It's in an empty wall cavity between two bits of plasterboard.
FCU off of a spur
- Thread starter Fordy81
- Start date
It's in an empty wall cavity between two bits of plasterboard.
Sponsored Links
Indeed - and not only wouldn'd it do any harm but, as far as I can see, it would be regs-compliant.
Yes, but one cannot really make provision for what unacceptable changes may subsequently be made to the installation -f we took that approach, we couldn't do anything!
Yes, but how do you make sure that everyone who may use the room knows, and always remembers, all that?!Re the available capacity- true but as long as you don't fully load both sockets at the same time it'll be fine. So don't boil the kettle while the washer is running, definitely don't run the tumble dryer from that socket while the washer is running
Kind Regards, John
If it were possible, there would then be no room to convert the single to a double. It's in a small partition 'column' if you like.
I am a bit puzzled.
Didn't OP only mention (mistakenly?) an FCU as a means of supplying a socket from an already spurred socket?
It isn't necessary if you think two sockets on a spur is acceptable.
Not got my On Site Guide with me so staying quiet on compliance- may well be I've looked at a clause and read more than was written.Indeed - and not only wouldn'd it do any harm but, as far as I can see, it would be regs-compliant.
Yes, but one cannot really make provision for what unacceptable changes may subsequently be made to the installation -f we took that approach, we couldn't do anything!
Yes, but how do you make sure that everyone who may use the room knows, and always remembers, all that?!Re the available capacity- true but as long as you don't fully load both sockets at the same time it'll be fine. So don't boil the kettle while the washer is running, definitely don't run the tumble dryer from that socket while the washer is running
Kind Regards, John
Yes you're quite right about not being able to control future amends- may be why the general rule is only 1 device on a spur UNLESS protected by FCU.
And remembering stuff- if it is your house you tend to remember stuff like that. If it's being rented out then better to extend the ring, next best labelling. Of course we're all assuming (I am anyway) that this is a ring final, if it is a radial then advice would be a tad different
Sponsored Links
Indeed he did - but, as you say, the FCU would be redundant if all that was being 'spurred from a spur' was one single socket. The fuse in the FCU would achieve nothing that wouldn't be achieved by the fuse in a plug which was plugged into the new socket.
Kind Regards, John
Ok you guys have proper lost me now. lol
So my initial proposal is definitely a no? My second proposal is ok though?
As a third idea, can I replace the existing single socket with an FCU, then spur down under the counter to a single socket?
Or can I just swap the single socket for a double?
So my initial proposal is definitely a no? My second proposal is ok though?
As a third idea, can I replace the existing single socket with an FCU, then spur down under the counter to a single socket?
Or can I just swap the single socket for a double?
The OSG is no guide to compliance! The thing that everyone cites is the guidance in ('informative') Appendix 15 of BS7671 - which says that one cannot 'spur from an unfused spur'. However, that is not a regulation, and there is no comparable (normative) regulation within BS7671 itself.
Like EFLI, I doubt it. For a start, if taht were the intent, there would surely be an actual regulation (rather than just 'guidance') to that effect?
Indeed, but the OP rather 'led' us into that assumption by suggesting that to spur off it would 'not be allowed'. However, he (and the rest of us!) could be wrong. Indeed, for all we know the socket might already be 'a spur off a spur', in which case, again, the advice would be (very) different!And remembering stuff- if it is your house you tend to remember stuff like that. If it's being rented out then better to extend the ring, next best labelling. Of course we're all assuming (I am anyway) that this is a ring final, if it is a radial then advice would be a tad different
Kind Regards, John
Sure. That's more-or-less been suggested already. If you change the existing socket to an FCU, you can (provided the existing socket is not, itself, 'a spur from a spur'!!) then connect as many sockets as you like to the load side of that FCU (but will be limited to 13A total across all those sockets).
Again, provided the existing socket is not, itself, 'a spur from a spur' (and you didn't take any spurs from that new double socket, then, yes, you could do that.
As has been said, we are all assuming that this socket is a spur which comes directly from a ring circuit. Are you sure that is the case?
Kind Regards, John
Thanks John.
I can't say for sure 100%. I'm gonna have to trace it back and see where it's coming from. I'm 99% sure it is a single spur from a ring circuit but will double check.
Absolutely pointless to run a single socket off a FCU. As had already been stated the fuse in the plug in that single socket provides protection. Having another fuse in line mean 2 to replace if there is a fault.
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 43,981
- Reaction score
- 2,891
- Country
Are the cable ratings calculated accurately?
Clipped direct, 1 milli is rated at 16A, 1.5 is 20.
16 x 2.5 = 40
20 x 1.6r= 33.3r
I know one cannot extrapolate the figures for larger sizes as it is not as simple as that, but there does seem to be a huge margin of error built-in.
Clipped direct, 1 milli is rated at 16A, 1.5 is 20.
16 x 2.5 = 40
20 x 1.6r= 33.3r
I know one cannot extrapolate the figures for larger sizes as it is not as simple as that, but there does seem to be a huge margin of error built-in.
Could be the end of a Radial.
There undoubtedly is a large safety margin built in to the figures we use, but that's a different matter. As you say, it's not 'simple'. Current carrying capacity is not linearly related to CSA - on the basis of the physics, one would probably expect it to be more closely related to the ratio of CSA to surface area. As I've illustrated before the relationship between BS7671 CCCs and CSA is almost exactly a power curve, CCC not being linearly related to CSA but, rather, related to CSA to the power 0.6077 ....
Kind Regards, John
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
