Spur from a lolipop...?

[dhutch]

In fact, if he had wanted to split hairs, he could have gone a bit further. Even with present day CUs, there is a short 'single' path between the MCB and the ...

Well indeed!

 

[ericmark]

Personally I like the idea of the lollipop system. I think it makes sense but I also realise that a jobs worth inspector may raise it as a fault so I am wary.

I wish the wiring regulations still said common sense should prevail but that has gone. There are some clear errors with 2008 which since I have not spent out for amendment 1 I don't know if that has been corrected.

As I said using something like the double cooker connection unit the final ring (and I cringe at word final) could be connected in a really safe manor.

Would I do it? Yes I would, but would I tell some one else to do it? No I would not. I know technically it could be seen as breaking the rules.

I have had heated arguments with my son over the ordinary v competent question in a house. I could as a competent person design and install a distribution unit which because it's not type tested in England would not require Part P notification which to me seems crazy as if I use a type tested device I have to notify.

But I also know any insurance company could use the fact that the distribution unit was not type tested as a reason for not honouring a claim.

We are getting in to the realms of "Let the court decide" and that's the problem where one sails close to the wind.

So yes personally I would do as you suggest but would also accept the situation if as a result when something goes wrong an insurance company refuses to pay out.

 

[dhutch]

Sounds about right.

Im going for putting a fcu into the ring, to feed the lights, and feeding the boiler fcu as a spur from the supply side of this. Which as I see it, is the best option from where we are.

Hold on to your hats come next years EICR!


Daniel

 

[EFLImpudence]

I wish the wiring regulations still said common sense should prevail but that has gone.

It was PROBABLY removed shortly after common sense itself became such a rarity.

 

[scousespark]

Given the number of times we see quotes along the lines of "If we were starting now, ring final circuits would never be allowed", I don't see why we would expect to see the lollipop circuit adopted.

What advantages would this give over ring or radial circuits?

I don't see why the term final (or is it Ring Final Circuit) should make you cringe Eric.

 

[JohnW2]

Given the number of times we see quotes along the lines of "If we were starting now, ring final circuits would never be allowed", I don't see why we would expect to see the lollipop circuit adopted. What advantages would this give over ring or radial circuits?

I can't see that it could be said to offer any (electrical) advantages over a conventional ring or radial final circuit (and haven't seen anyone claiming that), but nor do I see that it presents any electrical disadvantages in comparison with a conventional ring final circuit - as has been pointed out, the only difference is the length of the 'common' conductors from the OPD mechanism before it splits into the two arms of the ring.

In reality, a lollipop design obviously usually arises for practical/ convenience reasons, to make use of an existing, but no longer needed, cooker or shower circuit.

Were it not for the lack of discrimination between the OPDs, a lollipop design could, of course, be converted to a conventional ring final by changing the JB (where the ring originates) to an MCB.

If 'starting from scratch', there could be a (pretty small) saving in copper if the lollipop feed was in 4mm² cable- but if the feed is 6mm² or more, then it is likely to use more copper than a conventional ring final.

Kind Regards, John

 

[plugwash]

but nor do I see that it presents any electrical disadvantages in comparison with a conventional ring final circuit

On rings having two equally long "tails" at the ends which make up a significant proportion of the total length is a good thing because it improves balance. If all the load on a ring is in the center third and the capacity of the ring cables is at least two thirds of the breaker rating then it is not possible to overload the cable without overloading the circuit as a whole.

Having said that a lollipop circuit is no worse in this regard than a ring that happens to serve loads close to the DB.

 

[JohnW2]

but nor do I see that it presents any electrical disadvantages in comparison with a conventional ring final circuit

On rings having two equally long "tails" at the ends which make up a significant proportion of the total length is a good thing because it improves balance. If all the load on a ring is in the center third and the capacity of the ring cables is at least two thirds of the breaker rating then it is not possible to overload the cable without overloading the circuit as a whole.

Yes, that's technically true, but ...

Having said that a lollipop circuit is no worse in this regard than a ring that happens to serve loads close to the DB.

... so is that (true).

As far as the regs are concerned, there is no problem with a ring that has sockets close to the CU in one or both arms - and I would imagine that such is quite often the case with ground floor sockets circuits, and in some cases also a kitchen ring. Hence, FWIW, a lollipop design is therefore no less electrically satisfactory than ring final circuits with which the regs would apparently be perfectly 'happy'.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ericmark]

I don't see why the term final (or is it Ring Final Circuit) should make you cringe Eric.

Where FCU are used on a ring circuit it's not the final circuit as by definition a circuit is all protected by a automatic disconnection device so since a FCU will automatically disconnect the wiring after the FCU could well be regraded as a circuit so clearly the ring is not the final circuit in that case.

As to ring v radial I would agree there are problems with the ring but in the main down to poor maintenance rather than something wrong with system.

I have argued with my son many times as to if doing something out of the ordinary is wrong! To me an electrician should test before working on a system and any alterations should be done with regard to the results. If I do something unusual but safe it's up to the next guy to read paperwork and/or work out what has been done.

My son thinks we should always follow convention so mistakes are not made.

I have come across a system where 4mm cable had been used with a radial circuit but some one had not realised this and had used 2.5mm cable to add a series of sockets and brought it back to feed rest of sockets in 4mm cable. I had clearly thought he was working on a ring. But to me at the end of the day he should have tested before he added to the circuit it was not the fault of the guy who installed the radial.

The insistence on paper work for all work done with test results should stop this but DIY people often don't test. However I see no reason to ban the ring because some DIY guy does not test. Also we all know EICR every 10 years max. If some one does not test then down to him for any faults.

 

[scousespark]

I don't see why the term final (or is it Ring Final Circuit) should make you cringe Eric.

Where FCU are used on a ring circuit it's not the final circuit as by definition a circuit is all protected by a automatic disconnection device so since a FCU will automatically disconnect the wiring after the FCU could well be regraded as a circuit so clearly the ring is not the final circuit in that case.

As to ring v radial I would agree there are problems with the ring but in the main down to poor maintenance rather than something wrong with system.

I had read your initial post as just being anti-ring, not lined to the FCU spur.
As you said, the problems with rings comes with untested installations together with alterations.

 

[scousespark]

Hi John,

I was querying the point in reworking the ring circuit to lollipop at (or very near) the CU. If a park is not happy installing a 'standard' ring, the radial offers a suitable alternative. I'm not sure what tests would need to be carried out on a lollipop for an EIC.

 

[JohnW2]

Hi John, I was querying the point in reworking the ring circuit to lollipop at (or very near) the CU.

It would presumably have to be 'very near', since 'at the CU' would be a ring, not a lollipop (unless one is splitting hairs about the internal components of an OPD, and the single cable supplying the neutral bar - in which case all rings are technically lollipops!),

As I said, I doubt that (m)any people would contemplate a lollipop design unless they wanted to use a pre-existing 'spare' cable as the 'stick' of the lollipop. If CU design were to change in the manner that BAS hypothesised, all rings would technically become lollipops, but I suspect that we would still call them rings.

I'm not sure what tests would need to be carried out on a lollipop for an EIC.

Interesting question. Without thinking too deeply, I imagine that the 'continuity' tests would have to be undertaken from the point of origin of the lollipop's 'ring', and everything else would be as for a standard ring - but I'd need to think more carefully before being sure about that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[dhutch]

I'm not sure what tests would need to be carried out on a lollipop for an EIC.

Interesting question. Without thinking too deeply, I imagine that the 'continuity' tests would have to be undertaken from the point of origin of the lollipop's 'ring', and everything else would be as for a standard ring - but I'd need to think more carefully before being sure about that.

Sounds about like what I would expect. Im planning to make the juntion in question accessable for said same.


Daniel

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not sure what tests would need to be carried out on a lollipop for an EIC.

Interesting question. Without thinking too deeply, I imagine that the 'continuity' tests would have to be undertaken from the point of origin of the lollipop's 'ring', and everything else would be as for a standard ring - but I'd need to think more carefully before being sure about that.

Sounds about like what I would expect. Im planning to make the juntion in question accessable for said same.

This, of course, is where one of the potential problems arises. Since it's not conventional (and hence probably 'not in their I&T book') some 'electricians' might be thrown by a lollipop circuit - and either just not know what to do or, perhaps more likely, just test the circuit as if it were a radial. At the least, I think some clear labelling/documentation in the vicinity of the CU would be in order. Without such prompts, even a clued-up electrician might not suspect that a circuit leaving the CU in a single cable was a lollipop (although the size of the cable ought to give a clue that something 'unusual' was going on).

Kind Regards, John

 

[dhutch]

This, of course, is where one of the potential problems arises. Since it's not conventional and hence probably 'not in their I&T book'....

Indeed. The house currently has an ECIR, but the 6mm spur had been taken out of the CU and connected behind the board with choco block into two short lenghts of 2.5mm and thus disgused, and oddly, passed the continunity tests with ease...

If its labled as 'Conservatory Ring, inc boiler and light' and is then a single peice of 6mm I would have thought that would have given at least some of the idea as to what they might be looking at?

I am also going to lable all the wires coming in/out of the junction box as to what they are. I might write 'lollipop' on the 6mm as it goes into the breaker!


Daniel