13 Amp socket tolerances



Claims to have!!!!!
In reallity he could not wipe his own arse.
--
Adam



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

With an ASIC?
Its the only ring he has a clue about, and that's because he spends most of his time with his finger up it
--
geoff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/09/2011 21:52, ARWadsworth wrote:

:-)
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just because an electrician can read his book and quote bits doesn't mean he has a clue about what it means.
Adam can cite cases where rings have been faulty for decades and hence been essentially unprotected and still claim they are a good idea. But he does think its OK to ram cars too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/09/2011 01:04, dennis@home wrote:

I can cite cases where a radial has been faulty for decades, so what is your point?
Faulty circuits of any type are undesirable, it has nothing to do with type.
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course it does. You need skill, knowledge and test gear to test a ring. You need a 2.99 tester to test a radial. How often do you think anyone is going to test a ring well enough to find disconnections, etc. 50 years?
Most faults in a ring are undetectable by the user. Most faults on a radial are detectable by the user. That's a hell of a difference.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well that's you unable to test one then. Is that why you do not like them?

Not to do it properly. You need a 299 tester.

How often do you think? Every 50 years is my guess. But enough of your brain.
--
Adam




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/09/2011 19:40, dennis@home wrote:

Now you are just being silly. You need the same equipment to test either. Look at the test procedure in the back of the OSG.

Not sure that stands any scrutiny...
What typical faults can we have?:
1 High Resistance L/N 2 High Resistance CPC 3 Disconnected L/N 4 Disconnected CPC 5 Transposed L/N
(I will ignore other transposition errors since they will result in immediate non functioning or trips etc in most cases)
User observable
    Radial        Ring
1    Maybe        Maybe 2    no        no 3    Yes        Maybe 4    no        no 5    no        Yes
Potential additional risk user is exposed to
    Radial        Ring
1    High        Moderate 2    High        Moderate 3    Low        Moderate 4    High        Moderate/Low 5    High        None
(implications of 3 & 4 vary depending on whether the disconnected wire is just disconnected from the socket in question, or actually breaks continuity in the circuit)

No, that's some difference, and there is certainly no clear winner...
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A householder can plug in a socket tester and find nearly all faults on a radial. He can find none of the possible faults on a ring. So ho is being silly, someone that puts in circuits that the user can't find faults until something bad happens or someone that installs a circuits that are better protected and the householder can find most faults with a 2.99 tester that he can use every day if he wants at zero cost.

This is ring mains not just radial rings.

The appliances won't work if there is a high resistance L/N on a radial.

A socket tester will show a disconnected CPC on a radial

A socket tester will show switched L/N on a radial.

There is no difference in the risk

There is no difference in the risk

There is no difference in the risk

there is no difference in the risk

What varies is how easy they are to find and hence get fixed. As other posters have shown its quite easy to get a ring to be a pair of 2.4 mm2 radials with incorrect circuit protection. As other posters have shown its essentially undetectable As other posters have shown these risks run for decades without being fixed
You can say what you like, the facts are: the faults happen, they are essentially undetectable, once there they exist for decades they cause real dangers you should design to avoid them
its easy enough, never use a breaker with a capacity higher than the cables. don't rely on the user doing everything correctly to protect the fixed circuit.

Well if you answer the questions incorrectly there is bound to be a difference in the results.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The common ''socket testers' are no more than a rough check and shouldn't be used by those who don't understand such things.

Do you read what you write? That socket tester will show up exactly the same faults on either ring or radial. But, of course, not test either properly.

I hope everyone reading this has the sense to ignore your advice.
--
*Eat well, stay fit, die anyway

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Rubbish, they are there for people that don't understand or have access to more sophisticated testers.

Rubbish, a socket tester will find breaks in a radial that it can't in a ring.

Which is also true for electricians with better test equipment.
However a test that finds faults is far better than no test.

I hope everyone realises that you need to test stuff and you can't test a ring with a 2.99 socket tester but you can test a radial and find the majority of faults too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So how many do you own?
--
Adam



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Doing half a test is IMHO worse than non at all - because it will give a false sense of security. You can get rather more expensive plug in testers which do a rather better earth test - but not in the pound shop where you seem to buy near everything.
--
*He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Rubbish, half a test is better than no test, or at least it is on radials. You already have a false sense of security because you have a ring, tested it 50 years ago and still think its perfect.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What? Even if it finds a significant fault?
--
Mike Barnes

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But what if it shows everything ok when there is indeed a fault? Like as has been said, a loose connection - by far and away the most common. It could still light up a neon, but fail under load. Hence the need for a proper test.
To be perfectly honest careful removing of all the sockets and a visual inspection coupled with a check on the terminal tightness would be a better way than relying on a cheap plug in tester. Of course this won't show if there are problems elsewhere, but will give an indication of the standard of workmanship on an installation new to you.
--
*Some days you're the dog, some days the hydrant.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's a different case, obviously.
--
Mike Barnes

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Then they are no worse off than before the test.

OK they will have the test in 9 years, 50 weeks time, you did suggest every 10 years. In the meantime they can test as frequently as they like knowing they will catch a large proportion of the faults and that the RCD will catch the earth faults.

And cause faults to occur when they put the sockets back on due to work hardening of the copper, pinched cables, over tightened screws, etc..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Then leave such things to an expert.
--
*Generally speaking, you aren't learning much if your lips are moving.*

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I can usually guess the highest ELI on a circuit I have installed before testing the circuit.
My tests do not need socket removals.
--
Adam



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.