The IET is carrying out some important updates between 17-30 April and all of our websites will be view only. For more information, read this Announcement

This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Cooker isolators and the like

In my formative years electrical, I was brung up that an isolator for a cooker etc must be nearby, say within 2m and obvious as for useage (or clearly marked) as a readily available "rapid use switch" in case of say chip pan fires etc. Rather than having to locate them in cupboards or go to the CU etc to switch off and possibly plunge the whole house into darkness.



Modern folk and their kitchens, it seems some folk have an aversion to them.


Call me old fashioned but my order of preference is 1/ Safety, 2/ Functionalability and 3/ Asthetics.


Any views on this Folks?
Parents
  • Hi MHR,

    yes I can see the attraction of having a socket on a different circuit as adding resiliance and that`s good.

    My problem with having a socket on a cooker circuit is this:-

    It was intended to be for occasional use of a kettle. No problem.

    It is a throwback to the days of when folk had almost no sockets (one upstairs and one downstairs was not uncommon) and if adding a cooker circuit then adding a socket to that good be a good thing in itself.

    My problem is not with kettle, fridges, freezers, lawnmower , power tools etc being used.

    It is, all too often I have seen it in use for washers, dryers and such "heavier loads" on a permanent basis (by  heavier I`m not just thinking of the load itself but the duration too). 

    Traditional cooker circuits have stood the test of time having diversity applied and I`ve no problem with that but I don`t think adding such loads is a good idea and my pref is "you need a extra socket or two" . Indeed I have often seen extensions running more than one such load and again some are plugged in to the cooker socket.

    Also I have witnessed in some installtions, sockets RCD protected an Cooker no RCD protected and which one gets used to power a power tool/lawnmover outside? Yes the cooker socket!
Reply
  • Hi MHR,

    yes I can see the attraction of having a socket on a different circuit as adding resiliance and that`s good.

    My problem with having a socket on a cooker circuit is this:-

    It was intended to be for occasional use of a kettle. No problem.

    It is a throwback to the days of when folk had almost no sockets (one upstairs and one downstairs was not uncommon) and if adding a cooker circuit then adding a socket to that good be a good thing in itself.

    My problem is not with kettle, fridges, freezers, lawnmower , power tools etc being used.

    It is, all too often I have seen it in use for washers, dryers and such "heavier loads" on a permanent basis (by  heavier I`m not just thinking of the load itself but the duration too). 

    Traditional cooker circuits have stood the test of time having diversity applied and I`ve no problem with that but I don`t think adding such loads is a good idea and my pref is "you need a extra socket or two" . Indeed I have often seen extensions running more than one such load and again some are plugged in to the cooker socket.

    Also I have witnessed in some installtions, sockets RCD protected an Cooker no RCD protected and which one gets used to power a power tool/lawnmover outside? Yes the cooker socket!
Children
No Data