Ring main.

[SparkyChick]

This circuit might be described as a "butterfly" circuit.

I think we've already establish a standard naming convention for this as per @David Prosser 's proposition in this post:-

Ring main. - in - UK Electrical Forum

, Ring main., UK Electrical Forum, ElectriciansForums.net Est.2006 | Free Electrical Advice Forum and page_number.

www.electriciansforums.net

I think the standard is BS DP1 - Naming conventions for unconventional/unorthodox ring final circuits (1st Edition - 2020).

I've just heard ammendment 1 is due in a couple of weeks, C&G are working on a qualification so we can prove our competence... the standard is £75 a copy, the exam is £150 and I believe a corrigendum will follow for the single page document in a matter of days. Got to keep up with the IET in terms of quality control

 

[Risteard]

Final circuit. A circuit connected directly to current-using equipment, or to a socket-outlet or socket-outlets or other
outlet points for the connection of such equipment.
Ring final circuit. A final circuit arranged in the form of a ring (not figure of eight) and connected to a single point of supply.

Then settle for it being a final circuit which isn't a ring final circuit. Let's call it a double ring final circuit if you prefer. (Or call it a crap final circuit if you like - few will disagree.)

 

[pc1966]

Superfluous Home Intriguing Topology final circuit

 

[ebee]

Then settle for it being a final circuit which isn't a ring final circuit. Let's call it a double ring final circuit if you prefer. (Or call it a crap final circuit if you like - few will disagree.)

Well I called it a butterfly circuit, anybody can call it what they want, no problem. Just like the age old cooker circuit, modified cos cooker not needed so a ring produced from that point, some call that a "lolipop" circuit or a "lassoo" circuit (not implying a cowboy job I hope!). The butterfly or whatever you call it just like the lolipop can be a decent circuit designed using sound engineering judgement and be ok. The fact that they are not easily recognised as standard circuits does nothing to detract from that. It might confuse the unwary a little but you could ask "should they really be adding/modifying these circuits if they do not fully understand what they are doing?". Answer No, they could ask someone who does know though and there is no shame in that. There is no person who knows everything about everything.
I disagree about calling them crap circuits though.
Another example to consider is a radial circuit, be it lighting or power points. You might branch out at some point for instance 1 begats 2 begats 4 begats 8 etc etc, it is still a radial circuit, again with different topology but nonetheless sound (some call them "trees"), in fact you could start it off with two conductors (or more) at the CU and it`s still ok - might be a beggar to test though! - you`d have several ends for Zs. It is up to the designer if they want to create one circuit,

In my example No 2/ is actually better in terms of volt drop and R1 + R2 than example No1 is.

 

[Mike Johnson]

I would prefer to call them "Bow Tie" circuits sounds more sophisticated don't you know, can't get on with "lollipop" circuits sounds very childish, "Dragon fly" or a "Damselfly" at least they have four wings, can't think of a "Butterfly" with four wings.

 

[Pete999]

I would prefer to call them "Bow Tie" circuits sounds more sophisticated don't you know, can't get on with "lollipop" circuits sounds very childish, "Dragon fly" or a "Damselfly" at least they have four wings, can't think of a "Butterfly" with four wings.

I prefer to call them an abortion, work of the Devil.

 

[telectrix]

I would prefer to call them "Bow Tie" circuits sounds more sophisticated don't you know, can't get on with "lollipop" circuits sounds very childish, "Dragon fly" or a "Damselfly" at least they have four wings, can't think of a "Butterfly" with four wings.

hate to correct you there, but like bees, butterflies do have 4 wings.

A butterfly has four wings, two forewings and two hindwings. They are attached to the second and third thoracic segments (the meso- and meta-thorax). Strong muscles in the thorax move the wings up and down in a figure-eight pattern during flight. ... It must then wait for the wings to dry before it can fly.

they also have 6 legs, so that could be 3 rings on a circuit.

 

[Mike Johnson]

But the hind wings are much smaller and not considered a lifting wing, they are there to counter balance the movement of the front wings hence the erratic flight, but a Dragonfly can hover.
[automerge]1588351348[/automerge]

I prefer to call them an abortion, work of the Devil.

The Work of the Devil is Clingfilm or is that the Devil spawn.

 

[DPG]

Am I on the right forum here?

 

[westward10]

Am I on the right forum here?

Beginning to sound like Mumsnet.

 

[7029 dave]

So its had a name given to it now, bow tie circuit . ha ha
Cant wait to see that in any text book.

 

[ChipFanDave]

But the hind wings are much smaller and not considered a lifting wing, they are there to counter balance the movement of the front wings hence the erratic flight, but a Dragonfly can hover.
[automerge]1588351348[/automerge]


The Work of the Devil is Clingfilm or is that the Devil spawn.

The rear set of butterfly wings are not always smaller the orange sulphur for example have slightly larger rear wings.

 

[Risteard]

Well I called it a butterfly circuit, anybody can call it what they want, no problem. Just like the age old cooker circuit, modified cos cooker not needed so a ring produced from that point, some call that a "lolipop" circuit or a "lassoo" circuit (not implying a cowboy job I hope!). The butterfly or whatever you call it just like the lolipop can be a decent circuit designed using sound engineering judgement and be ok. The fact that they are not easily recognised as standard circuits does nothing to detract from that. It might confuse the unwary a little but you could ask "should they really be adding/modifying these circuits if they do not fully understand what they are doing?". Answer No, they could ask someone who does know though and there is no shame in that. There is no person who knows everything about everything.
I disagree about calling them crap circuits though.
Another example to consider is a radial circuit, be it lighting or power points. You might branch out at some point for instance 1 begats 2 begats 4 begats 8 etc etc, it is still a radial circuit, again with different topology but nonetheless sound (some call them "trees"), in fact you could start it off with two conductors (or more) at the CU and it`s still ok - might be a beggar to test though! - you`d have several ends for Zs. It is up to the designer if they want to create one circuit,

In my example No 2/ is actually better in terms of volt drop and R1 + R2 than example No1 is.

I wasn't referring to all non-standard circuits as crap. I'm not hygely in favour of four conductors in a circuit breaker etc. though. So it was this particular arrangement which I was suggesting that many might consider to be crap.

A ring supplied by a suitably sized radial feeder is something which I have absolutely no difficulty with, even though it is non-standard.

 

[ebee]

I wasn't referring to all non-standard circuits as crap. I'm not hygely in favour of four conductors in a circuit breaker etc. though. So it was this particular arrangement which I was suggesting that many might consider to be crap.

A ring supplied by a suitably sized radial feeder is something which I have absolutely no difficulty with, even though it is non-standard.

Whatever you label them does not really matter, they are not crap circuits, they may be decent reliable circuits if undertaken properly. The only problem is they are not commonly listed. BS 7671 tells you what to comply with it does not tell you how to comply. So long as you use sound electrical design it complies and is safe. No less so than if you use a bog standard ring or radial.

I can give one example of a circuit that probably does not comply but is nonetheless safe :-
a bog standard ring final circuit B32A MCB with a spur of one twin socket at the origin of the ring i.e from the fuseway. Compliant Yes. Now disconnect the ring but leave the spur in place, so now its a twin socket on a 32a mcb. we would not like the look of it but removal of the ring has not rendered it unsafe has it?

 

[Vortigern]

So like a dog with a bone I have been thinking about this. I can't quite get my head around EFLI test what route would the current take on such a circuit? If I took it at ring A say, would it go around ring B or just ring A and the substation?

 

[ebee]

So like a dog with a bone I have been thinking about this. I can't quite get my head around EFLI test what route would the current take on such a circuit? If I took it at ring A say, would it go around ring B or just ring A and the substation?

Easy, just the ring of that particular fault. Same as any circuit connected in your consumer unit.
[automerge]1588410666[/automerge]

Easy, just the ring of that particular fault. Same as any circuit connected in your consumer unit.

The test would give the most onerous as the answer which should be the 65m ring part of the circuit

 

[Risteard]

Whatever you label them does not really matter, they are not crap circuits, they may be decent reliable circuits if undertaken properly. The only problem is they are not commonly listed. BS 7671 tells you what to comply with it does not tell you how to comply. So long as you use sound electrical design it complies and is safe. No less so than if you use a bog standard ring or radial.

I can give one example of a circuit that probably does not comply but is nonetheless safe :-
a bog standard ring final circuit B32A MCB with a spur of one twin socket at the origin of the ring i.e from the fuseway. Compliant Yes. Now disconnect the ring but leave the spur in place, so now its a twin socket on a 32a mcb. we would not like the look of it but removal of the ring has not rendered it unsafe has it?

I never suggested that any of them were unsafe. In fact I specifically stated that the circuit in question was not unsafe unless there was an issue with the connections to the four conductors at the origin.

 

[littlespark]

Going round in circles indeed... or going round in rings...

earlier in the thread.... much much earlier... it has been established by the OP that there is two rings from one OCPD. Tested, and not found to be one ring and two radials.
It has also been established that there is a spare way in the board, and a suspect damaged breaker, possibly removed from the board.

it is highly likely, Your Honour, that these two rings have been put together as a stop gap, Friday afternoon, temporary fix until Monday.... and was never returned to.

Discussing whether it is safe or not is a mute subject... because the OP, I believe has mentioned previously that he (or his electrical representative) will seperate the two rings into seperate ocpd’s as soon as he can.

I surmise from this that the case is now closed, and no further discussion is required.

 

[westward10]

Can you expand on that please your closing evidence is not clear

 

[scootknew]

what is the 2 ring mains supplying? 1 bedroom , 2 bedrooms, /// livingroom + kitchen etc?