So many posters get this wrong. Yet when I corrected someone on this recently it was deleted as unhelpful. Why was this? Surely it is helpful to correct peoples mistakes. Some mistakes can cost lives. The OP was not bothered though one of the regular posters seemed to be.
Lighting circuits not on rings
- Thread starter winston1
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Try writing your correcting posts in the same tone as that one.
Didn't see your reply about the lighting rings as it was deleted by then.
No reason why you shouldn't mention it, to correct or educate people.
There shouldn't be any reason to delete helpful and correct info.
It may be considered the info wasn't important enough to mention though - maybe ring was used instead of circuit (DIYer terminology). Even if the lighting really was done as ring, it wouldn't be dangerous as such.
One recent remark about correcting people referred to an OP calling a blue switched live wire at a light switch NEUTRAL. I would certainly correct them about this - politely of course - as no way is that a neutral, and if they think that they will never know how it works.
The only way to correct people effectively is to provide a simple explanation, in addition to the info they have asked for in the first place.
No reason why you shouldn't mention it, to correct or educate people.
There shouldn't be any reason to delete helpful and correct info.
It may be considered the info wasn't important enough to mention though - maybe ring was used instead of circuit (DIYer terminology). Even if the lighting really was done as ring, it wouldn't be dangerous as such.
One recent remark about correcting people referred to an OP calling a blue switched live wire at a light switch NEUTRAL. I would certainly correct them about this - politely of course - as no way is that a neutral, and if they think that they will never know how it works.
The only way to correct people effectively is to provide a simple explanation, in addition to the info they have asked for in the first place.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 23,655
- Reaction score
- 2,663
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
Here is a ring
but not as you know it. We are not looking on how electric works, we are looking at use of English, if some thing changes it can be said it has been transformed, this is the English, but in electrical circles we consider a transformer to be wire wound device, clearly a device which replaces the wire wound device is in English still a transformer, but we need some way to separate the two devices, so convention it seems is to all the word electronic.
So we have English words which are used in the electrical trade which we see as electrical words, but Joe public still see as English words, ballast, lamp, bulb, low voltage, extra low voltage, power supply, driver, transformer, electronic transformer, switch mode, pulse width modulated, absorbed glass mat, valve regulated lead acid, and the list goes on.
Yes as electricians we have a definition for a circuit, a ring, a ring final, but Joe Public does not have a list of definitions, and even law makers don't seem to define what is a new circuit, we assume a ring final as name suggests is the final circuit so any over load device after that is not making a new circuit, so adding a fused connection unit (FCU) does not need notifying. But not seen anything to confirm that. And we don't call it a radial final so where does that leave us. Let the courts decide? well I don't want to be a test case.
So we need to define, if the thread starts with RCD, FCU, CU then OK call it a CU, but unless already defined we should say low voltage (230 vac) or fused connection unit (FCU) the one I see as a problem is RCD (recreational craft directive or residual current device) will Joe Public know what a residual current device is, or is he more likely to know it by the letters, if I talk about radio direction and ranging people are likely to not know what it is, but RADAR and it clicks. And things like PC, have so many meanings it has become silly.
But me bike, and texting grates, I know it is my bike and writing, but I try not to correct people even when it does grate.
So we have English words which are used in the electrical trade which we see as electrical words, but Joe public still see as English words, ballast, lamp, bulb, low voltage, extra low voltage, power supply, driver, transformer, electronic transformer, switch mode, pulse width modulated, absorbed glass mat, valve regulated lead acid, and the list goes on.
Yes as electricians we have a definition for a circuit, a ring, a ring final, but Joe Public does not have a list of definitions, and even law makers don't seem to define what is a new circuit, we assume a ring final as name suggests is the final circuit so any over load device after that is not making a new circuit, so adding a fused connection unit (FCU) does not need notifying. But not seen anything to confirm that. And we don't call it a radial final so where does that leave us. Let the courts decide? well I don't want to be a test case.
So we need to define, if the thread starts with RCD, FCU, CU then OK call it a CU, but unless already defined we should say low voltage (230 vac) or fused connection unit (FCU) the one I see as a problem is RCD (recreational craft directive or residual current device) will Joe Public know what a residual current device is, or is he more likely to know it by the letters, if I talk about radio direction and ranging people are likely to not know what it is, but RADAR and it clicks. And things like PC, have so many meanings it has become silly.
But me bike, and texting grates, I know it is my bike and writing, but I try not to correct people even when it does grate.
Indeed it is not - and I think you should probably keep quiet about that, which (far from 'correcting'/educating them) would probably cause even more uncertainty in the minds of those people we're talking about- since any electrical circuit (including a radial lighting circuit) is a 'ring' in the sense that your picture is depicting!
Kind Regards, John
Yes I saw it and in my opinion it absolutely deserved to be deleted due to the way it was presented. It could easily have been me that reported it but actually I think the Mods caught it. If it was me then I'd feel a certain amount of pride that I was instrumental in getting it removed from the forum.
There are good ways and there are bad ways to present information and that was one of the bad.
As others have already mentioned there has been a significant improvement in the way you post recently, I have posted replies to that effect and I'm heartened to see the change.
I suggest leaving the thread mentioned to history and putting it down to part of a learning experience.
Last edited:
Yes Winston that is true,
So this post is to correct your mistake......
You said lighting circuits are never a ring
A lighting circuit can be a ring final circuit and some lighting circuits are wired as a ring final.
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 23,655
- Reaction score
- 2,663
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
I think a lighting circuit may be as a ring to reduce volt drop with commercial premises specially when using fluorescent with magnetic ballast, but not sure I would call it a ring final? I consider a ring allows you to isolate sections so all cable can take full current allowed by protective device, and a ring final is where some current must always be carried by both legs to ensure no over load, so in my mind the ring final is a special 32 amp circuit designed for used with 13 amp outlets and nothing else. If you did the same thing with a 45 amp protective device it would be conductors in parallel not a ring final. I know the good book says "A final circuit arranged in the form of a ring and connected to a single point of supply." but I think this
Is what we normally consider as a ring final. If it does not comply with that, it may be a ring, but not a ring final.BS7671.2008 said:
There are a few more regulations where ring final is refereed to, and it does seem a lighting circuit arranged in a ring would not be called a ring final, although could be a ring. I know it is being a little pedantic but the whole thread is pedantic to start with.
Indeed.
I don't think that any of us (other than bernard), or anyone else, would call it that. In particular, the people who 'need correcting' (because they talk about a lighting circuit as a 'ring') never use the term 'ring final', not the least because they probably have never heard of the term the term. The issue being discussed is that they should be corrected/educated for calling a lighting circuit 'a ring', not for calling it a 'ring final' (which, as above, they don't do).
Of course, it's all just a matter of convention/jargon. A lighting circuit is obviously a 'final circuit' - so, if it were wired as a ring, there's no reason other than convention why it could not be called 'a ring final circuit'!
Kind Regards, John
Last edited:
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 23,655
- Reaction score
- 2,663
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
@bernardgreen called it a ring final hence comment, but all the way through electrical terminology there seems to be a problem with lining up with English, never heard is called a radial final, why not? Maybe a final radial though. And I would have called a fused spur a radial, but looking at the book in appendix 12 seems called fused spurs.
I only see a problem when the words are used in a law, I can see why there would be a law to say fitting a new distribution unit in domestic premises needs notifying, but a consumer unit only covers type tested distribution units, seems completely daft to say a special distribution unit for domestic premises needs notifying, but some lash up does not. I am sure that was not the law makers intention.
However as far as Joe Public is concerned it really does no matter if called a fuse box, distribution unit, or consumer unit we know what they are talking about, when some one says their old consumer unit is a Wylex with rewireable fuses we don't need to correct them, and to be frank I have no idea what year the type testing came in, and it really does not matter.
And unless some one is saying "A test shall be made to verify the continuity of each conductor. including the protective conductor. of every ring final circuit." how do I do this with my lights, then there is really no need to point out the error. Same way as there is no need to point out @JohnW2 repeated "the term" we all know it is a typing error, there is in the main no need to point it out, I am really being rude to do so, sorry.
I only see a problem when the words are used in a law, I can see why there would be a law to say fitting a new distribution unit in domestic premises needs notifying, but a consumer unit only covers type tested distribution units, seems completely daft to say a special distribution unit for domestic premises needs notifying, but some lash up does not. I am sure that was not the law makers intention.
However as far as Joe Public is concerned it really does no matter if called a fuse box, distribution unit, or consumer unit we know what they are talking about, when some one says their old consumer unit is a Wylex with rewireable fuses we don't need to correct them, and to be frank I have no idea what year the type testing came in, and it really does not matter.
And unless some one is saying "A test shall be made to verify the continuity of each conductor. including the protective conductor. of every ring final circuit." how do I do this with my lights, then there is really no need to point out the error. Same way as there is no need to point out @JohnW2 repeated "the term" we all know it is a typing error, there is in the main no need to point it out, I am really being rude to do so, sorry.
Not necessarily. To the best of my knowledge, the law in question (the Building Regs) does not define 'a consumer unit'. You are talking about the definition in BS7671 - which no-one/nothing, least of all a law, is bound by!
Kind Regards, John
"Type testing" is the one no one seems to know about.
I know what people say it is but what does it entail?
IF all CU manufacturers use the same "type testing" criteria or specifications, does that mean the parts are interchangeable - subject to fitment of course?
If not, then some must be inferior to others with whatever consequences. One would think the better ones would be shouting about it.
I know what people say it is but what does it entail?
IF all CU manufacturers use the same "type testing" criteria or specifications, does that mean the parts are interchangeable - subject to fitment of course?
If not, then some must be inferior to others with whatever consequences. One would think the better ones would be shouting about it.
My understanding (right or wrong) has always been that it means that it has been tested when populated with (presumably various combinations of) 'recommended devices' (i.e. those produced by the manufacturer of the CU). ... so, presumably, only those (same manufacturer) parts are regarded as being 'interchangeable'.
As you may recall, I often had debates with stillp about this. I personally found/find it hard to believe that, provided only that they were 'mechanically compatible' (dimensions etc.), devices of a different manufacture (which would be regarded as OK in their manufacturer's CU enclosure) would perform differently, or create any hazard, in a different enclosure and/or in the company of devices of a different make. However, I was always told that I did not understand these things like the experts who spend their lives designing and manufacturing CUs do!
It really does seem very far-fetched to me to believe that (given mechanical compatibility) 'interchanging devices, even having a great mixture of devices, would ever be a significant issue.
Kind Regards, John
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 42,724
- Reaction score
- 2,630
- Country
I have installed a lighting circuit in a factory that was a ring final and wired in 2.5 on 20A breaker.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
