Fused spurs

[JohnW2]

Surely there referring to the drawing in appendix 15, and there "Fused" is referring to unlimited if the fuse is in the first spurred point or "unfused" as in spurred direct of the ring, they must not exceed the total number on the ring , but as you know still limited to 1 single or double at each joint.

I don't believe that is what the OSG is talking about in the bit I quoted - that is surely talking about the number of (fused or unfused) spurs (i.e. cables branching off from the ring), not the number of things that can be supplied by each of those spurs/branches?

Ruling out Winstons suggestion of a ring round the loft with no sockets and all sockets spurred off it.

Even in my very limited experience, that is far from unknown in bungalows with solid floors (and maybe even some multi-storey houses with solid ground floor floors).

Kind Regards, John

 

[greenstarthree01]

Thanks again all. Healthy discussion this seems to have started!

So assuming I can’t get 4 cables into the terminals of the existing socket, can I go:

ring socket > 13A FCU supply > 13A FCU load > new socket > 3A FCU supply > 3A FCU load > alarm

I understand the 13A FCU might not be required but it allows me to avoid 4 cables in a socket, plus I always tend to air on the side of too careful!

This also seems to align with the ‘put whatever you like after the load side of an FCU (within reason)’ ethos, so adds a bit of protection if changes are made in the future?

 

[JohnW2]

So assuming I can’t get 4 cables into the terminals of the existing socket, can I go:
ring socket > 13A FCU supply > 13A FCU load > new socket > 3A FCU supply > 3A FCU load > alarm

Yes.

I understand the 13A FCU might not be required but it allows me to avoid 4 cables in a socket, plus I always tend to air on the side of too careful! This also seems to align with the ‘put whatever you like after the load side of an FCU (within reason)’ ethos, so adds a bit of protection if changes are made in the future?

Indeed. You could subsequently add other things to the load side of the 13A FCU if you wished (bearing in mind that the total available for everything will then be 'limited' to 13A).

Kind Regards, John

 

[greenstarthree01]

Indeed. You could subsequently add other things to the load side of the 13A FCU if you wished (bearing in mind that the total available for everything will then be 'limited' to 13A).

Thanks John. The 13A limit shouldn’t be a problem, certainly not for the socket we’re adding now anyway.

last thing, and I might be repeating myself, it it would be a tidier cabling job to bring 2 cables out of the load side of the 13A FCU. One to the new socket, the other to the 3A FCU going to the alarm.
Is that ok, or must they be connected in series as my first suggestion above?

 

[JohnW2]

... last thing, and I might be repeating myself, it it would be a tidier cabling job to bring 2 cables out of the load side of the 13A FCU. One to the new socket, the other to the 3A FCU going to the alarm. Is that ok ....

Yep.

Kind Regards, John

 

[winston1]

Is that ok, or must they be connected in series as my first suggestion above?

You did not suggest connecting them in series and you must not do so. They must be connected in parallel.

 

[greenstarthree01]

You did not suggest connecting them in series and you must not do so. They must be connected in parallel.

Sorry, I may not be using the right terms here.

What I mean is, everything in a row after the 13A FCU, or splitting from the load side of the 13A FCU and going to the socket on one cable and the alarm on another.

johns posts suggest that either would be ok, it is there something I’m missing?

 

[JohnW2]

Sorry, I may not be using the right terms here.

Don't worry. We all knew what you meant, including the person who loves taking people to task in relation to that particular bit of 'incorrect terminolgy'.

What I mean is, everything in a row after the 13A FCU, or splitting from the load side of the 13A FCU and going to the socket on one cable and the alarm on another. johns posts suggest that either would be ok, it is there something I’m missing?

You're missing nothing.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

You might have known what he meant, although you could never have been certain and not everyone else might know.

Not correcting errors is silly.

Then we'll get: "Someone on DIYnot confirmed connecting lights in series was alright".

 

[greenstarthree01]

Ah, I see. I was being too liberal with the word series! Thanks for the clarification in any case.

I won’t be cross connecting any lives and neutrals, that’s for sure!

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

There are ways to correct someone which are helpful, and there are ways which simply get everyone's backs up.

 

[JohnW2]

You might have known what he meant, although you could never have been certain and not everyone else might know.

That was predictable

Not correcting errors is silly.

As I've said countless times before, politely explaining to someone that (and why) the terminology they have used is incorrect is fine, appropriate and desirable - and I often do it myself when appropriate.

Merely telling someone that something they have written is 'wrong', without explaining why, and without explaining what would have been correct (and why) is, in my option, not "fine, appropriate and desirable". Even worse, but unfortunately only too common, is for a response to a misuse of terminology to be a sarcastic comment that the person to whom it was directed is unlikley to even understand (or understand to be sarcstic).

Kind Regards, John
Edit: Detelf just beat me too it!

 

[EFLImpudence]

As I've said countless times before, politely explaining to someone that (and why) the terminology they have used is incorrect is fine, appropriate and desirable - and I often do it myself when appropriate.

Why not in this case, then?

"I knew what you meant" is not really true. You think you know what was meant.

 

[JohnW2]

Why not in this case, then?

Indeed, "why not?". You're asking the wrong person, since I was not the person who responded in a way which did not (in my opinion) constitute "politely explaining to someone that (and why) the terminology they have used is incorrect .... and [with an explanation of] what would have been correct (and why)". I have to assume that you were happy with the way that response was written?

"I knew what you meant" is not really true. You think you know what was meant.

True, and I can't deny that there is a (I would think extremely small) possibility that I might be wrong. However, I would suggest that very few people who make that particular terminological error actually know what to 'connect lights in series' would literally mean, let alone be likely to actually do that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[winston1]

However, I would suggest that very few people who make that particular terminological error actually know what to 'connect lights in series' would literally mean, let alone be likely to actually do that.

Kind Regards, John

I would respectfully suggest that if that is the case those particular people should not be doing electrical work at all for their own safety.