The Ring is dead, long live the Radial!⚡

[static zap]

I'm sure British "Mathematicians" that helped Blighty
win the war would also enjoy the simplicity
of verifying a GOOD RFC with the figure of 8 test ..
(God forbid it reveal quality issues with switched parts )

 

[Grant1987]

The Radial and FRC (why) debate will always go on whilst T&E is still being produced if at some point that ceases to be the case I think the RFC will go it's natural course.

Long live the ring

 

[Vortigern]

RFC will go it's natural course

And what may that be, if I might enquire?
[automerge]1598655015[/automerge]
So what tests do you do on a radial in those places that only do radials. Especially dead tests and live tests?

 

[ipf]

Personally rfc is fab when you put it in and do the tests,
I get a strange warm feeling when the maths work out perfectly. Us English eh!

After so long installing and testing them, I think it's a case of 'bleedin' boiling feeling' if they don't!!

 

[Mike Johnson]

And what may that be, if I might enquire?
[automerge]1598655015[/automerge]
So what tests do you do on a radial in those places that only do radials. Especially dead tests and live tests?

You know the answer to that already

All the normal tests.

 

[cliffed]

Ring main’s will go on,but realistically the radial should be the new answer.
Yes it’s a problem the actual loading ,but the Kitchen & Utility areas would need the most radials.
You look @ the norm 3 bed house it becomes logically to run maybe 2 radials for upstairs,& maybe 2 for downstairs.
Thats makes approx 7-8 radials.Easy .....

 

[davesparks]

The Radial and FRC (why) debate will always go on whilst T&E is still being produced if at some point that ceases to be the case I think the RFC will go it's natural course.

What is the link between rings and T&E?
[automerge]1598687087[/automerge]

Ring main’s will go on,but realistically the radial should be the new answer.
Yes it’s a problem the actual loading ,but the Kitchen & Utility areas would need the most radials.
You look @ the norm 3 bed house it becomes logically to run maybe 2 radials for upstairs,& maybe 2 for downstairs.
Thats makes approx 7-8 radials.Easy .....

Why is the loading a problem? Radials can have the exact same current rating as a ring.

How is that logical for a 3 bed house when a ring upstairs and a ring downstairs would do the job in 2 circuits?

 

[7029 dave]

"spurs off a ring are the devil, s work" is a comment I would regard as "throwaway" in most cases, but your comments are much too measured and considered for me to take it lightly in your case. Do you really feel so strongly? (I agree by the way but would, nt use the same language). Or have you been swayed by John Ward who used the phrase "devil's work" in relation to ring circuits.
[automerge]1598645118[/automerge]

Agreed. I often remind customers that when testing we do not have a "crystal ball" and that our meters are limited in what they can tell us. I maintain that the "visual test" is still the single most important o E we carry out

IMO its 80% using your eyes.

 

[Vortigern]

You know the answer to that already

Eh? I do? Mhmm wonder why I asked! Do you mean it will continue as it always did, or are you suggesting it will eventually fall into disuse, in your opinion?

 

[Mike Johnson]

IMO you are just playing a silly game and trying to start an argument, it is impossible to have a serious discussion about Radials and Ring Mains it seems to be an emotive subject that people will answer with smart answers to try and draw you into a trap.

 

[Mike Johnson]

What is the link between rings and T&E?
[automerge]1598687087[/automerge]

I am surprised you don't know.

 

[cliffed]

What is the link between rings and T&E?
[automerge]1598687087[/automerge]


Why is the loading a problem? Radials can have the exact same current rating as a ring.

How is that logical for a 3 bed house when a ring upstairs and a ring downstairs would do the job in 2 circuits?

I think the way forward would be radials,my thinking was 20 amp radialS.
One for upstairs & downstairs in a normal 3 bed.
Dishwasher,Washing machine,oven on their own radials, & a nice radial for all those other bits.
Been putting Ring’s in for ages now ,let’s move forward

 

[pc1966]

Been putting Ring’s in for ages now ,let’s move forward

Why?
What advantage does twice the number of radials have over a ring?

 

[UNG]

Debating the pro's and con's of rings and radials and all the variations is always going to be one of those never ending debates goes round in circles and occasionally goes off at a tangent
The spurring of other sockets from either circuit is the one that generally leads to most of the problems, while the professionals may split a ring and extend it the accepted DIY method is just to spur from the nearest socket.
The problem is the DIY guy who sees 2 cables looped at a socket and has not got the ability or equipment to identify whether it is a ring or a radial and spurs off it to a new socket
When designing circuits the ring provides a flexibility that in some situations would need several radials to give a similar outcome, look at any 1930's property that hasn't been rewired where radials have been extended and in some cases have ended up as rings

The fault finding and inspect and test nightmare normally only shows it's head on older installations that have had many alterations and extensions over a number of years from any number of DIYers and / or builders who believe it is only a few wires and anybody can do it , it is then left to an electrician to unravel the mess when it all goes wrong or an EICR is needed

The issue I see of moving wholly to radials would be the available space to locate the larger CU's needed to accommodate more circuits especially on rewires where space in the mains cupboard at times is at a premium.
If we do move to a radials only installation format should we the ditch the 13A socket and fused plugs, it wasn't that many years ago a pan European plug and socket was discussed but seemed to fall by the wayside because the new design could not favour any member state or manufacturer should this be revived or are we then going to debate the enhanced safety aspect of the 13A plug and socket which was only introduced because of the introduction ring circuit

If it ever happens that it is radials only I can see the next debate now "the 20th edition regs say radials only so how do I code an installation that has ring circuits", may be we need a "1984 section" to debate possible future regs now could make interesting reading for someone in 20 - 30 years time

 

[Mike Johnson]

I think the way forward would be radials,my thinking was 20 amp radialS.
One for upstairs & downstairs in a normal 3 bed.
Dishwasher,Washing machine,oven on their own radials, & a nice radial for all those other bits.
Been putting Ring’s in for ages now ,let’s move forward

You've been reading the French/German plus a few other EU countries Regulations.
[automerge]1598700601[/automerge]

Why?
What advantage does twice the number of radials have over a ring?

I expected better of you Pete.

 

[UNG]

I think the way forward would be radials,my thinking was 20 amp radialS.
One for upstairs & downstairs in a normal 3 bed.
Dishwasher,Washing machine,oven on their own radials, & a nice radial for all those other bits.
Been putting Ring’s in for ages now ,let’s move forward

Let's bin the radial we have been using them a lot longer than the ring

Why?
What advantage does twice the number of radials have over a ring?

Only twice as many radials I think there could be a lot more than that

 

[nicebutdim]

Been putting Ring’s in for ages now ,let’s move forward

By that logic, countries that don't use RFCs would have to start using them.

Two 20A radials might be ideal upstairs, but those circuits might end metres apart and a short length of cable would mean half the expenditure on protective devices, along with saving a way in the CU. Equally there could be situations where an upstairs ring is impractical for various reasons and 2x radials would be the better option. There are an unlimited number of examples which can be presented in favour of either option and I'm not sure that taking a blinkered view in preference of a single option is a good idea.

Rather than consider this a forwards or backwards issue, would it not be better to install whatever circuit is most appropriate in any given situation? I'm not advocating a return to 1950s practices where two rings might serve every socket in a house, but can you honestly state that you don't come across circumstances where a ring would be the most logical option?

 

[ipf]

Scolmore's getting towards his first ton.......get ready to stand and applaud another regular re-read.
Magic that leccy, especially to salesmen.

 

[Vortigern]

So in Spain I have read of an electrician who recounted doing CUs there. He said that each appliance (in France as well apparently) had to have it's own radial. Fans could not be put on lighting circuit and so on. The upshot being, he said that a 32 way CU is quite common. Now that is insane, and if that is where anybody is suggesting advancing to, I would say it is not an advance. Given we are now trying to stuff AFDD SPD RCD into a CU. Also what are the implications of having 32 cables as against 8 for Cg?

 

[cliffed]

Radials are easier & fool proof to test.
How many rings have been in complete on an Eicr,
Also it might stop the overloading of circuits especially high loads on the same ring,just because it’s a ring.

 

[UNG]

Radials are easier & fool proof to test.
How many rings have been in complete on an Eicr,
Also it might stop the overloading of circuits especially high loads on the same ring,just because it’s a ring.

On what do you base your facts!!

Ok a radial is one cable until someone spurs of it somewhere in the middle not so easy to test then and not as foolproof as you would like it to be

With regard to incomplete rings, actually I don't think I've had more than a dozen incomplete rings in 40 years of doing PIR / EICR's although I have found quite a few loose connections, as I have never kept count of the number of PIR / EICR's I have done it's impossible to know what the percentage is but it is extremely low
I have found some interesting ring configurations in that time that have caused some head scratching and have had issues that needed resolving but that is the nature of the job when you are battling the DIYer

It is just as easy to overload a radial as it is a ring, high loads are not just reserved for rings in fact most high loads are installed on radials

I think you need to find a better argument for dissing the ring

 

[pc1966]

Radials are easier & fool proof to test.

Except they are not.

Yes, it turns out GN3 does not specify the N to be tested (just L&E for Zs and polarity) but that does not make them faster to test to the same standard.

With a ring figure-of-8 test you get a very good indication of a bad joint as even 0.05 ohm extra will stand out. Yes, it could be a spur (see earlier) but it is easier to be sure than having to compute the cable length & resulting expected resistance for a radial.

How many rings have been in complete on an Eicr,

How many radials with CPC open that did not show up as a fault to the customer?

Yes, an open L or N on radial is immediately obvious, but an open E is not and far more dangerous as several outlets could be impacted, where as the ring would probably only have one socket open E (if at all).

Also the open ring is less of an overheating risk than immediately though - yes one leg is down to 2.5mm on a 32A MCB but the other live conductor that is still part of the ring will have its current shared, so you don't have as much total heat from the T&E combination as you might initial imagine from the loads on that leg, and you would expect faults to be anywhere so many open rings would be about half way anyway.

Also it might stop the overloading of circuits especially high loads on the same ring,just because it’s a ring.

Why?

Do you expect many householders to think "Oh yes I have a ring circuit so I can put on at least 8kW of load these 4 13A sockets, but those are on a radial so I must keep it down a bit"?

Of course they don't do that!

If you have that sort of an overload it is down to bad design, and if the person installing stuff is not able to do the design and deal with the usual suspects for overload such as ovens, etc, that are already supposed to go on radials, why are they doing electrician work?

 

[telectrix]

if muppets can't cope with ring finals, maybe alternative employment is with Aldi, stocking shelves.

 

[radiohead]

With regard to incomplete rings, actually I don't think I've had more than a dozen incomplete rings in 40 years of doing PIR / EICR's although I have found quite a few loose connections, as I have never kept count of the number of PIR / EICR's I have done it's impossible to know what the percentage is but it is extremely low

I can only assume that is a reflection on the type of premises you are testing. Commercials industrials and domestic <20 years old I'd agree. But older domestics have usually been considerably altered and I'd say more than 50% have breaks in continuity or spurs from spurs.

 

[nicebutdim]

...older domestics have usually been considerably altered and I'd say more than 50% have breaks in continuity or spurs from spurs.

That ties in with the point I was making on the previous page.

20 years from now, radial circuits being installed today will also be altered and spurred from. While this may not introduce the same potential for overloading of cables as it does with rings, it will still cause headaches with testing to with multiple end points.

As I understand things; radials are easy to test when they are linear in form - just as rings are when unadulterated - once those basic forms are deviated from, matters become less straightforward. No matter what regulations are in place, DIY will never stop and professionals wont always follow best practices.

 

[pc1966]

I suspect though that houses built or rewired now will have an acceptable of sockets so the temptation to DIY-add more is less than a house wired in the 70s when two double sockets was all a living room would see, and bedrooms might only be one outlet!

It is not something I really follow much, but I'm also pretty sure the Scottish building regulations has something about the provision of an adequate number of sockets in safe locations to try and avoid the risk of multiple extension leads and DIY modifications to compensate for it.

Do the building regulations in England & Wales, or in Northern Ireland, provide this sort of guidance?

 

[nicebutdim]

I suspect though that houses built or rewired now will have an acceptable of sockets so the temptation to DIY-add more is less than a house wired in the 70s when two double sockets was all a living room would see, and bedrooms might only be one outlet!

It is not something I really follow much, but I'm also pretty sure the Scottish building regulations has something about the provision of an adequate number of sockets in safe locations to try and avoid the risk of multiple extension leads and DIY modifications to compensate for it.

Do the building regulations in England & Wales, or in Northern Ireland, provide this sort of guidance?

I'm not sure what regulations are in place in NI, but this house was constructed only a few years ago and an adequate number of sockets were provided in each room as standard - less straightforward was guessing where those sockets should be placed in each room

What wont change is power being taken, after the fact, to sheds or elsewhere outdoors. Also changes to interior furnishings and decor will continue to see accessories relocated to more suitable positions or additions made for similar reasons. I'd be happy if this house didn't change for the rest of my days, but the other half wont be quite so easily pleased.

 

[radiohead]

That ties in with the point I was making on the previous page.

20 years from now, radial circuits being installed today will also be altered and spurred from. While this may not introduce the same potential for overloading of cables as it does with rings, it will still cause headaches with testing to with multiple end points.

As I understand things; radials are easy to test when they are linear in form - just as rings are when unadulterated - once those basic forms are deviated from, matters become less straightforward. No matter what regulations are in place, DIY will never stop and professionals wont always follow best practices.

IMO a radial circuit with branches is not so much a cause for concern as a broken RFC, or even a cause for concern at all.... as long as the OCPD is of the correct rating for the circuit conductors. Neither can I see testing being much of a headache, an R1+R2 test at each point will verify the farthest point of the circuit, and the highest reading is recorded, same with Zs. I really cant see why that is complicated. Of course ideally you would want a conventional radial but there are no regulations against unconventional.

 

[telectrix]

I'd be happy if this house didn't change for the rest of my days, but the other half wont be quite so easily pleased.

er' indoors only happy when can plug hair dryer in when in bath. that's so tempting...

 

[LastManOnline]

Who is "we"?

The point I was making was in response to your comment about not finding branches off radial circuits, which result in a testing nightmare.

I get that the safety issue is removed with spurs from radials, but as general socket circuits on these islands have traditionally be run as RFCs, I think it's reasonable to make the point that an increase in the use of radial circuits could see as many messy circuits as additions/repairs are effected with the passing of time.

We referred to ROI. Yes, the situation you describe may well arise but in the UK only.
[automerge]1598770667[/automerge]

IMO a radial circuit with branches is not so much a cause for concern as a broken RFC, or even a cause for concern at all.... as long as the OCPD is of the correct rating for the circuit conductors. Neither can I see testing being much of a headache, an R1+R2 test at each point will verify the farthest point of the circuit, and the highest reading is recorded, same with Zs. I really cant see why that is complicated. Of course ideally you would want a conventional radial but there are no regulations against unconventional.

That's a correct assessment. A linear radial is always easier to test than a ring. A linear radial is always easier to faultfind than a ring.
[automerge]1598770813[/automerge]

I'm not sure what regulations are in place in NI, but this house was constructed only a few years ago and an adequate number of sockets were provided in each room as standard - less straightforward was guessing where those sockets should be placed in each room

What wont change is power being taken, after the fact, to sheds or elsewhere outdoors. Also changes to interior furnishings and decor will continue to see accessories relocated to more suitable positions or additions made for similar reasons. I'd be happy if this house didn't change for the rest of my days, but the other half wont be quite so easily pleased.

Regis in NI are in principle same as UK. There work practices, may vary somewhat. There will always be regional variations.

 

[pc1966]

A linear radial is always easier to test than a ring. A linear radial is always easier to faultfind than a ring.

Eh, how come?
If you temporarily disconnect one end of the ring, it is now a linear radial!
[automerge]1598770949[/automerge]
Or is it down to the radials being many and smaller?
[automerge]1598771034[/automerge]
Do the regulations in ROI (either wiring regs or building regs) have requirements on adequate provision of sockets per room, hallway, etc?

 

[LastManOnline]

That ties in with the point I was making on the previous page.

20 years from now, radial circuits being installed today will also be altered and spurred from. While this may not introduce the same potential for overloading of cables as it does with rings, it will still cause headaches with testing to with multiple end points.

As I understand things; radials are easy to test when they are linear in form - just as rings are when unadulterated - once those basic forms are deviated from, matters become less straightforward. No matter what regulations are in place, DIY will never stop and professionals wont always follow best practices.

"20 years from now... radial circuits altered and spurred from". That is highly unlikely. The spurs and alterations you refer to are unique to the UK. Radials are overwhelmingly linear here and on the continent.
You are correct about the testing
[automerge]1598773957[/automerge]

Eh, how come?
If you temporarily disconnect one end of the ring, it is now a linear radial!
[automerge]1598770949[/automerge]
Or is it down to the radials being many and smaller?
[automerge]1598771034[/automerge]
Do the regulations in ROI (either wiring regs or building regs) have requirements on adequate provision of sockets per room, hallway, etc

PC. Can I first say that I think it unfortunate the title of this thread appears designed to provoke. The topic is an excellent one but I feel its become a little emotive and that's affecting some comments. I have made my own feelings clear about the ring on previous posts. Am not a fan but each to his own and all that.
Now as you correctly say, temp disconnect one end of your ring and you are back to your radial. End of. In fact the ring and the radial are first cousins, some might say brothers.
Put another way, a ring is simply 2 radials joined together at either end.
Point 1) Verification tests on radials simpler than rings.
Point 2) Faultfinding easier. You may say marginal. OK. But on a Friday afternoon I really appreciate the fact I don't have to take off the DB cover to disconnect both legs of the ring before I start to isolate which part of the socket circuit is down to earth (for example).
Vortigern likes the math. I like to get in and get out.

Regarding your other questions we are very close to the UK in most aspects. In fact when you bring out a newset of regs much of it will be "copied and pasted" over here.

Regarding radial circuits there will be a maximum of 2 bedrooms per 20 amp circuit with a max of 10 socket points. In practice there will usually be 3 double sockets per bedroom. A hallway is not regarded as a room. There must be a minimum of 2 radials in the kitchen with a min of of 10 sockets recommended.Any appliance above 2.2 kW must have its own circuit. I incorrectly stated 1500 Watts on a previous post.

Regarding ring circuits. Unlimited sockets over a 100 Mt square floor space. Unfused spurs not permitted. Use in kitchen not permitted.

 

[pc1966]

Regarding your other questions we are very close to the UK in most aspects. In fact when you bring out a newset of regs much of it will be "copied and pasted" over here.

Do you know if the UK IET takes back much from the ROI's equivalent body?

There are a couple of things mentioned on these forums from ROI that we should be looking to include here (e.g. local earth rods on TN-C-S, spur limits on rings, etc).

Regarding radial circuits there will be a maximum of 2 bedrooms per 20 amp circuit with a max of 10 socket points. In practice there will usually be 3 double sockets per bedroom. A hallway is not regarded as a room. There must be a minimum of 2 radials in the kitchen

I think the Scottish building regs require a socket in hallways so folk vacuum cleaning,
etc, are not tempted to run extension leads under doorways, etc.

Regarding ring circuits. Unlimited sockets over a 100 Mt square floor space. Unfused spurs not permitted. Use in kitchen not permitted.

Odd about the kitchen limit, but definitely in favour of less or ideally no spurs.

In fact if I were supreme leader/dictator I would say only 2 wires per socket or similar terminal. End of. So rings are only rings, and radials are always linear.

But then I work up to the current sh1tshow running the place...

 

[LastManOnline]

Do you know if the UK IET takes back much from the ROI's equivalent body?

There are a couple of things mentioned on these forums from ROI that we should be looking to include here (e.g. local earth rods on TN-C-S, spur limits on rings, etc).

I think the Scottish building regs require a socket in hallways so folk vacuum cleaning,
etc, are not tempted to run extension leads under doorways, etc.


Odd about the kitchen limit, but definitely in favour of less or ideally no spurs.

In fact if I were supreme leader/dictator I would say only 2 wires per socket or similar terminal. End of. So rings are only rings, and radials are always linear.

But then I work up to the current sh1tshow running the place...

I do know that the relationship between both bodies is very constructive. Always has been. My own inspector has commented on his interactions with his opposite number in the UK. Traditionally the ROI will always look at the direction the UK is going in. After all its a standard bearer in many areas. Naturally work practices in the continent are factored in as well. We have ended up here with a kind of hybrid. As with any system. Its a work in progress. As, you know I am very critical of our approach here with the TNC-S supply system.

 

[pc1966]

I know from my own limited experience with dealing with standards bodies / regulators (not electrical power area) is they are glacially slow in doing things.

Sometimes that is good as it provides time for adequate discussions and full evidence to come out, but sometimes bad as simple updates/corrections can take years to be done, if at all.

 

[static zap]

Have witnessed this commercially while in a work place.
Too tight for a re-wire ,multiple rings on 3 phase.
All overloaded, poorly configured for balance across phases.

Also it might stop the overloading of circuits especially high loads on the same ring,just because it’s a ring.

Resulting in the cooking up / burning out of one of cutout phases.

 

[nicebutdim]

"20 years from now... radial circuits altered and spurred from". That is highly unlikely. The spurs and alterations you refer to are unique to the UK. Radials are overwhelmingly linear here and on the continent.
You are correct about the testing

Maybe, maybe not.

The point I was making is that most issues that people have with RFCs seem to be due to alterations and modification. The people who installed rings 30 years ago were unlikely to have done so in the hope that others might later deviate from their simple installation.

Left alone or extended properly, I don't see many complaints about either form of circuit. Once a ring is no longer a ring or a radial gains multiple end points, their simplicity is lost.

Imagine, if you will, a newly installed radial serving two bedrooms. Someone decides to fit built in wardrobes that cover two sockets - those sockets might be brought forwarfd into the wardrobe or they might become hidden. Now we have one available double socket and want a couple more, so the cheapest and easiest route is to spur from the remaining socket - not ideal, but it's a common practice. Some years later the same happens in the second bedroom served by that radial and fault finding becomes less straghtforward than envisaged when you installed that circuit. Any subsequent problems are not of your making, but that doesn't help the guy struggling to understand the layout of this modified circuit.

In short; the point I'm trying to make is that, with the best will in the world, neither RFC nor radial can be guaranteed to remain as straightforward as their designer intended and fault finding on either type of circuit should be a fairly simple exercise if best practices are adhered to. In reality, best practices are often ----ed out the window.

 

[LastManOnline]

Do you know if the UK IET takes back much from the ROI's equivalent body?

There are a couple of things mentioned on these forums from ROI that we should be looking to include here (e.g. local earth rods on TN-C-S, spur limits on rings, etc).

I think the Scottish building regs require a socket in hallways so folk vacuum cleaning,
etc, are not tempted to run extension leads under doorways, etc.


Odd about the kitchen limit, but definitely in favour of less or ideally no spurs.

In fact if I were supreme leader/dictator I would say only 2 wires per socket or similar terminal. End of. So rings are only rings, and radials are always linear.

But then I work up to the current sh1tshow running the place...

You are right. It is a little odd about the kitchen prohibition. As I have mentioned previously there is no overt policy over here about not using rings. I have never heard from an inspector or a Q. C. instructor (we are required to attend these refresher /upgrade courses every few, years) anything negative. I just think (for reasons already stated) that in practice the radial has gained "most favoured status" and the ring (by default) is been ushered gently towards the exit.

 

[nicebutdim]

...There must be a minimum of 2 radials in the kitchen with a min of of 10 sockets recommended.Any appliance above 2.2 kW must have its own circuit. I incorrectly stated 1500 Watts on a previous post.

Regarding ring circuits. Unlimited sockets over a 100 Mt square floor space. Unfused spurs not permitted. Use in kitchen not permitted.

What is the reasoning behind RFCs not being permitted in kitchens?

Edit: you addresssed this above while I was typing.

 

[LastManOnline]

Maybe, maybe not.

The point I was making is that most issues that people have with RFCs seem to be due to alterations and modification. The people who installed rings 30 years ago were unlikely to have done so in the hope that others might later deviate from their simple installation.

Left alone or extended properly, I don't see many complaints about either form of circuit. Once a ring is no longer a ring or a radial gains multiple end points, their simplicity is lost.

Imagine, if you will, a newly installed radial serving two bedrooms. Someone decides to fit built in wardrobes that cover two sockets - those sockets might be brought forwarfd into the wardrobe or they might become hidden. Now we have one available double socket and want a couple more, so the cheapest and easiest route is to spur from the remaining socket - not ideal, but it's a common practice. Some years later the same happens in the second bedroom served by that radial and fault finding becomes less straghtforward than envisaged when you installed that circuit. Any subsequent problems are not of your making, but that doesn't help the guy struggling to understand the layout of this modified circuit.

In short; the point I'm trying to make is that, with the best will in the world, neither RFC nor radial can be guaranteed to remain as straightforward as their designer intended and fault finding on either type of circuit should be a fairly simple exercise if best practices are adhered to. In reality, best practices are often ----ed out the window.

Obviously

What is the reasoning behind RFCs not being permitted in kitchens?

That is a question I cannot answer. But I suspect they they prefer the idea of heavier loads been spread over individual radial circuits