Lights From Plug Socket

[Bobbya82]

Hi,

I need to run some lights from a plug socket, am pretty sure this is right but just confirm is the following correct?

Take a cable from the socket into a FCU like this https://www.screwfix.com/p/mk-13a-dp-switched-fused-connection-unit-with-neon-white/58085

Then replace the 13A fuse with a 3A

Run the lights from the FCU, wasnt going to bother with a switch, was just going to use the switch on the FCU to turn lights on/off?

Many thanks

 

[mwatsonxx]

Thats fine.

 

[John D v2.0]

Fine but I'd use the fcu without neon, it would be a bit cheaper and a neon would be a little odd perhaps?

 

[Bobbya82]

Thats great, thanks for the help.

 

[Bobbya82]

Sorry just one last question, is it ok to wire the lights and FCU with 2.5mm twin and earth? as would save me buying some 1.5mm?

Many thanks

 

[flameport]

s it ok to wire the lights and FCU with 2.5mm twin and earth?

Yes, the only problem may be it being to large to fit into the terminals of the light(s).

 

[winston1]

Sorry just one last question, is it ok to wire the lights and FCU with 2.5mm twin and earth? as would save me buying some 1.5mm?

Many thanks

Yes, but if you were buying cable it would be 1.0 mm wouldn't it?

 

[John D v2.0]

Yes, but if you were buying cable it would be 1.0 mm wouldn't it?

Well, I'll take the bait, it would technically have to be 1.5 for the fcu and then could be 1.0 afterwards, as you can't use 1.0 on a socket circuit.

 

[EFLImpudence]

But it's for a light, so ...

 

[JohnW2]

But it's for a light, so ...

Indeed, but I doubt that the fact that one (or more) lights are fed from it turns a sockets circuit into a 'lighting circuit' in the eyes of whoever invented that term (and perhaps understands what it is meant to mean!). Downstream of the FCU one could at least invoke the BS7671 definition of a circuit and say that it is a 'separate circuit' and, if it only supplies lighting etc., perhaps a 'lighting circuit'!!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Indeed, but I doubt that the fact that one (or more) lights are fed from it turns a sockets circuit into a 'lighting circuit' in the eyes of whoever invented that term (and perhaps understands what it is meant to mean!).

It's meaningless.

It is literally impossible to comply with a regulation which has no meaning.

 

[JohnW2]

It is literally impossible to comply with a regulation which has no meaning.

True (although I suppose the person(s) who wrote it must believe that it does have meaning).

Of course, we all have a pretty good idea of what they are getting at - there can be hardly an electrician, or any of us non-electricians here (including you and myself), who does not talk/write about 'lighting circuits', so we must think that it has some meaning.

The problem at present is that the perhaps 'obvious meaning', that it is a circuit which supplies only lighting, all goes all wrong when, as is so often the case, other things (fans, shaver sockets, aerial amplifiers etc.) are supplied by such circuits. If it stays true to the DPC, the 18th will improve things slightly, by acknowledging, in addition to lighting, "... associated small power-using equipment, such as a bathroom extraction fan", but it still will remain unsatisfactory, not the least because it still does not contain the word "only".

Whatever the definitions or 'intended meanings', the fact that there are different minimum CSAs for cables in "lighting" and "power" circuits, per se, rather than determined by the design current of the circuit (perhaps with a blanket minimum of, say, 1mm²), seems to defy logic.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

True (although I suppose the person(s) who wrote it must believe that it does have meaning).
.
.
Whatever the definitions or 'intended meanings', the fact that there are different minimum CSAs for cables in "lighting" and "power" circuits, per se, rather than determined by the design current of the circuit (perhaps with a blanket minimum of, say, 1mm²), seems to defy logic.

Do you honestly think that the person(s) who wrote it could explain its meaning whilst remaining logical?

 

[JohnW2]

Do you honestly think that the person(s) who wrote it could explain its meaning whilst remaining logical?

I wouldn't have said that it "seems to defy logic" if I believed that anyone could "explain it's meaning whilst remaining logical".

My initial comment (that those who wrote it "must believe that it has a meaning") related to "lighting circuit", not to the differential CSAs (which is what, in my opinion, "defies logic"). AS I said, we all know 'roughly' what is meant by a "lighting circuit", otherwise we wouldn't all (and that definitely includes both of us) use the term so often ourselves!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Do we all know "roughly" how a power circuit differs from a lighting circuit?

Do any of us understand, even vaguely, what is insufficient with Ib ≤ In ≤ Iz?