+1

I say again the major risk to life at the moment is due to us using ring mains which are inherently dangerous under fault conditions. Yet they are legal and still being installed. I quote for the simple of mind.

Criticism

The final ring-circuit concept has been criticized in a number of ways, and some of these disadvantages could explain the lack of widespread adoption outside the United Kingdom. The pros and cons of ring circuits are measured against the other option: radials.
Fault conditions are not apparent when in use

Ring circuits continue to operate without the user being aware of any problem if there are fault conditions or installation errors that make the circuit unsafe:
Fault condition Observations

Part of the ring missing or loose connections result in 2.5 mm2 cables running above rated current at times, resulting in reduced cable life.

Accidental cross connection between two 32 A rings means that the fault current protection reaches 64 A and the required fault disconnection times are violated grossly.

Testing at installation addresses this.

Ring spur installations encourage using three connectors in one terminal, which can cause one to become loose and overheat.

The same situation occurs with both radial and ring circuits when branching off is used.

Rings encourage the installation of too many spurs on a ring, leading to a risk of overheating, especially if spur cables are too long without adequate fusing at the spur-point (i.e. a BS 5733 or similar fused spur is not used) - although this is almost certainly a breach of the appropriate electrical standards (e.g. BS 7671 in the UK).




Complexity of safety tests

Testing ring circuits may take 5–6 times longer than testing radial circuits. The installation tests required for the safe operation of a ring circuit are substantially more time consuming than those for a radial circuit, and DIY installers or electricians qualified in other countries may not be familiar with them.


Balancing requirement

Regulation 433-02-04 of BS 7671 requires that the installed load is distributed around the ring such that no part of the cable exceeds its capacity. This requirement is difficult to fulfill and may be largely ignored in practice, as loads are often co-located (washing machine, tumble dryer, dish washer all next to kitchen sink) and not necessarily near the centre of the ring.
Electromagnetic interference

Ring circuits can generate strong unwanted magnetic fields[citation needed]. In a radial circuit, the current flowing in the circuit must return through (almost exactly) the same path through which it came, especially if the live and neutral conductors are kept in close proximity of each other and form a twisted pair. This prevents the circuit forming a large magnetic coil (loop antenna), which would otherwise induce a magnetic field at the AC frequency (50 or 60 Hz).

In a ring circuit, on the other hand, it is possible, though unlikely, that the live and neutral currents are not equal on each side of the ring. Mains-frequency currents follow the path of least resistance, and it is possible, especially with ageing oxidised contacts, that from a socket, the lowest-resistance live connection is along the left-hand side of the ring, and the lowest-resistance neutral connection is along the right-hand side. As a result, current is flowing around the ring and will therefore induce a magnetic field.
Overcurrent protection

Ring circuits may not always be adequately protected against overcurrents, if, as is sometimes the case, there is an undetected fault, AND the circuit conductors are not sized to match the Overcurrent Protective Device (OPD) as a radial run as opposed to a ring. The purpose of ring circuits is to supply a large number of sockets; therefore, they are protected only with high-rated overcurrent circuit breakers (typically 32 A). In comparison, the radial circuits used in other countries typically supply only a small number of sockets and are therefore protected with lower-rated circuit breakers (typically 10–20 A). As a result, countries using ring circuits find it necessary to add additional lower-rated fuses into the plugs of each appliance. This does create a possible improvement in safety in that an appliance with blown plug fuse will not be live when plugged in again (unless the fuse is first replaced), whereas with fuseless plugs a faulty appliance remains potentially dangerous to plug in, though in most cases it would trip a lower-rated circuit breaker if plugged in again.

This incompatibility in the overcurrent protection of appliance leads between countries using ring and radial circuits has been a major stumbling block on the road to worldwide standardisation of domestic AC power plugs and sockets. Although plug fuses can, in principle, be better matched to the maximum current required by an appliance, in practice, some plugs in the UK are necessarily fitted with a fuse of the maximum permitted rating of 13 A, because a lower-rated device may well operate intermittently due to "surges" (e.g. fit a 3A BS1362 fuse in the plug of a fridge, and it will often blow). This is not a problem since all appliances are required to be safe with a 13 A fuse (and in any case, in other EU countries, the appliance concerned is often protected by a 16 A or 20 A OPD for the circuit concerned), but it does mean the potential safety advantage is only partially realised and that the fused plug offers little advantage over an unfused plug used on radial circuit with a 13 A or lower fuse, or B16 or lower circuit breaker. The introduction of regulations in the UK - the Plugs and Sockets (Safety) Regulations - requiring new appliances to be sold with correctly fused pre-fitted plugs improves this situation further.

One theoretical advantage of individually fused plugs is that a faulty appliance or flexible cord has a high likelihood of blowing only its plug fuse, leaving other appliances on the same ring circuit operating. However, with the introduction of EN60898 MCBs and the increased use of RCD protection for general purpose socket outlets in the UK (under BS7671: 2008 and earlier editions of the same standard) means that it is now more likely that the circuit protective device will operate before the plug fuse.

***************************************

Now ask your wind up mate to explain this to you and then make a banner with the big word "unsafe" written on it and follow electricians around to warn people that they are doing dangerous things.

+1 from me, too.

Now who is rewriting history?
You were at 50% before this thread was started. You received an itemised log of the attacks that you made on other members that got you to that level, with thread title, time and date. It was carried out calmly and long after the events occurred in order to ensure that it was not done in the heat of the moment. That same treatment may well be awaiting others, you don't know. But in the meantime, perhaps you might reflect on the fact that this is almost certainly a courtesy that you will never have been afforded in your banning from every other audio forum on the planet.
Biased moderating?
No.

Perhaps I overstated your standing on other fora and I apologise for that.
You have sidestepped my point though, where I have tried to explain that we have been as fair as we can towards you and others. Our premise is to try to be inclusive, yet in return you equate us to someone who was partially instrumental in the attempted extermination of entire races. Charming. Will you apologise for that??

As has been repeated over and again, you are welcome here if you observe the rules.

The Moderation is shit on this forum......The most extreme censorship ive encountered yet.
Im a noobie 7 posts in and my posts censored already.
It would seem we must get permission from a member before we call him a name. (A freindly name)
I called a member Noddy and was censored despite the member having a Noddy avatar.....
Ooo er a tad extreme i think......I will have a orange bar soon.
And its just not Fair.....

Sorry but that is bollocks victimisation andactually worse and more insidious than a ban. We will print only what we aprove off!!!!!. Who thought up that piece of idiotic bollocks.

It's a genocidal neo-Nazi regime, by all accounts (see above - still awaiting an apology for that).