Pre-wiring a consumer unit..

Discussion in 'Electricians' Talk' started by acca dacca, Jul 8, 2007.

  1. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent New Member

    Why not just put two rings onto one breaker,
    rather
    than joining a leg of each?


    Isn´t that what he meant ????


    No Mr D...


    He's on about joining the cables, as he mentions the length of the circuits..
     
  2. acca dacca

    acca dacca New Member

    Bas is right,i was considering making one ring out of 2 if it did not go over accepted length,but putting 2 rings into one makes sense even though i thought this was a no no...obviosly not...:) but the ring which is in the same room which serverve 1 socket and a fused spur to the boiler i will probably join into another to make 1 as this is bound to be a short ring(will check first tho).

    So the numpty is right in one way that i need,nt have wired up all the 32a breakers,but it was a good exercise!:)
     
  3. sparky Si-Fi

    sparky Si-Fi Screwfix Select

    Why not just put two rings onto one breaker, rather
    than joining a leg of each?

    Have not read the entire sermon on this subject but the above sounds like a bridged ring BAS..?

    Deffo no-no
     
  4. acca dacca

    acca dacca New Member

    Why not just put two rings onto one breaker,
    rather
    than joining a leg of each?

    Have not read the entire sermon on this subject but
    the above sounds like a bridged ring BAS..?

    Deffo no-no

    Well i thought it was a no-no,but as im not 100% sure i respected his opinion.Does anyone know for certain if the above is a accepted procedure,bearing in mind these particular rings are all pretty small by normal standards?
     
  5. sparky Si-Fi

    sparky Si-Fi Screwfix Select

    I know for certain a spark would not wire two rings off the top of one breaker....

    Common sense prevails here I think

    Possibility of a 32A breaker with a demand from a circuit which could need double its rating.

    Bad practice and kicked out of any of the clubs if any Area engineer sees it
     
  6. acca dacca

    acca dacca New Member

    Thats wat i thought,better making one ring from two smaller ones off one breakr...This house has big rooms but still the same ammount of appliances as a 4 bed semi,so 5 socket rings are quite unnesessary ,me thinks...:)
     
  7. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds New Member

    1) It's not a bridged ring, not if they are joined at the origin.

    2) If what Acca says about the multitude of small rings with few sockets on is correct then common sense says that you won't overload the breaker.
     
  8. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds New Member

     
  9. M107

    M107 New Member

    Why not just put two rings onto one breaker, rather
    than joining a leg of each?

    But would this not contravine regulation 314-01-04 ?
    Better to crimp/joint a leg of each ring (do it inside the cu).
     
  10. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds New Member

    No.
     
  11. sparky Si-Fi

    sparky Si-Fi Screwfix Select

    As I said I am NOT reading through (possibly) 14 pages of twoddle and banter.

    On no account must two rings be supplied form one breaker

    The origin IS the breaker or am I missing something

    Let me guess 14 pages of twoddle?
     
  12. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds New Member

    Why "on <u>no</u account"?
     
  13. DandMElectrical

    DandMElectrical New Member

    Nuisence tripping .....
     
  14. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent New Member

    I've never yet come across 2 rings on 1 mcb..


    (And If I do, I hope there is the capacity to seperate or join and extend)
     
  15. sparky Si-Fi

    sparky Si-Fi Screwfix Select

    *** Bas

    Practising sparks do not adopt bloody hash it together diy installtion practices.

    As already said nuisance tripping not to mention trying to stuff 4 2.5's in the top of a breaker and run the risk of one of them not biting down on the terminal screw thus risking arcing/cable damage by heat.

    Do the job properly seggragate the circuits

    If you want to install to that standard thats up to you my friend, but some good advice if you want to listen is, its bad practice and looks bloody ***** to say the least

    Any of the other sparks would say the same

    The topic is mentioned in one os Scaddens books (which I expect you have)
     
  16. acca dacca

    acca dacca New Member

    Why not just put two rings onto one breaker,
    rather
    than joining a leg of each?

    But would this not contravine regulation 314-01-04 ?
    Better to crimp/joint a leg of each ring (do it
    inside the cu).

    That was my intention anyway,just got sidetracked by Bas who im sure thought he was helping...:)
     
  17. M107

    M107 New Member

    But would this not contravine regulation
    314-01-04 ?[/QUOTE]No.

    ? why no ban
    Just curious because personally I take the view that the mcb in the cu is the origin of the circuit, so four legs in one breaker would say to me two circuits, hence the reason I quoted reg 314-01-04.

    Lets look at it another way how many would pick this up as a non compliance during a PIR ?
     
  18. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds New Member

    Another topic mentioning 2 rings in 1 MCB reminded me that I needed to return to this.

    My answer to "would this not contravene 314-01-04" wasn't really correct - I was going from memory, and thought that 314-01-04 was the one about being divided into circuits to minimise inconvenience etc.

    Not sure how wrong it is though, as by definition if you have 2 rings on one MCB you haven't got 2 circuits.


    As already answered - no reason for that to happen in this case.


    How about a 4mmª going to a JB with the 2 rings coming from that? ;) :)



     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice