Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 23 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 10867 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Cooker isolators and the like

ebee
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?
  • 0
    ebee:

    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?

    This topic seems to have moved away from aesthetics and concentrated on safety, which I agree is important. I have some ideas to add about aesthetics. I considered extending this discussion but it is becoming long and unwieldy so I opened a new discussion, "Safety, Functionality and Aesthetics - continuing
  • 0
    MHRestorations:
    Normcall‍ Had he been NICEIC, he'd have freaked out at 7/.044, said 'i can't find that in the dropdown list on the certificate page' and dissolved into jelly.

    . . .

    7/.029 with 3/.029 earth, pvc/pvc t&e, suspect late 60s/early 70s. Cable is better than ANY modern cable . . . .


    This is a matter of opinion.


    Around 1970, when the new metric sizes were taking over, my electrician team was comparing 7/·029 twin and earth cable with the 2·5 sq. mm cable set to replace it. They observed the thinner insulation of the 2·5 sq. mm cable, and thinner conductors, and felt this represented inferior quality. In fact insulation had been developed over the years to produce a much higher resistivity. So a thinner insulation layer could produce the same level of electrical insulation, with the added advantage of less insulation of the heat, so thinner conductors could also be used for the same current capacity.


    The replacement of multi-stranded conductors with single-core conductors was not to everyone's liking either. It resulted in a cable that was less flexible. My view was that this was not necessarily a disadvantage; indeed it could be an advantage in situations where a cable needed to be pushed rather than pulled into position. It is easier to insert a single core into a terminal. With multi-strand, one strand can accidentally "miss" the terminal. Even if this is noticed, some fiddling is inevitable to put things right.


    Similar comparisons, in technical journals, were made for 3/·029 cable used commonly for lighting circuits up to that time. The nearest new equivalent appeared to be the slightly stouter 1·5 sq. mm. However, general practice seemed to turn to 1·0 sq. mm cable for 5 A fused lighting circuits. This was roughly equivalent to the old 1/·044 size, but again the improved insulation with better heat dissipation made this size quite adequate for lighting circuits.


    However, these old imperial sizes are still very abundant in existing installations and are perfectly sound for the job. If drop-down lists don't include them, then this is an omission that should be rectified.


  • 0
     (only minor works, so not notifiable or legally required)...




    The three things are not related.


  • 0
    With anything in life though.

    The more you try to protect people from their own slillyness the more they tend to rely on that protection rather than avoiding the risks. If you go back thru common practices (not just our regs but motor cars and buildings etc etc ) you might expect that in the past we used to have piles of dead bodies lining the streets!


    The "Thwack" of a 32A MCB tripping does not leave as much impression in the minds of mere mortals as does the "BANG" of a 30A BS3036
  • 0
    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!
  • 0
    ebee, I like the convenience of a socket not on the general appliance circuit (ring or radial) for the kettle... but I admit I am getting old. It's down to client wishes these days.  If true emergency isolation is required, I'd actually look into a  red button with a shunt trip on all circuits (other than lighting/heat alarms) feeding the kitchen. (no not kidding, it can be done and is preferable in many ways.)

    'if anything goes wrong with an appliance in this area, whack this switch'

  • 0
    Normcall‍ Had he been NICEIC, he'd have freaked out at 7/.044, said 'i can't find that in the dropdown list on the certificate page' and dissolved into jelly.


    Had a similar situation today. Doing a cert for a client, (only minor works, so not notifiable or legally required)... adding one point to an existing ring. Which by the way tested out perfectly.   7/.029 with 3/.029 earth, pvc/pvc t&e, suspect late 60s/early 70s. Cable is better than ANY modern cable. But is it in the list, can we add it manually? No and No. :\\   So we issued a certificate using MS word.
  • 0
    Well I haven`t had a chip pan for many years. I do not have chips very often. But folk do have `em. To me a cooker switch with a red rocker, easy and clear as to its function (no socket though, a big no to that) and yes for appliances such as washer/dryer an easy to get at quick means of isolation like above worktop for instance is pref too. I am alone in this?
  • 0
    Men of a certain age? Chip pans?


    I am surprised you have lived so long with a diet of fry ups.
  • 0
    Do not throw water onto an oil fire.

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=yotube+cooker+fire&view=detail&mid=E78FB7C332AC6308D225E78FB7C332AC6308D225&FORM=VIRE


    Z.

Community Rules & Guidelines