'spurs'. This is consistent with the OSG.
If so, then it must also be consistent with the Wiring Regulations, which clearly, explicitly and unambiguously define a spur as a branch from a ring final.
And therefore when NICEIC talk about spurs and final circuits they must be talking abut ring finals, because they are the only circuits where you can have spurs.
If anyone is a member of the ECA, Select, NAPIT, Elecsa, NICEIC, please call your technical helpdesk to ask what they think.
What's the matter - isn't the clarification of the guy from the IEE, quoted by securespark above, enough for you?
Standard circuit arrangements are promoted so as to ensure a uniform understanding
But for that to work you have to be prepared to put a little bit of thought into the way you arrive at your understanding.
and encourage the installation of 'standard' circuits.
Nothing I have said contradicts that.
I've been consistently trying to get you to see that the standard circuits do not include or require FCUs for branches from radials.
That does not mean they are the only way to satisfy the Regs, but this discussion has been about the standard use of spurs as per the OSG
Interesting how you seem to have changed your tune now that it isn't just me telling you that you are wrong, because up to now this discussion has been about you trying anything and everything, including falsehoods and irrelevant off-topic observations, to put down my argument.
But I guess I should point out that when the OSG talks about the standard use of spurs it does indeed mean the standard use of spurs, i.e. branches from ring final circuits.
and what is common standard practice in the real world in the UK.
Is it common standard practice to fuse branches from radials? Or is it only standard practice amongst those people who don't understand what a a spur is and why it might need fusing?
They are primarily intended to take as much 'thinking' out of the process as possible.
A feature which some people find very necessary, I'm sure.
One reason, for example, why 'branched' radials are prone to abuse and thus not specified in the OSG is the restrictiond placed on floor area served by the Standard circuit arrangements.
In what way are they prone to abuse?
The floor area guidelines are absolute, and apply to the entire circuit, be it a smooth and sinuous single cable or a multi-branched tree structure. There is no way that allowing unfused branches on radials leads to the floor area served becoming too great.
And once again branched radials are not "specified" in the OSG because there is no need to - they are just circuits, and they comply.
By controlling the accepted practice of spurs, certain 'other' considerations are kept in check.
Give us an example.
People will do as they please, but people seeking sound advice on a DIY Forum would be best served by the constraints of 'standard' design and practice.
That's true.
And they would also be best served by getting advice from people who know what they are talking about, not being falsely told that branches from radial circuits are one and the same as spurs, and have the same requirements to originate from FCUs.
(I don't have a 17th 'yet'. As mine is arriving on cdrom, I'm having to wait. The illustrations posted look to be 'interesting'.)
Don't they just....
