Talk:Ring circuit

a few comments (i was the one who destubed this article btw although i wasn't logged in at the time)

seems someone has done a style edit on this page and in doing so added at least one definate error and one possible error

firstly when i said british isles i meant british isles. maybe it is more correct to say united kinddom and republic of ireland but editing it to just united kindom was wrong

secondly while i haven't heard mention of the ring mains use outside of the brish isles that doesn't mean it is only used in the british isles i think i will need to rephrase that bit

Ring circles use more wiring material than radial circuit !

If I want to add another socket into the ring, then I have to lay 2x 2.5 mm² cables.
If I reduce the fuse to 16 amps, as is common in other countries, then 1 cable is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E6:F74D:FB00:BD08:BC33:B650:1654 (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Lighting Rings

ISTR installing lighting rings with my father may years ago. Perhaps he's just a perfectionist? Rich Farmbrough 21:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A LOT of laypeople in the uk refer to all cuircuits as "rings" and it is not unheared of to find a lighting cuircuit wired in a ring by a diyer but this is certainly not normal practice. Plugwash 21:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can only form a ring from the fuse to the switch. You have a branch from the switch to the lamp.

Or if the terminal is above the lamp: then the switch cable is a branch and also the cable in the lamp itself.

Isn't that protected with 6 amps only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E6:F74D:FB00:BD08:BC33:B650:1654 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

415V ring circuits?

I have been a working electrician for a long time and only met a 3 phase ring circuit once - in a (very) poorly installed workshop. Modern 3 phase installations are invariably radial. (unsigned comment by Alastairrr)

mmm yes when i wrote the first section i didn't mean to imply the ring itself would be three phase just that it was part of a three phase electrical installation. I can see how it could be misread though and will try and make it clearer. Plugwash

I have certainly never heared of anyone using three phase rings though i have never seen it explicitly prohibited anywhere either. I can't think of many situations in which it would be usefull though (maybe if you wanted a LOT of 13A sockets with high total load it might be an idea but the 415V warning stickers everywhere would be a pita).Plugwash 01:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3-phase ring mains (as distinct from ring circuits) are commonly used for the final supply distribution to consumers. 81.187.162.107 18:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

How about a diagram?

I found a diagram of a ring circuit in an old British book ( J. W. Sims The Boy Electician, Eighth Edition - couldn't have that title today!) which explained very concisely what was meant by a "ring circuit". DOes anyone feel up to getting us a similar diagram for this article? It would save much explanation. --Wtshymanski 15:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

File:UKRingFinalCircuit.png

how's this for a first stab? Please let me have any comments --Ali@gwc.org.uk 23:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

good but you should actually show that there is some kind of junction box we don't wan't to encourage people joining cables in mid air with no enclosure ;) also needs to be shown a bit bigger than default thumb size to be clear imo

i've also made some tweaks to the imo rather washed out looking colors and re-done some of the green/yellow lines in a uniform patten (i got bored before i did them all). Plugwash 23:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The wiring colours used in the diagram are incorrect - the colours shown are those for the conductors in flexible cables connected via plugs TO the ring! The ring cable conductors are usually black, red and copper(bared ground/earth).

The diagram shows correctly the international standard (IEC 60446) colours that have been recommended in the UK for fixed installations by the IEE wiring "regs" since 2004 (see electrical wiring (UK)), and in most other countries long before that. Markus Kuhn 12:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

An SVG version would be nice. Markus Kuhn (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Electrical noise?

Here in the USA, electrical circuits like these are strictly verboten. ;) The wires run from the breaker, with all sockets in parallel, terminating at the end of each line. Sockets and switches usually have two sets of terminals to make extending a circuit easy. Heavy enough wire is specified so that in a typical house, there is no practical problem with the length of a circuit.

Wire with a 1.5mm cross sectional area, running 250 volts? That makes me want to run screaming into the night! Most audio speaker wire is heavier than that.

can't see the problem with it - the insulation is quite able to withstand the voltage, and the CSA is only relevant for the current carrying capacity (and possibly mechanical strength). It is permissible to use 1.0 mm² cable for lighting circuits which are fused at 5A - the current carrying capacity of the cable is about 13 A so there is plenty of margin there. Flexible cable of 0.5 mm² can be used for light duty appliances flexes. --Ali@gwc.org.uk 11:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't they have terrible problems with EMI ring circuits? After reading the article, I seems to me like regulation mandated ground loops from hell.

ring cuircuits are NOT mandated thier just more flexible in use than 20A radials and easier/cheaper to install than 32A radials. it doesn't seem to cause noticable interference problems in normal domestic and commercial installation though i belive its not generally reccomended to use them for studio installations for this reason.

btw we use 1.0mm cable in our lighting cuircuits still at 240V ofc Also let me assure you that pyro isn't exactly a weak cable type ;) Plugwash 20:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ring circuits are a way of installing a circuit using a cable size smaller than an equivelent radial circuit could safely manage as the loadings on the cables are reduced by 50%. These are common in the UK, and a small number of other countries. American readers of this should remember that as the UK uses 240V supplies for single phase services, compared to their circuits, the loading on the cables is reduced by half for a given supply.

Three phase (400V) rings are common in the UK. Some heavy loading buildings, such as older schools, have 400V rings installed in undercrofts in order to supply the various buildings when they are not resticted to a single building. This installation is similar to the types of ring circuits that are installed by supply authorities in towns etc and forming part of the local supply network.

Interference on ring circuits is reduced, if there is any at all, for the same reason the loadings on each leg of the ring are reduced. Properly installed services (Ring or Radial)have little or not EMI as the Phase/Neutral conductors effectively cancel each others magnetic field, and in 400V rings, the Earthed Armouring of the sheath grounds the cable so that any EMI produced is very effectively removed from the cable.

Lastly, lighting circuits should never be installed as a ring inside a building. This is not normal practise and would be extremely dangerous to do so. However some street lighting is installed as a ring in towns, usually on a 400V ring specifically installed for this purpose, with alternating posts on each phase of the service. [SparksJim]: 05:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

what do you belive would be dangerous about installing lighting as a ring? just the fact that someone may not expect it and hurt themselves when working on the system or some issue that would actually affect the normal users of the system? Plugwash 04:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was not to merge into electrical wiring (UK). – Markus Kuhn (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the topic of ring circuit is just one particular aspect of the topic of electrical wiring (UK), I propose to merge the former article into the latter. This will avoid overlap and duplication. Markus Kuhn 12:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, for the reasons stated. Atlant 13:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - better one comprehensive article than a flurry of stubs. --Wtshymanski 17:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, I think if there isn't any disagreement by this point, it should be done now since there's been nearly 2 months to discuss this and no one has chimed in against it. I don't have much knowledge in this subject (and since neither is a stub) I don't quite know how to integrate the two, so have at it. Radagast83 04:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree: The use of different forms of electrical installation is a practical, not a political issue. Naming the region of use the British Isles (a geographic , not political area) by the contributor was perfectly correct in this instance. Although the ring main system may be a British phenomenon, it is a recognised technology and should not be relegated to specific electrical installation practices in the UK or any other politically delimited territory..CCS 00:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree - I foound this article because I was looking for specific information on this type of circuit. Merging this article into a more general one would reduce its usefulness.

• Disagree the reason you give is both flawed (in suggesting that this is not a generic concept) and only grounds for merging the UK centric details. UK electical wiring is a location specific page, whilst ring circuit is a generic electrical concept. Moreso, I am appauled by the apparent absence of a compainion article on radial curcuits. To propose this move is very much an aspect of systematic bias ('not used in the US so must not be real or important'). Where information specific to the UK is listed, it should be detailed within electrical wiring (UK), but there is still grounds to explain the international concept of a ring circuit (by LinaMishima, not logged in) 147.188.27.3 18:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree as per LinaMishima, and also the fact ring circuits are equally as common in Ireland. Also, I think there is a significant amount of information here for the concept to have its own article. --Zilog Jones 02:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree Ring Circuits are a separate concept and probably best dealt with separately. I see no mention was made of the the other advantage of this topology, that of fault tolerance. MarcSinclair 00:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree Ring mains are part of the Scottish Standard Grade Physics curriculum (similar to GCSE in England & Wales). Pupils do not find them intuitive. They deserve their own article. Incidentally, Hong Kong uses UK-style, 13A, 3-pin, 240 Vac, 50Hz sockets, so I suspect they use ring mains as well.StuFifeScotland 11:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree Despite Wtshymanski's suggestion, neither of these articles is a stub. A ring main is a type of circuit and not specific to the UK, it is totally appropriate that it should have it's own article. Trewornan 08:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree If this article is incorporated into the general entry it is likely to be edited down and lose its value. I agree with StuFifeScotland, ring main is a non-intuitive topic and it is not only students who will be looking for an explanation of this.

• Disagree UK style ring mains are also found in the middle east, countries such as Qatar and Iraq, and can be found in Cyprus, Malta, Gibraltar, Singapore and other countires that use British Standard methods Refer to the wiki article on BS 1363 socket outlets. I agree with others who feel this topic is worthy of standing on its own. As an American who has worked with ring mains in other countries for years, I still found parts of this article illuminating and provided me with a better understanding of the point of it all and some downsides I hadn't previously considered.--Pgarrity (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree for various reasons already stated. Plus bear in mind there is a good deal more theory to the subject than is present in the article now, it will get bigger and more complex in time. Tabby (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the above arguments, the growth that this article has seen since I proposed a merger, and considering the substantial scope for additional discussion and references of this topic, I'm withdrawing my proposal for a merger. Markus Kuhn (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Material removed

I've removed a para about reduced resistive heating being an advantage, allowing the use of lower spec wire; whilst this may be an advantage if the ring is unbroken, it's a positive disadvantage if the ring is broken: designing too near the margin is actively unsafe in this case, and -- even worse -- the fault condition is undetectable in practice (unless you're in the habit of checking your mains sockets with a time-domain reflectometer...) -- The Anome (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fig of 8

"A ‘ring’ accidentally wired as a figure-of-eight risks overloading one leg"

Would someone like to explain this? I dont see what 'wired as a figure of 8' means, nor how any layout variation would result in one leg overload. Tabby (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to move the comment to here for discussion, since:

1. its a subject I'm qualified in
2. I don't see what description could possibly mean
3. and I don't see any way that rearrangement of the ring layout could cause the problem claimed

removed:

• A ‘ring’ accidentally wired as a figure-of-eight risks overloading one leg

Tabby (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You have read the quoted references (Lovegrove), which is available online? Markus Kuhn (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The ring is based on the assumption that load will be reasonablly spread out arround the center of the ring such that neither leg will be overloaded. If this assumption does not hold then it is quite possible for one of the legs to be overloaded on a regular basis. This is one reason it is frowned upon to put the kitchen on the same ring as the rest of a floor.

If a ring becomes a figure-eight then you essentially have two rings one feeding the other. This means that all the load from the second ring will appear at the same point (or two close points) on the first ring and if that point is not central it can easily overload one leg of the first ring. It also means that testing for ring continuity will only test part of the circuit allowing faults to remain undiscovered for longer. Plugwash (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Disadvantage or illogic?

Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but for some reason it does seem to get overlooked a lot when discussing ring circuits.

The only way to see the pros and cons of rings is to look at what happens with any given situation with both ring and radial circuits, and see which is better/worse. To point out an issue with rings, neglect to mention that radials fare far worse, and then call this a downside of rings is sadly all too common, depsite being senseless. That this simple illogic is often repeated in articles presenting themselves as scholarly is disappointing. Tabby (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Much of the material in this discussion is a summary of points made by various established experts at an IET event on the subject, with downloadable references given. Could you please clarify your criticism and provide alternative references that back up what you would like to see described? Considering that ring final circuits are considered at least bad (if not illegal) practice in parts of the world, there will no doubt some controversy remain in this discussion, but I agree that the pros and cons could be listed much better than they are at present. Markus Kuhn (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Harmonized circuit breaker

Harmonized circuit breaker - what does it mean? I am russian and do not understand this term. BPK (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

CENELEC has been working to harmoize e;ectrical standards across the EU. When a term is proceeded with harmoized it means it is to one of those harmonized standards rather than an old national one. Plugwash (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Plug-top?

The gratuitous use of this non-word is odd. The word is, as far as I can tell, propagated by handymen and the like who like to think that it has some better technical validity. I do not think that the word will appear in any technical standard, and its use should be deprecated. What is wrong with the word 'plug'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.127.195 (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a ridiculous term which seems to have appeared out of nowhere. A "plug top" is the cover which goes on top of the plug to cover up the terminals and make it a complete unit. So next time somebody asks for a "plug top," unscrew a cover and hand him JUST the top! 87.113.45.147 (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. A 'plug top' is a colloquial term used by many British non techie folk to describe what we all know as a 'plug'. These same folk often call the socket that goes with it a 'wall plug' or even just a 'plug'. I believe that in may be a regional dialect thing as these terms are more common in the north of England than elsewhere. 86.166.70.84 (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

While sympathizing with the view that "plug top" is an odd expression, it is an established expression whose use can be traced back to the earliest appearances of plugs and sockets around the end of the nineteenth century. It was not uncommon to refer to the combination of a plug and socket as a "plug" or "wall plug", and the term "plug top" specified the actual plug as opposed to the plug and socket. There are many uses to be found over the intervening years, one example of which can be found at the bottom of page 14 of D.W.M. Latimer's "History of the 13 amp plug and the ring circuit." (as referenced in the main article) where Mr Latimer quotes a passage from a committee memorandum (from 1943) which includes the phrase "Two standard plug tops for the up rated 10-ampere B.S..S. three-pin socket". Deucharman (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Current building codes

Are ring circuits allowed by current building codes in the UK? -- Beland (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. 31.52.11.70 (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Why the limit on the amount of spurs?

This article mentions it, along with many others on the subject on the web, but does not explain the science behind not having more spurs than sockets on a ring. If someone who does understand it could add it tot he article, it would be good. Talltim (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible error in table at "Criticism"?

In the first row, it says "Radials with a broken connection will not function (if L or N broken) ...". Is this true? I think the opposite is the case. Because a socket is fed from two sides, it will continue to function even if L or N are severed on one side (I assume by "radials" it means the remaining circuit after a ring is broken at some point). Noggo (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

But radials are only fed from one side (not both), so if you have a break then it is non-functional. I have reverted your edit on this and a number of other mistaken changes. However, you were right that the paragraph on poor joints had become detached. FF-UK (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but then I wonder what the part "Radials with a broken connection will not function (if L or N broken) ..." is supposed to tell me. I would expect something that opposes (or is at least related to) the corresponding statement in the left column. The way it is now, the two statements are not really connected - or am I missing something here?. But regarding the rest I changed: I'd appreciate if not everthing were reverted as a whole, including links I added, which in my opinion didn't harm anything. Noggo (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not sure why it is written like that, but it is true. "Radial circuits" are linked the first time the phrase appears (in the lead), repetitive linking is unnecessary and discouraged see MOS:REPEATLINK FF-UK (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of MOS:REPEATLINK. As for the table: I'll leave that as it is for now. Not sure how I could improve that. Noggo (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem. FF-UK (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

English is not incorrect

Article currently reads in part (often incorrectly called a ring main or informally a ring).

At the risk of quibbling, this is itself incorrect. It may be incorrect to use the term ring main in this sense in a technical bulletin, but in laymen's conversation this is quite normal.

He tore up all the skirting boards to try and find the main
And I had to get a carpenter to put them back again

- Flanders and Swann, The Gasman Cometh, a song of unending domestic upheaval

OK, that's about a gas "main" rather than an electrical one, and the term was chosen to make the rhyme. But the point is, mains power is what laymen call the stuff that comes out of power points, and the mains is the wiring behind them, and a ring main is what they commonly call the technique described in this article when it's in their home. And many sources support this... I think I first saw the term in the Knowledge magazines I used to get as a primary school child.

It might be good to change this usage (or not), but this is not the place to do it in any case. Andrewa (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

But it's not a main (per the 18th edition). It's a ring circuit. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure that's true, and I'd guess that the Australian Wiring Rules would say the same (I no longer have a copy to check it, but I seem to recall that we are not allowed to use it to reduce cable gauge in domestic wiring... I'd regard that as very false economy in any case, but reducing voltage drop might be a better reason in commercial wiring... even then I saw someone killed by not checking a ring circuit in a commercial installation, thinking it was disconnected, years ago, the shock didn't actually kill him but the thirty-foot fall that followed it did, multiple SWM violations but that was no consolation).

But that's not the point anyway. We're a general encyclopedia. Certainly, point out that it's not the official terminology. But I think it's a bit strong to call it incorrect in the introduction when it's common English and readily understood by our readers.

No prospect of consensus on that I guess, so no change to the article. Thanks for the reply. Andrewa (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I only have the UK regs (and a lingering sense of eldritch horror from doing some wiring in the US once). We don't "reduce the gauge" (I wire rings in the same stuff I wire radials with) but we are allowed far more useful load over them. My radials and spurs would be very limited in the number of socket outlets they're allowed, but my rings are just limited to floor area and more commonly by a discretionary convenience factor, so that I don't have to do topological nightmares to link up awkward buildings, or to have all floors etc. trip out together. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Australian regs that forbids a final ring. I have found nothing anywhere that outlaws them.

A radial with the breaker a lower rating than the cable, that returns to the consumer unit's breaker is legal all over the world. ~2026-99673-1 (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

There are rings and final rings. A final ring is where the power is taken off being used. You can have a ring circuit from a main CU to say three sub CUs. That is not a final ring. ~2026-99673-1 (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Question and Comment on Ring vs Radial Final Circuits

Hi there,

Paging MarkusKuhn and Plugwash if possible...

Electrical Engineer here who is familiar with US and a few other Radial-wired countries, looking to understand the advantages of UK Ring-wired final circuits.

Let's look at the example diagram showing 5 sockets on a ring, and add the information from the article that the wiring for phase and neutral in the ring are rates to 67% of the mains OCPD (Over Current Protective Device e.g. a fuse). e.g. let's assume a 30A ring that has wiring rated to carry 20A.

Let's assume the total length of the ring, from the consumer unit, going in a loop through all the sockets, and back to the consumer unit, is 2L.

This Ring wiring will cost: 2L * cost-per-unit-length(20A wiring) [for line/neutral/earth]

We could break the Ring into two Radials at the midpoint of the Ring and feed half the sockets from one half of the broken Ring and the other half of the sockets from the other half of the broken Ring. This would not be safe because the OCPD is 30A while each of the two Radials is wired with 20A wiring. So the 30A OCPD must be replicated into two 20A OCPDs, one each to protect the two Radials. That would result in a safe and legal Radial wiring in the UK, US or any other Radial-wired country.

As can be seen, this means that no additional copper wiring is needed compared to the original Ring circuit. It would now cost:

L * cost-per-unit-length(20A wiring) * 2 [for line/neutral/earth] which is identical to the above.

So isn't the claim that Ring circuits reduce copper wiring requirements by 25% demonstrably false?

On the other hand, proponents of Ring circuits frequently claim that it reduces OCPD costs. As can be seen from the above thought-experiment, that is true -- one 30A OCPD likely costs much less than two 20A OCPDs. Yet, this obvious (and common) benefit of Ring circuits is not mentioned in the article. It should be.

Thank you, -- Vladimir 67.164.4.103 (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The ring described in the article is the ring final conforming to BS 7671, 433.1.402. A ring final can usually replace three radials. The 2.5mm cables generally pass less amps than equivalent radials as the load is split, keeping the heat down, less stress on terminals and safety levels up. British safety is the highest in the world. Radials hang onto the first terminal connection after the breaker, with all the circuits load running thru that one terminal on the back of say a socket - not good. Arcing, causing fires can does happen.

In the UK arc fault detection, AFDDs, is mandatory on socket circuits in some situations and recommended on all. An AFDD does arc faults, fault, over-current and earth leakage. It is viewed by many that it is a matter of time that AFDDs will be mandatory on all circuits. At approx £100 each buying one for three radials, rather than one for a ring final, will be an expensive undertaking.

Ring finals are also safer having the CPC with two ways back to the main panel. If a CPC on a radial is broken on the first socket after the breaker, a large radial's protection will be completely gone - not the case with a ring. Final rings have contributed to the UK high safety levels. ~2026-99673-1 (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Radial circuit discussion

Currently the radial circuit link target is a redirect to a section of electrical wiring in the United Kingdom discussing circuit design. This is very much undesirable. FYI we use that link here, and it should be linked from within Electrical wiring in North America which mentions the term.

What we need is either a similar article, ideally with a diagram, about radial circuits, or for this article to be reorganised into more of a 'circuit arrangements' type article, discussing each form. DiscreetParrot (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I've changed radial circuit from a redirect as just described into a stub article. DiscreetParrot (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Added 433.1.204

The article is clearly about the UKs BS 7671 433.1.204 final ring. In the UK a ring with cable with max amps value less that the breakers value is governed by 433.1.402. Final rings that have the cable with max amps value higher that the breakers value, as per normal radials, comes under Chapter 43 of BS 7671 - treated as normal radial in protection aspects.

Changed intro to reflect this. ~2026-99673-1 (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

DiscreetParrot reverted my revisions saying it was poor quality editing, when in fact it was excellent, as the article is an amateurish shambles. He said he will be back here to explain why. I am waiting. ~2026-99673-1 (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for trying to improve the article. Your intentions were clearly good. However, having reviewed your changes, I'm afraid that I've decided to revert (remove) them. My reasons are as follows:

• You moved a reference to the end of a paragraph such that it suggested that the reference supported the supposed fact that 'rings' is a common term. Reviewing the reference however, it does not make any use of the simple term 'rings', and therefore does not support this fact, and therefore it was wrong to move its position.
• Your edits contained typos and poor grammar, which you haven't corrected.
• You've repeatedly referred to 'final rings' when the correct term is 'ring finals'.
• You've added repeated references to regulation "433.1.402" from BS 7671, but this isn't even the correct regulation number. The number you meant was 433.1.204. For clarity such a regulation would be better referred to, in the first instance at least as something like "BS 7671 Regulation 433.1.204", not "BS7671,433.1.204".
• "The 433.1.204 final ring" is not a normal, natural, or helpful way to refer to [British] ring finals.
• Listing a bunch of specific requirements of this British regulation isn't necessary or of suitable value for this encyclopaedic article.
• Your premise was that this article is "clearly" related to British ring finals, but that's not strictly speaking correct. Fundamentally it is intended to just describe the universal concept of ring final circuit designs. Since they're primarily used in Britain, and perhaps it's correct to say they were invented in Britain, there's naturally a lot of discussion of Britain in the article. But it's certainly not an article intended only to describe British ring finals specifically.

Your changes unfortunately just dragged down the quality of the article rather than providing any substantial improvement. DiscreetParrot (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, I don't entirely agree with your statement here about the details of ring final regulations. You described Regulation 433.1.204 as governing rings with cables of smaller current carrying capacity that the associated overcurrent protective device. This isn't correct. This regulation specifically permits supplying BS 1363 accessories via a ring final circuit; sets a fixed OCPD size; and sets a minimum cable size and minimum current carrying capacity. It would still apply to such a circuit if the cable's CCC were greater than the rating of the OCPD. The key thing this regulation revolves around appears to be BS 1363 accessories.

Whether a hypothetical ring final supplying something other than BS 1363 accessories is permitted, is possibly so. I don't happen to recall a specific regulation forbidding it, and Regulation 433.1.204 does not appear to be written in such as way to suggest that what it describes is the only permitted form of ring final. I'm not aware of such a thing ever being done in practice though, and I'm not 100% certain that it is allowed. DiscreetParrot (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

You added after I wrote. You clearly do not get 433.1.204.

A circuit with cables of smaller current carrying capacity than the associated overcurrent protective device falls into 433.1.204. A circuit with cables of higher current carrying capacity than the associated over-current protective device fall into radial protection with Chapter 43 applying.

Once this situation arises then 433.1.204 stipulates the framework of the circuit - it must be a ring not a radial

The 433.1.402 concession in BS 7671 simply says:

1. It must be a final ring (the two cable legs into the protective double the circuit rating);
2. Maximum 32A MCB/RCBO/AFDD protective device;
3. Minimum 2.5mm cable (rated max 27A) used;
4. Cable must be of copper metal;
5. Minimum current capacity of cable is 20A;
6. If socket-outlets are to be installed on the final ring they must only be the BS 1363 socket-outlet accessory family - the Type G 13A square pin plug.

433.1.204 in its legalistic entirety:

Accessories to BS1363 may be supplied through a ring final circuit, with or without unfused spurs protected by a 30A or 32A protective device complying with BS88 / BS3036/ BS EN 60898 / BS EN 61009 etc.

The circuit shall be wired with copper conductors having line and neutral conductions with a minimum cross sectional area of 2.5mm sq. except for two-core mineral insulated cables complying with BS EN 6072-1 for which the minimum cross sectional area is 1.5 mm sq.

Such circuits are deemed to meet the requirements of 433.1.1 if the current carrying capacity (Iz) of the cable is not less than 20A and if, under the intended conditions of use the load current in any part of the circuit is unlikely to exceed for long periods the current carrying capacity (Iz) of the cable.

Once the cable rating is higher than the overcurrent device it is then classed as a radial in protection, that happens to loop back to the breaker. ~2026-99673-1 (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I will sicken it up but it will basically be the same in the highly readable and understandable structure I wrote in.

The article is very poor, an amateurish poorly written and unstructured, shambles going on old wives tales. As I outlined, there are two types of rings, the one described in the article is the 433.1.204. There is no mention whatsoever of the distinctions, and how a ring falls into the concessions given by 433.1.204 - it is when the cables max amp value is lower than the breakers, then 433.1.204 is triggered. Also fixed appliances can be hard wired to 433.1.204 and drawing over 13A - this not mentioned.

Raising the cable size to 4mm, without serious derating, and a 32A breaker, the ring falls out of 433.1.204, into looped radial territory, being classed as a radial or star with all appropriate radial protections. It can then actually have BS 546 round pin socket-outlets on it (if for some odd reason you would like to used them), they are still legal, and be larger than the recommended 100 sq metres in floor area.

The 433.1.204 final ring or ring final is the best and most helpful way to refer to [British] ring finals. 433.1.204 differentiates the ring from other rings. You can have a ring of 2.5mm cable protected by a 25A DP unpolarised MCB with the L of each leg in the terminal of the poles. They come under radial as in Chapter 43. Those in the know call them super-rings as they can deliver way over forty amps if the socket-outlets are interleaved. 433.1.204 tells you what type of ring it is.

'Final ring' is common, but if you think ring final is better I will change it to that. ~2026-99673-1 (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm replying to both of your replies here at once.

Kindly note the 'ring final circuit' entry in part 2 of BS 7671. 'Ring final' is a standardised term. 'Final ring' I believe is just a muddled up expression of 'ring final'. Obviously terms do not have to be standardised to be included in a list of alternate expressions, but for it to be suitable for inclusion it would need to be somehow proven, with suitable sources, that it truly is common, rather than just a small subset of people here and there mis-speaking.

Where on earth are you getting this idea that a ring final with cabling CCC greater than PD rating is a "looped radial" and "classed" as either a radial or star. This makes no sense to me whatsoever. A ring final is a circuit in the form of a ring, by definition. A radial does not loop back to the source. The term "looped radial" is not a standard term in this context as far as I am aware.

Regulation 433.1.1 imposes a general requirement that cable CCC must be greater than the PD rating. This applies to all forms of circuit. Regulation 433.1.204, as you quoted, specifically permits BS 1363 accessories to be supplied via a ring final, protected by a 30/32A device, with certain specific requirements, including a minimum cable size and a minimum CCC. The general requirements of 433.1.1 are relaxed here in consideration of the fact that a ring constructed of cables with a CCC smaller than the PD rating can be safe, under certain conditions. The detail relaxing 433.1.1 would obviously be redundant in a situation where the CCC of ring cabling happens to be greater than the rating of the PD, but this does not mean that 433.1.204 in its entirety does not apply in such a case. Nowhere does it say that.

My reading of 433.1.204 is that it is specifically about permitting rings to supply BS 1363 sockets via reduced-CCC cabling, not any and all rings with reduced CCC, otherwise why the mention of BS 1363 accessories. My understanding is that the purpose of this regulation is to very specifically codify the use of socket rings that have been implemented in the domestic space for several decades. No such permission is explicitly granted for (direct) supply of other equipment via a ring of this design or similar. It is notable that the diagram in Appendix 15 shows a piece of fixed equipment being supplied, but this is through an FCU, and it is that FCU that 433.1.1 would apply to, not the PD of the ring, so perhaps such spurs are intended to fall outside of the purview of 433.1.204.

'Super-rings' is again a term I have never heard of. Googling it returned nothing of relevance. This seems like nonsense.

BS 7671 is not a legal document, it is a standard.

There is no 100m² floor area requirement or recommendation. That was removed from BS 7671 a long time ago. What's left is just an historical note. The OSG mistakenly retains it.

You listed AFDDs as an option, but actually AFDDs do not seem to be covered by the list of standards listed in the regulation.

I'm not going to claim that there's nothing to improve in the article, I'm sure there is. If there are places in the article where it treats rings described by 433.1.204 as though they are they only possible form of ring final, then it might be justified to make some adjustments. However I very strongly disagree with calling rings that are described by 433.1.204 by this regulation number.

I have not yet looked at your attempt to 'slicken' up your contributions.

I half suspect that I might be arguing with an AI here. If I am then I'm going to be seriously annoyed at the time I've wasted on this discussion. DiscreetParrot (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Just looked at the revised changes and I still have a lot of problems with it. I won't detail them just now, since I already just took a lot of time writing the above. DiscreetParrot (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Looped radial was so you could understand easier. The term is actually used. It is a ring where the cable's rated amperage is higher than the protective device, as with conventional radials and stars, to prevent overheat and potential fire. In short just another circuit that just turns back on itself - but with benefits. In commercial there is the return earth radial, which only has the CPC looped back to the consumer unit for greater safety.

These looped radials are common enough in commercial applications. They greatly reduce the amps running thru a cable as a load is fed from two ends. In many radials the cable may be running not far off it maximum amperage ratings whicb is undesirable. The loop also giving greater safety in having two ways back to the consumer unit for the CPC, and keeps voltage up at the furthest point of the circuit. Chapter 15 applies equally to radial, star or (looped)radial.

You can have a domestic ring final with 6mm cable and a forty amp protective breaker. All legal as the cable's amperage rating is higher than the breaker.

433.1.204 does not apply to the circuits above.

BS 7671 has little on rings. 433.1.204, I gave you it, is very short with Appendix 15 giving only a little extra in guidance, which is only guidance and can be ignored.

A circuit, no matter what configuration, has to conform to Chapter 43 in cable protection. The cable amperage rating has to be higher than the protective device. Obvious. Now a big BUT. But if you want a circuit to have the cable at a lower amperage rating than the protective device, no matter what the configuration, 433.1.204 is triggered. Its prime point is that the circuit MUST be a ring. You cannot have a radial or star with the cable's amperage rating lower than the protective device. Must be a ring.

433.1.204 has to be conformed to. The simplified points of 433.1.204 were given to you.

Despite the title of the article, it only focuses on the ring final in 433.1.204 - there are other types as I have mentioned above. This is the only name we have for it, no other, which is a reg number. It is the only way to differentiate it from other rings.

There is no AI, just a graduate engineer with masses of experince. ~2026-99673-1 (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Googling "looped radial", the only relationship to final circuits I can find is with respect to lighting circuits, and it does not describe a ring topology in that context. The idea that this term describes a ring as you describe seems ridiculous since it's fundamentally contradictory and unnecessary. A radial that loops back to the source is not a radial, it's a ring. If you want your assertion that this is a well established industry technical term that describes what you say it describes to be taken seriously, then please provide verifiable and respectable sources that prove this.

Commercial/industrial sectors might well sometimes make use of ring finals with a cable CCC not less than the PD rating, and obviously this can have certain advantages, but these are still just ring finals per definition. The ring final topology creates the possibility for safely using cables with smaller CCC than PD rating, but this possibility does not have to be taken advantage of, and not taking advantage of it does not mean that it's not a ring final. Topology is the key; the relationship between cable and PD rating is irrelevant.

A ring final using 6mm² cable and a 40A breaker is not necessarily "legal" (or rather 'compliant', since BS 7671 is not itself law). Compliance would depend upon the type of cable, installation method(s), and correction factors. If we assume T&E cable and put correction factors to one side, it would only be compliant if method C were used.

It should be obvious from what I've previously said that I agree that 433.1.204 would not apply to these two cases.

Indeed, BS 7671 has few regulations that are specific to rings, and Appendix (not chapter) 15 is 'informative' not 'normative'.

Yes, obviously a radial or star topology with a cable CCC less than the PD rating would not be compliant (except where the PD only provides fault protection per 433.3.1). It's very, very strange the way you describe that 433.1.204 is 'triggered' if you want to have a lower CCC than PD rating, "no matter the configuration", and that this regulation's "prime point" is that the circuit must be a ring. This is a warped way of viewing things. As I summarised previously, 433.1.1 sets out the general requirement that the CCC of circuit cables not be less than the PD rating, while 433.1.204 then essentially relaxes this somewhat for the specific case of BS 1363 sockets on a ring.

You have still not addressed the issue that Regulation 433.1.204 makes specific reference to BS 1363 accessories. You can't just pretend it doesn't refer to them. If this regulation applied broadly to all rings with lower cable CCC than PD rating, no matter what equipment they supplied, then why on earth would it make any reference to BS 1363 accessories!?

Admittedly, having refreshed my reading of these regulations and cleared my head, I'll walk back on some of my previous comments on 433.1.204 still being applicable where cable CCC is not less than PD rating. If we accept that 433.1.204 is not meant to describe the only permissible form of ring final serving BS 1363 accessories, then it would seem that the intention would be for this regulation to be ignored as irrelevant in such cases.

We don't need a specific name for the "type" of ring final described by 433.1.204, and using terms like "the 433.1.204 ring final' is non-standard and horrendously ugly. A suitable approach would be to begin by describing the generic ring topology, and then eventually transition into discussing and describing the specific form/arrangement relating to 433.1.204.

Returning to a review of your changes:

• You submitted a change you described as 'changed reference', but which actually consisted of much more than that. Please don't do that. A change summary should reflect everything changed, along with justifying it where relevant.
• It is not clear what you mean by "hard wired outlet points". Do you mean fixed equipment? It would be much clearer and perhaps more generic to replace this and the mention of sockets with the term 'equipment'.
• The description of radial circuits in the first paragraph I agree was problematic. I don't consider a radial circuit to just be a simple daisy chain. As demonstrated in Appendix 15 of BS 7671, they can have branches, and I believe that it's perfectly compliant for them to branch immediately at the breaker. However, I feel that expanding the description as you have, although perhaps more correct, has made the first paragraph worse from an encyclopaedic point of view. I think it would be better to delete the description of radials, expecting readers to click through to the radial article if they want to find a description (or hover over the link). It would probably also be best if this first paragraph was re-written around describing the fundamental difference from other circuit types that this one loops back to the source.
• The reference added is a good addition, though it could do with being formatted properly with the cite-web template. The previous attempt to alternatively point to another wikipedia article is definitely not acceptable, and it was right for that to have been reverted.
• However I don't see the justification in removing the other reference from the second paragraph. Suitable justification should be given in a change summary for such a change.
• You've modified things such that the article, right from the beginning, leans very heavily into UK regulation. As I said previously, this is not preferable or suitable. Your changes shift the content significantly far apart from what an encyclopaedic article should look like.
• The distinction of there being two different "types" of ring final as you've described in the article is artificial. You've invented this detail. Industry standards do not establish any such distinction and as such this does not belong in the article, or at least not in this form.
• It is utterly redundant and silly to say that a '433.1.204 ring final' must be a ring final.
• As I said previously, it is entirely unsuitable to be listing all of the various details from 433.1.204 in the introduction as you have, and not strictly necessary or suitable for them to be listed anywhere in the article at all.
• "says in layman's terms" is an example of text which does not fit encyclopaedic style.
• 'Metallic' in 'metallic copper' is silly and redundant.
• You've asserted that the only sockets permitted on a '433.1.204 ring final' are those to BS 1363, and then provided a reference to the world plugs page. A reference is supposed to be something that lends support to what the text says, not a place where supplementary information can be found. I do not believe that the webpage will support your statement, so it's thus not a suitable reference.
• You changed "reduced quantity of copper used" to "reduced quantity of cable used", which makes no sense, and again no justification was given. The point, as explained in the history later in the article, was that a ring topology, although it would have to be a bit longer than a radial due to having to loop back to the source, could use much smaller diameter conductors, and thus would require significantly less copper, which was important at the time it was invented.
• You've significantly cut down the last two paragraphs you modified. Perhaps there is too much detail here. I haven't gone over this change in fine detail here, so maybe some/all of that is acceptable, maybe not.
• Again, there's still some poor grammar in your changes.

Given that there are such problems with your changes, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to just revert them again, and I'm going to have to ask you to please refrain from restoring them. As previously stated, your complaint that the article is too focussed on ring finals built around 433.1.204 may hold some merit, but your approach at addressing it is entirely unsuitable. I'll try to consider how the content could be acceptably tweaked, but I can't do so immediately.

Edit: As you fairly pointed out in another talk discussion, not all rings circuits are necessarily ring finals, since technically they could be used on distribution circuits not just final circuits. The article being about 'ring circuits' not specifically 'ring final circuits' should reflect this. DiscreetParrot (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I've ended up just going ahead and doing a bit of work on it. I'll do more later. DiscreetParrot (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

No need I have done it. BTW, electricity is not a 'topic'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-99673-1 (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Rewrote parts and added section

Restructured the article putting the UKs 433.1.4 into its own section. Will return. ~2026-99673-1 (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The confusion of ring circuits.

BS 7671 does not define a “ring circuit” in a single regulation.

Ring circuits in BS 7671 are described in Appendix 15, while 433.1.204 only applies to a specific type of ring final circuit not defining the concept itself.

1. Appendix 15 guidance: explains and illustrates.
2. 433.1.204: permits one specific design case where the cable's max amps rating is less that the value of the protection device.
3. Other sections: treat a ring like any circuit electrically.

A “ring circuit” is not inherently tied to 433.1.204. A ring circuit that does not qualify for the 433.1.204 concession must comply with normal rules in which the cable's max amperage rating must be higher than the value of the protective device (In ≤ Iz), just like a radial or star topology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-99673-1 (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)