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

Musing on ring final unfused spur - Regs compliance and more from the EICR slant (but not necessarily)

Good day to all

Probably not an original question, but still...

Is there a Reg. non-compliance (which one(s) ) for having  2 double skts fed* unfused from a socket on a ring final  (presuming the connection is 'good' so to speak) ?

* either with the two on one  short bit of 'spur' cable, or each on its own short bit of cable , from the double socket

If the sockets were used to supply low powered items (chargers, a LED tv, lamp) and perhaps occasional vac. cleaner, or fan heater, then there is no overload concern as such, so what's the issue... is it simply the potential available to overload and for an EICR,  what exactly is the risk to record ...   it seems hardly potentially dangerous   and if its not that, why improve it !  Is that why it's 'informative' and not regulatory .  Musing over .

Regards

Parents
  • I agree with Zoom, that’s the appropriate regulation. 
    interesting what Mike says about “real” sparks being quite risk averse. I concur, and this is being reflected in the EICRs they produce. Any deviation with the regulations seems to sprout a code 2. I don’t blame them but I would encourage them to stand back, draw breath and explain, if only to themselves, how a particular issue is potentially dangerous. It takes courage, confidence and solid experience in periodic inspection and testing to make a determination that an issue, whist not complying with the regulations or custom and practice, can be dismissed as something of no serious concern.

  • Thank you for the contribution.

    Well as I replied to Zoom, most will be already aware of that Reg wording (or one would hope).  One might conclude that the Reg is aiming at mainly known connected loads in a RFC design, rather than the possible use of a general ring final socket circuit so to speak where that most likely would  not be the case.

    Your inference(s) was part of the reason I posted the 'musing' on the scenario I detailed.

    Of course the EICR has a purpose and the 'signature' implies certain purposes have been met.

    In a domestic there is also a consideration that the installation is under the operation of general ('ordinary') users.

    All that aside...and to comply with BS7671 on the EICR matter:

    I wonder what a selection of EICR's would produce for the scenario I detailed - as generally it doesn't require sight or further info really in my view (it is what it is),  to be able to offer an observation for it.

    Without any other obvious issues (like too many conductors in the back for the terminal spec, or heating affects etc), for me it is no more than 'room for an improvement'  as a belt and braces.  That's my take.

  • 433.1.204 applies to B.S. 1363 accessories. They may be supplied from a ring final circuit with or without unfused spurs.

    Z.

  • yes.

    One cant predict the loading on a general rfc circuit where there are no known [e.g. fixed] loads.

    regards.

Reply
  • yes.

    One cant predict the loading on a general rfc circuit where there are no known [e.g. fixed] loads.

    regards.

Children
  • Large fixed loads are best served by a dedicated radial circuit, e.g an immersion heater.

    I do not come across many domestic ring final circuits where the M.C.B. trips off due to overload.

  • sure.

    this is drifting off the scenario and topic I feel

    regards