Recent content by James1978.

Is everyone saying that the origin of the circuit for a ring main makes no difference for the R1+R2 but it will for the impedance test. Do I need to make a clear distinction in the head.

If you do a loop test at socket close to the cu the reading will be lower than a test at a socket half way around the ring. The fault path passes through the origin. 

Nozspark that's exactly what I mean

The fault path back to the origin, which I interpret as the r1r2 is different for a spur of a ring main depending where you spur of. You are I believe allowed to take a spur directly from a 32amp breaker (yes I know it seems odd as I think it's the same as a 16a radial) which would have a...

Are we all agreed that the highest r1r2 reading where I would expect to get the highest loop impedance is recorded.

I agree exactly and I'm under the idea that the highest impedance would be a spurred leg from near the middle of a ring main. 

I do understand the test fine. My point is to get the highest r1r2 reading once any spurs are identified is to link liveried earth's together at cu and measure at the end of the spurred leg.

I do. People have spurs of rings to sheds feeding lighting, sockets ect

I do mean spurs. Most ring mains I come across have spurs. If you go by the guide for getting an r1r2 result it says to divide the result by 4, which is fine for a perfect ring. If you do it when your result is from a spurred point dividing it by 4 wouldn't be a true reading.

I always believe the aim of the test was to identify the farthest point on a circuit which should also be the point with the highest reading, the point with the worst fault path.

I understand on the initial test/verification of a ring main. During periodic inspections I connect both lives and earth's of the ring main at the cu and then go around each socket to find the highest reading which I use as my r1r2. Is this wrong?