Search results for query: lollipop

...situation of parallel cables going from a CU to some point could be regarded as a ring. However, in relation to what I would call a 'true lollipop circuit', there would be a single, usually larger CSA, cable (rather than two parallel cables) from the CU to the origin of the main ring, in...

I would say this is a ring, by virtue of the fact that the end-to-end test shows continuity, even if the run is so short the reading is very low.

I'm not sure what the 106m has got to do with it but, yes, we know that can happen with heavy loads near to one end of the ring. However, as you go on to quote, the designer is required to satisfy him/herself (as far as is possible) that such a situation in unlikely to occur "for long periods"...

...an overload on any cable. However Appendix 12 does not show this as an option it seems to show every other option but does not show a lollipop, 4mm² spur or fig of 8. I found a radial wired in 7/0.036 on a 30A fuse. In the third room however it had been split and 2.5mm² cable had been...

We've discussed this before. A figure-of-eight is arguably theoretically 'safer' than a single ring, and I don't think you'll find any regulation which explicitly prohibits it. However, it can make testing a nightmare, particularly before one has worked out what one is dealing with! IME, it's...

Indeed. I also reckon that it's as near as makes no difference to a ring final per the 'good book', particularly if the 'stick' of the lollipop is a single (larger CSA) cable, rather than a pair of cables in parallel. It's not really far from being a conventional circuit. If you disconnected...

You have two things a lollipop and conductors in parallel. If either of the two 2.5mm² feeding the lollipop circuit have even a single socket then it's a figure of 8 and not permitted although I can't recall the rule it breaks only remember it was something we should test for. Using two...

Me neither. I guess the first time you meet one in testing it can throw you, but once you realise what's happening it's fine. I guess it doesn't fall into the category of 'conventional circuits' as defined in the good book but it isn't unsafe either. I've implemented a variation in the office...

That makes sense - it's cheaper than the non-lollipop alternative, which requires a 4-pole isolator. Apart from the potential confusion/difficulties associated with testing, I don't really seen any problem with lollipop circuits. Kind Regards, John

The lollipop isn't really new..... I first saw one in a broadcast radio studio & then in recording studios.... a 32A MCB feeding a length of 6.0mm2 T&E to a 45A DP isolator by the door, the output side of which fed a 'conventional ring final' around the studio. The idea is that it makes it...

I've only tested a lollipop circuit once , I soon had it licked .... :lol: :lol: It's Friday ! DS

...the isolator were (as I suspect) close to the CU, it's very unlikley that such would not be the case. If one were deliberately designing a lollipop circuit, I suppose it would be best to have just a single, larger CSA, cable from CU to the origin of the ring (4mm² would probably suffice in...

Indeed, and that's what it is. Although, as the OP has observed, it can result in confusion/hassle as regards testing, it is electrically really no different from a standard ring final - technically speaking, there is always at least a bit of a 'common path' (from MCB contacts to MCB terminal)...

Normally a lollipop circuit would be defined as a radial serving a ring. If the the two 2.5mm2 cables in parallel are not loading any appliances on route, I suppose it could be considered a radial.

...that when one of their own say it, it doesn't matter. What he actually said was, "He had been taught 'women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground" Now we know what they are teaching in their madrassa's I say they should be shut down immediately...

There are variations on the humble ring. The lollipop where a heaver cables takes supply to where required and then the ring starts and also where the ring supplies an array of junction boxes and each box has a spur so getting rid of the need for twin cables down the walls. I have done this in a...

...changed except the regulation numbers. Appendix 15 is not exhaustive and other methods may be employed - I think everyone would consider a lollipop circuit acceptable, for example. Not sure what you mean regarding "without unfused spurs". We don't know why. Room for 2 x 6 and 3 x 4...

And lose some or all of the house circuits if a fault out in the shed trips the RCD. Way to go. :roll: Or, of course, the more usual arrangement of a 32A radial. :roll: Deadbeat - take no notice of Winston - his ideas are rubbish. Mind you - I guess we don't know if you...

...at all in your shed. Run the feed off a 20 amp MCB in the house direct to the sockets with the lights via a switched fuse connection unit. If you need more than 20amps use a 32 amp MCB and wire the shed in a ring as a lollipop circuit. If the house has no RCD protection use a RCBO instead of...

...units are also required OK I suppose in the outbuilding you still don't technically require a CU until you exceed 32A if one is OK with lollipop design of a ring but I would think most electricians would want to fit a consumer unit as without it would be hard to terminate 4mm³ SWA into two...