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
  • There is no prize Z and commenting on loose connections is cheating!

    Your reply Ebee is interesting, because you are aware that there is not a problem with cables, running at a little more current than the BBB says, but you think that coding based on that knowledge "is a risk to you?". I do understand why you might say that, and you are afraid that "some bright spark (or perhaps not)" might be prepared to quote BS7671 at you, perhaps in court, without any real reason behind his expert(?) view. In reality that is a very tiny risk, and even if it did happen, your expert (there are a couple here) might well be prepared to point out the realities to the court. It is very important to realise that almost all works carried out by the entire construction industry can be found "non-compliant" in some way, many of these non-compliances being actually dangerous, and a number of them criminal. The wording in BS7671 about "the inspector" or "duty holder" is that he gives an opinion, strangely not that he is an upholder of absolute regulatory compliance. The latter would of course be impossible because we have such an intertwined series of standards, statutory instruments and advice that almost no one actually could achieve the above in any reasonable timescale and without a complete set of all the installation details and "as built" drawings. The inspector must form a reasonable view of safety, and not invent his own rules to enforce his feelings of risk to him. This is why I think that a much higher degree of professional standards is required by inspectors, which would bring with it increased trust, which at the moment is pretty low.

    The nice little books of codes for alleged defects provided by the schemes are a way to cover up the inadequacies of inspectors used by their members. They are in no way absolute, and the only reason to offer them is because the inspector cannot decide for themselves! Whether these same inspectors could calculate the admissible Zs of a circuit, or any other design parameter is very open to question. But they can decide that a cable size is inadequate, or a risk or whatever. There are quite a lot of 9.5 kW showers on 4mm cables installed in the country, yet these cables stubbornly refuse to fail or give any trouble at all. I know exactly why, many may know why but would happily give this a C1. I am happy to put cooking appliances on circuits with the CPD at a fraction of the worst case loading, yet they never trip. Again I know exactly why, but we often get questions implying that this is wrong. I am still surprised by the number of "electricians" who think that household supplies can supply the DNO fuse rating, and worry that this is insufficient for their supply of breakers installed. Again I have seen this coded as a C1. Crazy....

  • Wot, no prize? Yah shucks! A recent visit by me to a holiday chalet owner concerned a new cooker. The cooker circuit is supplied by a C20 M.C.B. The chalet owner was concerned that the cooker should be run through a 30/32 Amp M.C.B. The Crabtree consumer unit is as far as I know is obsolete. I do not stock parts for this model. I wired up the cooker and we tested it. It is a standard 4 hobs, grill and oven type of cooker. With everything turned on full the cooker worked for about 30 seconds then tripped the M.C.B. But we decided that the cooker would not be used in that way under normal circumstances, but if it caused trouble in the future I would try to find and fit a 30 Amp M.C.B.

    so, you pays yer money and takes yer pick.

                                                                                                                                                                Not even a small prize?

    Z.

Reply
  • Wot, no prize? Yah shucks! A recent visit by me to a holiday chalet owner concerned a new cooker. The cooker circuit is supplied by a C20 M.C.B. The chalet owner was concerned that the cooker should be run through a 30/32 Amp M.C.B. The Crabtree consumer unit is as far as I know is obsolete. I do not stock parts for this model. I wired up the cooker and we tested it. It is a standard 4 hobs, grill and oven type of cooker. With everything turned on full the cooker worked for about 30 seconds then tripped the M.C.B. But we decided that the cooker would not be used in that way under normal circumstances, but if it caused trouble in the future I would try to find and fit a 30 Amp M.C.B.

    so, you pays yer money and takes yer pick.

                                                                                                                                                                Not even a small prize?

    Z.

Children
No Data