Part and new rings

32 views
Skip to first unread message

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 7:01:01 AM4/1/05
to
Part P specifically says a DIYer cannot install a complete new ring. A
DIYer can replace parts of a defective ring. If the defective part was at
the CU and it was replace with heavier cable, a new sub ring could be taken
from this. All within Part P. Or is it?


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

RichardS

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 7:04:17 AM4/1/05
to
"Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:424d3957$1...@news.usenetzone.com...

> Part P specifically says a DIYer cannot install a complete new ring. A
> DIYer can replace parts of a defective ring. If the defective part was at
> the CU and it was replace with heavier cable, a new sub ring could be
taken
> from this. All within Part P. Or is it?
>

"Obviously" doing things with the CU should not be considered DIY. Pay the
money & get a pro in.


--
Richard Sampson

mail me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk


Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 7:29:42 AM4/1/05
to

"RichardS" <no...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:3b4rmfF...@individual.net...

> "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:424d3957$1...@news.usenetzone.com...
> > Part P specifically says a DIYer cannot install a complete new ring. A
> > DIYer can replace parts of a defective ring. If the defective part was
at
> > the CU and it was replace with heavier cable, a new sub ring could be
> taken
> > from this. All within Part P. Or is it?
>
> "Obviously" doing things with the CU should not be considered DIY. Pay
the
> money & get a pro in.

Replacing an mcb and replacing the whole CU are two very different things.
Did you notice?

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 7:39:39 AM4/1/05
to
In article <424d3957$1...@news.usenetzone.com>,

Doctor Evil <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:
> If the defective part was at the CU and it was replace with heavier
> cable, a new sub ring could be taken from this.

You haven't quite got to grips with electrics, have you?

--
*I must always remember that I'm unique, just like everyone else. *

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 8:21:38 AM4/1/05
to
In article <424d3957$1...@news.usenetzone.com>,

"Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com> writes:
> Part P specifically says a DIYer cannot install a complete new ring. A

No it doesn't. A DIYer can still do everything. If you're going to
keep talking about Part P, for goodness sake take the time to sit
down and read it. It really isn't that difficult to understand.

> DIYer can replace parts of a defective ring. If the defective part was at
> the CU and it was replace with heavier cable, a new sub ring could be taken
> from this. All within Part P. Or is it?

In your case, you already said you would have to get a pro in.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Stuart

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 8:33:28 AM4/1/05
to
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 13:21:38 +0000 (UTC), and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

>In article <424d3957$1...@news.usenetzone.com>,
> "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com> writes:
>> Part P specifically says a DIYer cannot install a complete new ring. A
>
>No it doesn't. A DIYer can still do everything. If you're going to
>keep talking about Part P, for goodness sake take the time to sit
>down and read it. It really isn't that difficult to understand.
>

I think when he said that a diy'er can't do it he probably meant they
couldnt do it unrestricted by red tape not that they could not do it .

A bit like saying no-one can murder their mother..well,obviously they
can .it just ain't legal.lol
Stuart


Shift THELEVER to reply.

RichardS

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 8:43:29 AM4/1/05
to
"Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:424d...@news.usenetzone.com...

>
> "RichardS" <no...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3b4rmfF...@individual.net...
> > "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:424d3957$1...@news.usenetzone.com...
> > > Part P specifically says a DIYer cannot install a complete new ring.
A
> > > DIYer can replace parts of a defective ring. If the defective part was
> at
> > > the CU and it was replace with heavier cable, a new sub ring could be
> > taken
> > > from this. All within Part P. Or is it?
> >
> > "Obviously" doing things with the CU should not be considered DIY. Pay
> the
> > money & get a pro in.
>
> Replacing an mcb and replacing the whole CU are two very different things.
> Did you notice?
>


Notice what? When did the MCB come into this? You can't fit them with a
hacksaw, you know.

Jeff

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 8:48:09 AM4/1/05
to

"Andrew Gabriel" <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d2jht2$6bq$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...

This gets tedious - i am allowed to wire 3 phase, single phase and DC kit,
connect 350KVA generators, commission and fault find invertor drives and plc
control panels at work yet I can't run an extra socket in at home...Grrrrrr
But I presume I could change a washing m/c motor or a magnetron in my
microwave ?

If they ban working over a certain height (2 metres ? ) then where does that
leave window cleaners ?

And what about changing your brake pads/ disks on your car ? ...... surely a
lot more dangerous than fitting an extra socket !!!!

btw - I can fit an extra socket at work but not at home - bloody stupid or
what !!!!!

Regards Jeff


John Rumm

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 8:59:36 AM4/1/05
to
Doctor Evil wrote:

> Part P specifically says a DIYer cannot install a complete new ring. A

No, its installing a new "circuit" is within the scope of the
legislation. It does not mention "rings" as such.

> DIYer can replace parts of a defective ring. If the defective part was at
> the CU and it was replace with heavier cable, a new sub ring could be taken
> from this. All within Part P. Or is it?

What is a "sub ring"?


--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

Graham Jones

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 8:57:01 AM4/1/05
to Jeff

Why can't you fit an extra socket at home? Part P allows this except in
bathroom, kitchens and outdoors.

:::Jerry::::

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 8:35:46 AM4/1/05
to

"RichardS" <no...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:3b4rmfF...@individual.net...
> "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:424d3957$1...@news.usenetzone.com...
> > Part P specifically says a DIYer cannot install a complete new
ring. A
> > DIYer can replace parts of a defective ring. If the defective part
was at
> > the CU and it was replace with heavier cable, a new sub ring could
be
> taken
> > from this. All within Part P. Or is it?
> >
>
> "Obviously" doing things with the CU should not be considered DIY.
Pay the
> money & get a pro in.
>

What is different about the terminals that feeds the ring in a CU to
that of the terminals in the first socket along (in either direction)
? If the person is competent to cut the ring at the socket [1] and add
100 meters of extra cable why can't that be done at the CU, and if the
person is competent to design such an extension to the ring the person
will also be competent to install a new ring.

[1] or even before that point, like two feet from the CU.


RichardS

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 9:04:37 AM4/1/05
to
":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:424d5412$0$33318$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net...

oh, I agree with you. Tongue firmly in cheek. I refer you to comments
previously made by DrIvel in the "Part P inspection..." thread...

Jeff

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 9:23:30 AM4/1/05
to

Graham Jones wrote :-

> Why can't you fit an extra socket at home? Part P allows this except in
> bathroom, kitchens and outdoors.

really ? .... so i can spur or break into the ring and install as many
sockets as i like except in the above locations ?

Regards Jeff


Christian McArdle

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 9:25:16 AM4/1/05
to
> Part P specifically says a DIYer cannot install a complete new ring. A
> DIYer can replace parts of a defective ring. If the defective part was at
> the CU and it was replace with heavier cable, a new sub ring could be
taken
> from this. All within Part P. Or is it?

There's no such thing as a sub ring, so it would suggest that it could not
be taken from this.

Part P doesn't ban anyone from doing any work. It just says that it comes
under building control and that people not registered with a guild must
apply for building control oversight (and presumably pay a fee at least ten
times the cost of the work).

Christian.


Message has been deleted

Christian McArdle

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 9:35:49 AM4/1/05
to
> really ? .... so i can spur or break into the ring and install as many
> sockets as i like except in the above locations ?

Well, as many as the wiring regulations will allow you to.

Christian.


Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 9:57:51 AM4/1/05
to
In article <424d5141$0$94522$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>,

John Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote:
> What is a "sub ring"?

Something he'd use for feeding all those above sink water heaters?

--
*Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.

John Rumm

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 10:27:23 AM4/1/05
to
Parttime wrote:

> Nanny state - my god where will it all end.

May the 5th if you want! ;-)

Andy Hall

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 11:44:50 AM4/1/05
to
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:35:46 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:


>
>What is different about the terminals that feeds the ring in a CU to
>that of the terminals in the first socket along (in either direction)
>? If the person is competent to cut the ring at the socket [1] and add
>100 meters of extra cable why can't that be done at the CU, and if the
>person is competent to design such an extension to the ring the person
>will also be competent to install a new ring.
>
>[1] or even before that point, like two feet from the CU.
>

But Jerry...

You're making the fatal assumption that a) logic is implicit in the
legislation and b) that it is present in DrIvel's exposition of it.

--

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Andy Hall

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 11:46:38 AM4/1/05
to
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:48:09 +0100, "Jeff" <je...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:


>
>This gets tedious - i am allowed to wire 3 phase, single phase and DC kit,
>connect 350KVA generators, commission and fault find invertor drives and plc
>control panels at work yet I can't run an extra socket in at home...Grrrrrr
>But I presume I could change a washing m/c motor or a magnetron in my
>microwave ?
>
>If they ban working over a certain height (2 metres ? ) then where does that
>leave window cleaners ?

Paying tax like other firemen.

:::Jerry::::

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 11:34:37 AM4/1/05
to

"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:424d65d4$0$94516$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...

> Parttime wrote:
>
> > Nanny state - my god where will it all end.
>
> May the 5th if you want! ;-)
>

<mode+pedantic>
Actually it will end on the 6th April [1], it's just that it might
re-start again on May 6th....
</mode>

[1] HMG *should* then become 'aparty-political', becoming nothing more
than a care-taking function.


Dave Stanton

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 12:31:30 PM4/1/05
to

> If they ban working over a certain height (2 metres ? ) then where does
> that leave window cleaners ?
>
> Regards Jeff

I can answer that, having already seen a window cleaner at work the other
morning with a very large pole with a brush on the end connected to a pump
to clean second floor windows. Looked like commercial kit, not something
kocked up in the shed !!

Dave

--
For what we are about to balls up may common sense prevent us doing it
again
in the future!!

Dave Stanton

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 12:46:57 PM4/1/05
to

> kocked up in the shed !!
>
> Dave

That should be knocked up......oh I don't know <g>

:::Jerry::::

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 6:31:37 PM4/1/05
to

"Dave Stanton" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.04.01....@privacy.net...

>
> > kocked up in the shed !!
> >
> > Dave
>
> That should be knocked up......oh I don't know <g>
>

I think you had it right the first time, I can just see them using
that sort of gear in the Villages around here, what with all the 3ph
overhead distribution poles and wires feeding electricity to the
houses....


Andy Wade

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 6:58:35 PM4/1/05
to
John Rumm wrote:

> What is a "sub ring"?

It is a statement by the poster about the extent of his knowledge of
electric wiring.

It is also an anagram of Sir Bung, which could provide our kook with yet
another moniker.

--
Andy

Dave Stanton

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 3:16:22 AM4/2/05
to

> I think you had it right the first time, I can just see them using that
> sort of gear in the Villages around here, what with all the 3ph overhead
> distribution poles and wires feeding electricity to the houses....

It looked all plastic Jerry, but water, 3ph.......

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 4:00:13 AM4/2/05
to

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d54d37...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <424d5141$0$94522$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>,
> John Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote:
> > What is a "sub ring"?

> Something he'd use for feeding all
> those above sink water heaters?

......my God, it is what you put around cabers for God's sake!!!!

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 4:05:54 AM4/2/05
to

"Stuart" <stuartT...@xpozure4u.plus.com> wrote in message
news:d9jq41hl4q4co4mp9...@4ax.com...

Stuart, this obvious logic passes them by. Sad but true.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 4:04:04 AM4/2/05
to

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d54c6d...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <424d3957$1...@news.usenetzone.com>,
> Doctor Evil <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:

> > If the defective part was at the
> > CU and it was replace with heavier
> > cable, a new sub ring could be taken from this.

...with a forlorn attempt at wisdom he ejaculates.....read this...

> You haven't quite got to grips with electrics, have you?

......does he have electric cabers?....is this the future?

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 4:06:46 AM4/2/05
to

"RichardS" <no...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:3b51ggF...@individual.net...

Caber makers have been know to fit them with axes.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 4:19:05 AM4/2/05
to

"Christian McArdle" <cmcar...@nospam.yahooxxxx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:424d59cd$0$294$ed9e...@reading.news.pipex.net...

> > Part P specifically says a DIYer cannot install a complete new ring. A
> > DIYer can replace parts of a defective ring. If the defective part was
at
> > the CU and it was replace with heavier cable, a new sub ring could be
> taken
> > from this. All within Part P. Or is it?
>
> There's no such thing as a sub ring, so it would suggest that it could not
> be taken from this.

There is. You can run a ring off a heavier cable ring. My garage has one.
Taken off the downstairs ring an exterior cable runs to the garage where
there is a garage CU and a lighting and power ring is run off this - two sub
rings. It is amazing how so many so-called electrical know-it-alls here,
yourself excluded, can't figure that out.

> Part P doesn't ban anyone from doing any work. It just says that it comes
> under building control and that people not registered with a guild must
> apply for building control oversight (and presumably pay a fee at least
ten
> times the cost of the work).

That is the sticking point - the cost, not the legislation which is pretty
well sound.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 4:10:02 AM4/2/05
to

"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:424d5141$0$94522$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...

> Doctor Evil wrote:
>
> > Part P specifically says a DIYer cannot install a complete new ring. A
>
> No, its installing a new "circuit" is within the scope of the
> legislation. It does not mention "rings" as such.
>
> > DIYer can replace parts of a defective ring. If the defective part was
at
> > the CU and it was replace with heavier cable, a new sub ring could be
taken
> > from this. All within Part P. Or is it?
>
> What is a "sub ring"?

...erm...erm..would that not be a ring off a ring? There that is nice for
you, you didn't have to think.

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 4:42:33 AM4/2/05
to
In article <424e...@news.usenetzone.com>,

Doctor Evil <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > There's no such thing as a sub ring, so it would suggest that it could
> > not be taken from this.

> There is. You can run a ring off a heavier cable ring. My garage has
> one. Taken off the downstairs ring an exterior cable runs to the garage
> where there is a garage CU and a lighting and power ring is run off this
> - two sub rings. It is amazing how so many so-called electrical
> know-it-alls here, yourself excluded, can't figure that out.

How does a final ring circuit run off a garage CU differ from a final ring
circuit run off the house one?

And a ring for lighting?

--
*The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind *

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 4:36:55 AM4/2/05
to
In article <424e...@news.usenetzone.com>,

Doctor Evil <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > What is a "sub ring"?

> > Something he'd use for feeding all
> > those above sink water heaters?

> ......my God, it is what you put around cabers for God's sake!!!!

Some might well feel like putting a caber into your sub ring.

--
*Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 5:37:01 AM4/2/05
to

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d553a7...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <424e...@news.usenetzone.com>,
> Doctor Evil <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > There's no such thing as a sub ring, so it would suggest that it could
> > > not be taken from this.
>
> > There is. You can run a ring off a heavier cable ring. My garage has
> > one. Taken off the downstairs ring an exterior cable runs to the garage
> > where there is a garage CU and a lighting and power ring is run off this
> > - two sub rings. It is amazing how so many so-called electrical
> > know-it-alls here, yourself excluded, can't figure that out.

..a hard morning at the cabers and given him a brainwave...he storms....

> How does a final ring circuit
> run off a garage CU differ from a final ring
> circuit run off the house one?
>
> And a ring for lighting?

.......I will have to explain this in caber terms for him...you take a caber
from one ring, connect it via another caber to another ring...There that's
better for him...

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 6:12:08 AM4/2/05
to

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d5539e...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <424e...@news.usenetzone.com>,
> Doctor Evil <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:

> > > > What is a "sub ring"?
>
> > > Something he'd use for feeding all
> > > those above sink water heaters?
>
> > ......my God, it is what you
> > put around cabers for God's sake!!!!

.....he has an inkling which turns to a statement...read on...

> Some might well feel like
> putting a caber into your sub ring.

...that is what you do..... you put cabers all over the rings.....that is
better for him...he understands that better...

John Rumm

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 7:59:52 AM4/2/05
to
Doctor Evil wrote:

>>What is a "sub ring"?
>
>
> ...erm...erm..would that not be a ring off a ring? There that is nice for
> you, you didn't have to think.

And where in the OSG or BS7671 would one anticipate finding that little
bit of bodgery?

(I can tell you - in the section on fault finding cross linked ring
circuits!)

John Rumm

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 8:11:33 AM4/2/05
to
Doctor Evil wrote:

>>There's no such thing as a sub ring, so it would suggest that it could not
>>be taken from this.
>
>
> There is. You can run a ring off a heavier cable ring. My garage has one.
> Taken off the downstairs ring an exterior cable runs to the garage where
> there is a garage CU and a lighting and power ring is run off this - two sub
> rings. It is amazing how so many so-called electrical know-it-alls here,
> yourself excluded, can't figure that out.

This is not the correct way to feed a power to an outbuilding.

The garrage CU should be fed from a dedicated circuit on the main CU -
not fed from another circuit.

You are in all likelhood exceeding the limit for a safe point load on
the primary ring circuit (check the MCB ratings on the garrage CU and
report back) . You also don't have the required discrimination between
circuits.

(I hope you also understand why what you have described here is *not*
what you described as a "sub ring" previously)

Time to call a pro perhaps?

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 9:41:30 AM4/2/05
to

"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:424e94c1$0$63445$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...

> Doctor Evil wrote:
>
> >>What is a "sub ring"?
> >
> >
> > ...erm...erm..would that not be a ring off a ring? There that is nice
for
> > you, you didn't have to think.
>
> And where in the OSG or BS7671 would one anticipate finding that little
> bit of bodgery?

Bodgery? Typical know-it-all DIYer. Look at my post on the rings in the
garage.

John Rumm

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 9:57:22 AM4/2/05
to
Doctor Evil wrote:

>>And where in the OSG or BS7671 would one anticipate finding that little
>>bit of bodgery?
>
>
> Bodgery? Typical know-it-all DIYer. Look at my post on the rings in the
> garage.

I did - sounds like that is bodged as well. Did you do it?

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 9:58:23 AM4/2/05
to

"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:424eb04b$0$63403$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...

> Doctor Evil wrote:
>
> >>And where in the OSG or BS7671 would one anticipate finding that little
> >>bit of bodgery?
> >
> >
> > Bodgery? Typical know-it-all DIYer. Look at my post on the rings in
the
> > garage.
>
> I did - sounds like that is bodged as well. Did you do it?

You obviously know sweet FA about electrical matters, yet you are allowed to
spout garbage about it. Virtually every new house will be wired the same
way. Some may take the garage supply back to the CU with its own mcb. If the
CU is not handy they will take it from the downstairs ring using an
unswitched fused spare.

Now you know.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 10:14:05 AM4/2/05
to

"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:424e977e$0$63411$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...

> Doctor Evil wrote:
>
> >>There's no such thing as a sub ring, so it would suggest that it could
not
> >>be taken from this.
> >
> >
> > There is. You can run a ring off a heavier cable ring. My garage has
one.
> > Taken off the downstairs ring an exterior cable runs to the garage where
> > there is a garage CU and a lighting and power ring is run off this - two
sub
> > rings. It is amazing how so many so-called electrical know-it-alls
here,
> > yourself excluded, can't figure that out.
>
> This is not the correct way to feed a power to an outbuilding.
>
> The garrage CU should be fed from a
> dedicated circuit on the main CU -
> not fed from another circuit.

Ideally yes. Most new houses are not. A switchless fused spare is taken off
the downstairs ring with 13 A fuse in it, then an underground exterior cable
from that spare to the garage CU.

> You are in all likelhood exceeding the
> limit for a safe point load on
> the primary ring circuit (check the
> MCB ratings on the garrage CU and
> report back) .

Totally inside the regs. Four levels levels of safety. The garage CU, the
fused spare, the downstairs ring mcb and the RCD. And if an appliance off
the garage sockets the fuse it that plug too, so five safety levels.

> (I hope you also understand why what you have described here is *not*
> what you described as a "sub ring" previously)

It is a sub ring. A ring off a ring. Cor Blimey! Can't you figure that out?
You can have any sub ring off any other ring. There are various ways of
protecting that sub ring.

For Part P purposes, the sub ring is in effect a part of the master ring, so
this is just an extension of the master ring.

John Rumm

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 10:27:41 AM4/2/05
to
Doctor Evil wrote:

> You obviously know sweet FA about electrical matters, yet you are allowed to
> spout garbage about it. Virtually every new house will be wired the same

nonsense.

> way. Some may take the garage supply back to the CU with its own mcb. If the
> CU is not handy they will take it from the downstairs ring using an
> unswitched fused spare.

Adding the "fused spur" is yet another deviation from what you described
previously. It will still not comply with BS7671. You do not have
discrimination between circuits. You have have also by default included
a 30mA RCD on the ligting circuit in the garrage. Your fused spur can
limit the point load imposed on the ring, however it also now restricts
the total load supportable on the garrage CU to at best 4.6kW (but more
likely 3kW)

> Now you know.

But apparently you do not. I would suggest this is something for you to
do a little more research into if you wish to enter into debate on the
topic. You currently seem to be hopelessly out of your depth, and are
proposing solutions that are at best qestionable, and in many cases
dangerous.

John Rumm

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 10:38:25 AM4/2/05
to
Doctor Evil wrote:

>>The garrage CU should be fed from a
>>dedicated circuit on the main CU -
>>not fed from another circuit.
>
>
> Ideally yes. Most new houses are not. A switchless fused spare is taken off
> the downstairs ring with 13 A fuse in it, then an underground exterior cable
> from that spare to the garage CU.

What would be the purpose of the CU in the garrage in this case?

>>You are in all likelhood exceeding the
>>limit for a safe point load on
>>the primary ring circuit (check the
>>MCB ratings on the garrage CU and
>>report back) .
>
>
> Totally inside the regs.

no

> Four levels levels of safety. The garage CU, the
> fused spare, the downstairs ring mcb and the RCD. And if an appliance off
> the garage sockets the fuse it that plug too, so five safety levels.

lots of fuses <> "safety"
RCDs in the wrong place <> "safety"

>>(I hope you also understand why what you have described here is *not*
>>what you described as a "sub ring" previously)
>
>
> It is a sub ring. A ring off a ring. Cor Blimey! Can't you figure that out?

Keep digging ;-)

The introduction of protective devices at the junction of one circuit
and the other changes the situation. So it is not what you described
originally (your so called "sub ring").

However it does not get round the requirements to provide
discrimintation between circuits so that a fault on one circuit does not
affect the other.

> You can have any sub ring off any other ring. There are various ways of
> protecting that sub ring.
>
> For Part P purposes, the sub ring is in effect a part of the master ring, so
> this is just an extension of the master ring.

"master ring" huh.... ;-)

You are talking bollocks.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 12:22:14 PM4/2/05
to

"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:424eb766$0$42329$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...

> Doctor Evil wrote:
>
> > You obviously know sweet FA about electrical matters, yet you are
allowed to
> > spout garbage about it. Virtually every new house will be wired the same
>
> nonsense.

You have no idea about first world electrical installations that is clear.

> > way. Some may take the garage supply
> > back to the CU with its own mcb. If the
> > CU is not handy they will take it from the
> > downstairs ring using an unswitched fused spare.
>
> Adding the "fused spur" is yet another deviation
> from what you described previously. It will still
> not comply with BS7671. You do not have
> discrimination between circuits.

It is fitted like I describe RIGHT NOW on new homes.

> You have have also by default included
> a 30mA RCD on the ligting circuit in the garrage.

Appears so.

> Your fused spur can
> limit the point load imposed on the ring,

It can.

> however it also now restricts
> the total load supportable on the garrage
> CU to at best 4.6kW (but more
> likely 3kW)

Yep. Now you have it.

> > Now you know.
>
> But apparently you do not.

I do, I decribed it to you. Another Plowman caber tosser here.

> I would suggest this is something for you to
> do a little more research into

It is done that way on new homes RIGHT NOW. I do not need a lecture from a
know-it-all fool.

John Rumm

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 12:52:57 PM4/2/05
to
Doctor Evil wrote:

> It is fitted like I describe RIGHT NOW on new homes.

Tell you what, next time you spot one why not tell the owner that their
wiring is not to current standards and potentially unsafe.

>>You have have also by default included
>>a 30mA RCD on the ligting circuit in the garrage.
>
>
> Appears so.

So it fails on that....

>>Your fused spur can
>>limit the point load imposed on the ring,
>
>
> It can.
>
>
>>however it also now restricts
>>the total load supportable on the garrage
>>CU to at best 4.6kW (but more
>>likely 3kW)
>
>
> Yep. Now you have it.

So it fails on discrimination...

> It is done that way on new homes RIGHT NOW.

And your point is what?

Poor design, and not to current standards.
Does it happen? Probably. Is it right? No.

> I do not need a lecture from a know-it-all fool.

Then don't listen next time you talk to yourself.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 1:56:13 PM4/2/05
to

"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:424ed972$0$42331$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...

> Doctor Evil wrote:
>
> > It is fitted like I describe RIGHT NOW on new homes.
>
> Tell you what, next time you spot one why not tell the owner that their
> wiring is not to current standards and potentially unsafe.

Oh my God!! Another Plowman. It has FIVE levels of safety.

> >>You have have also by default included
> >>a 30mA RCD on the ligting circuit in the garrage.
> >
> > Appears so.
>
> So it fails on that....

Appears not, the BCO's passed it.

> >>Your fused spur can
> >>limit the point load imposed on the ring,
> >
> > It can.
> >
> >>however it also now restricts
> >>the total load supportable on the garrage
> >>CU to at best 4.6kW (but more
> >>likely 3kW)
> >
> > Yep. Now you have it.
>
> So it fails on discrimination...
>
> > It is done that way on new homes RIGHT NOW.
>
> And your point is what?

It is done that way on new homes RIGHT NOW. Can't you read?

> Poor design, and not to current standards.

To standards. Now RIGHT NOW.

> Does it happen? Probably. Is it right? No.

Err YES, it is RIGHT.

> > I do not need a lecture from a know-it-all fool.
>
> Then don't listen next time you talk to yourself.

Third world humour is al;ways flat.

John Rumm

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 2:28:54 PM4/2/05
to
Doctor Evil wrote:

> Oh my God!! Another Plowman. It has FIVE levels of safety.

You are powerfully dumb.

>>>>You have have also by default included
>>>>a 30mA RCD on the ligting circuit in the garrage.
>>>
>>>Appears so.
>>
>>So it fails on that....
>
>
> Appears not, the BCO's passed it.

Pre part P it would be outside their remit.

Post part P most BCOs (not being electricians) will pass or fail based
on certification from an approved person. So if the approved person is
as cluless about electrical work as yourself, then the BCO will end up
passing all sorts of bodgery.

>>>It is done that way on new homes RIGHT NOW.
>>
>>And your point is what?
>
>
> It is done that way on new homes RIGHT NOW. Can't you read?

So by your logic it must be right then?

>>Poor design, and not to current standards.
>
>
> To standards. Now RIGHT NOW.

If you believe this to be the case then exaplain how it complies with
531-02, 533-01

> Err YES, it is RIGHT.

Planning to dig any further?

Dave Stanton

unread,
Apr 3, 2005, 4:21:30 AM4/3/05
to

> Post part P most BCOs (not being electricians) will pass or fail based on
> certification from an approved person. So if the approved person is as
> cluless about electrical work as yourself, then the BCO will end up
> passing all sorts of bodgery.

That could lead to some interesting court cases in future then.

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Apr 3, 2005, 4:39:55 AM4/3/05
to
In article <424e...@news.usenetzone.com>,
Doctor Evil <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > So it fails on that....

> Appears not, the BCO's passed it.

I'm surprised after all your claimed knowledge of the trades that you
didn't know a BCO isn't qualified to check electrics?

--

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Apr 3, 2005, 4:30:05 AM4/3/05
to
In article <424e...@news.usenetzone.com>,
Doctor Evil <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:
> You obviously know sweet FA about electrical matters, yet you are
> allowed to spout garbage about it. Virtually every new house will be
> wired the same way. Some may take the garage supply back to the CU with
> its own mcb. If the CU is not handy they will take it from the
> downstairs ring using an unswitched fused spare.

John, try using your brain for once. If you're spurring off a ring from an
FCU, what's the point in having a CU and ring in a garage? You're
restricted to just 13 amps via the FCU which will protect anything
downstream of this.


--
*A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times more memory.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 3, 2005, 6:46:17 AM4/3/05
to

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d55b7a...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <424e...@news.usenetzone.com>,
> Doctor Evil <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:

> > You obviously know sweet FA about
> > electrical matters, yet you are
> > allowed to spout garbage about it.
> > Virtually every new house will be
> > wired the same way. Some may take
> > the garage supply back to the CU with
> > its own mcb. If the CU is not handy they
> > will take it from the downstairs ring
> > using an unswitched fused spare.

.......from a hard Sunday morning at the cabers he this a bit and has a
go.....let's see what wisdom he spouts....

> John, try using your brain for once.
> If you're spurring off a ring from an
> FCU, what's the point in having a
> CU and ring in a garage?

...his knowledge fails on lacky matters...as garages have dedicated
CUs.......he thinks in numbers now......

> You're restricted to just 13 amps via the
> FCU which will protect anything
> downstream of this.

......that was good...he got that right...it must have read that off a lucky
caber dip......

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 3, 2005, 6:37:34 AM4/3/05
to

"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:424eefef$0$42287$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...

> Doctor Evil wrote:
>
> > Oh my God!! Another Plowman. It has FIVE levels of safety.
>
> You are powerfully dumb.

Oh My God, this one must makes cabers too.

> >>>>You have have also by default included
> >>>>a 30mA RCD on the ligting circuit in the garrage.
> >>>
> >>>Appears so.
> >>
> >>So it fails on that....
> >
> >
> > Appears not, the BCO's passed it.
>
> Pre part P it would be outside their remit.

> Post part P most BCOs (not being
> electricians) will pass or fail based
> on certification from an approved
> person. So if the approved person is
> as cluless about electrical work as yourself,

I find this amazing. A know-it-all says that what is conmon practice is
wrong, and can't back that up.

> >>>It is done that way on new homes RIGHT NOW.
> >>
> >>And your point is what?
> >
> > It is done that way on new homes RIGHT NOW. Can't you read?
>
> So by your logic it must be right then?

Yep.

> >>Poor design, and not to current standards.
> >
> >
> > To standards. Now RIGHT NOW.
>
> If you believe this to be the case then exaplain how it complies with
> 531-02, 533-01

Explain in detail how it doesn't.

> > Err YES, it is RIGHT.
>
> Planning to dig any further?

No the underground cable is already in the ground.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 3, 2005, 6:51:43 AM4/3/05
to

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d55b88...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <424e...@news.usenetzone.com>,
> Doctor Evil <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > So it fails on that....
>
> > Appears not, the BCO's passed it.

....putting his caber down he has a think and spurts away.......

> I'm surprised after all your claimed
> knowledge of the trades that you
> didn't know a BCO isn't qualified to
> check electrics?

.......he fails to notice that if something is overtly wrong the BCO can
intervene.....does the BCO check his cabers?.......

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Apr 3, 2005, 8:35:37 AM4/3/05
to
In article <424f...@news.usenetzone.com>,

Doctor Evil <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > I'm surprised after all your claimed
> > knowledge of the trades that you
> > didn't know a BCO isn't qualified to
> > check electrics?

> he fails to notice that if something is overtly wrong the BCO can
> intervene.

Assuming the BCO notices. Which assumes to much - like he has a knowledge
of all wiring regs.

--
*The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese *

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Apr 3, 2005, 8:33:51 AM4/3/05
to
In article <424fcc99$1...@news.usenetzone.com>,

Doctor Evil <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > John, try using your brain for once.
> > If you're spurring off a ring from an
> > FCU, what's the point in having a
> > CU and ring in a garage?

> ...his knowledge fails on lacky matters...as garages have dedicated
> CUs.......he thinks in numbers now......

So these el cheapo builders who spur off an ring main fit a CU in a garage
with a ring of sockets off that, and a 'ring' for lighting too?

Which planet is this on?

Perhaps you'd give details of such houses being built now so that others
can check - rather than taking just your amateur word for it?

> > You're restricted to just 13 amps via the
> > FCU which will protect anything
> > downstream of this.

> ......that was good...he got that right...it must have read that off a
> lucky caber dip......

Since you consider yourself an expert in all things - including
electricity - would you like a list of all the things electrical you've
asked here?

--
*Why isn't there a special name for the back of your knee?

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 3, 2005, 1:11:07 PM4/3/05
to

"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:424eb9ea$0$42329$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...

> Doctor Evil wrote:
>
> >>The garrage CU should be fed from a
> >>dedicated circuit on the main CU -
> >>not fed from another circuit.
> >
> >
> > Ideally yes. Most new houses are not. A switchless fused spare is taken
off
> > the downstairs ring with 13 A fuse in it, then an underground exterior
cable
> > from that spare to the garage CU.
>
> What would be the purpose of the CU in the garrage in this case?

You really haven't a clue. Stick to DIY decorating, keep away from other
matters.

< snip garbage>

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 3, 2005, 1:38:59 PM4/3/05
to

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d55cdf...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <424fcc99$1...@news.usenetzone.com>,
> Doctor Evil <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > John, try using your brain for once.
> > > If you're spurring off a ring from an
> > > FCU, what's the point in having a
> > > CU and ring in a garage?
>
> > ...his knowledge fails on lecky matters...as

> > garages have dedicated
> > CUs.......he thinks in numbers now......

....after a sweaty days cabering he thinks and says.....

> So these el cheapo builders who spur
> off an ring main fit a CU in a garage
> with a ring of sockets off that, and a 'ring'
> for lighting too?

......and that they do, and many of them are big developers too.... This
will fox him and he will have to think again....

> Which planet is this on?

.....he is thinking of the stars now.....intergalactic cabers....

> Perhaps you'd give details of such
> houses being built now so that others
> can check

............he wants to walk around other people's houses now..........yes
that's what he wants to do....maybe those intergalactic caber houses on
Mars......

Owain

unread,
Apr 3, 2005, 2:33:20 PM4/3/05
to
Doctor Evil wrote:
> .....after a sweaty days cabering he thinks and says.....
> ......he is thinking of the stars now.....intergalactic cabers....

> that's what he wants to do....maybe those intergalactic caber houses on
> Mars......

Could you shut up and let IMM back in please, two combi boilers made
sense compared to this lot.

Owain

Andy Hall

unread,
Apr 3, 2005, 4:02:02 PM4/3/05
to


It's sort of like Dr. Who really. Each time he metamorphoses,
strangeness increases

--

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Apr 3, 2005, 7:07:59 PM4/3/05
to
In article <11125575...@damia.uk.clara.net>,

Think Dr Evil is doing his own prescribing.

--
*Toilet stolen from police station. Cops have nothing to go on.

John Rumm

unread,
Apr 3, 2005, 7:53:44 PM4/3/05
to
Doctor Evil wrote:

> I find this amazing. A know-it-all says that what is conmon practice is
> wrong, and can't back that up.

Not only have I explained several times why such work would not be
compliant, I have even given you the clue of chapter and verse below.

>>If you believe this to be the case then exaplain how it complies with
>>531-02, 533-01
>
>
> Explain in detail how it doesn't.

Time for you to either put up or shut up.

John Rumm

unread,
Apr 3, 2005, 7:58:53 PM4/3/05