Cooker isolators and the like

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

The three things are not related.

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.

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?