Tee-ing off a radial circuit

[JohnW2]

Well if CJR's theory is to be believed, there would have to be a name for it as we would all be doing it. Not that we can really in real life.

True. Although we (virtually) never do it, I suppose some people might argue that it is the only 'proper'/'foolproof' way of designing a sockets circuit - since there is always an element of gambling/guesswork in designing a 32A (let alone smaller) sockets circuit which supplies more than one double socket (or two singles).

In practice, a sensible designer know 'what we can nearly always get away with' in any particular environment, but there can never be any guarantees about what will be plugged into the sockets. There should be no actual 'danger', in that, with proper design, the OPD should always protect the cable adequately but the designer should really seek to avoid (as far as possible) a situation in which the total load 'is likely to' exceed the In of the OPD.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

My point is JCR seems to have coined the expression 'true radial' but seems to be using a different definition of the term 'radial' to a dictionary [I have not looked it up yet].

 

[JohnW2]

My point is JCR seems to have coined the expression 'true radial' but seems to be using a different definition of the term 'radial' to a dictionary [I have not looked it up yet].

As I said, at least one dictionary offers the definition "spreading out from a central point" - which, as I said, would appear to cover a 'branching radial', as well as other things. However, other dictionaries offer a more limited number of meanings which, at least some people's minds, could be taken to mean that a circuit 'with branches' would not qualify.

However, I don't think any of these semantic issues alters our views about him, does it?

Kind Regards, John