New socket from spur

[ban-all-sheds]

We all get days like that.

I can't quite rid myself of the memory that when I replied to you your post did not have the quote from DaveDraker in it, and that what I saw was just

No. He's just saying the situation is not dire as you seem to be implying.​

after my post with no context except it being a reply to me, and that you edited in the quote while I was typing my reply.

Am I right?

 

[securespark]

About what?
I can't remember!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Am I right that what I replied to was this:

not this:

Because with the latter I can't begin to imagine why I would have said "I really can't work out who "he" and "you" are in that...", whereas with the former, if what I was looking at was this:

Me:

I don't think EFLI was saying that you do.

But if you think that you are not required to answer questions which arise from your posts then this site is not for you.
​

You in direct reply to me:

No. He's just saying the situation is not dire as you seem to be implying.​

then a bit of confusion on my part is understandable.

I can't remember!

Are you saying you don't remember not quoting DaveDraker and then almost immediately editing your post to add the quote?

 

[securespark]

No, I genuinely don't.
Whatever you're upset about, let me state categorically that whatever it is that I have or have not done, it was done (or not done) without any intent of maliciousness or deceipt.

 

[securespark]

What it looks like (to me) is that I qualified my comment, ''No, he's just saying.....'' by the addition of the quote by DD.

Why are you so upset?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm not upset.

Disappointed.

I do think the honourable thing for you to do would instead of this:

I may go back to bed and start again.

We all get days like that.

have been to admit that I wrote ""I really can't work out who "he" and "you" are in that..." in response to a direct reply to me which was "No. He's just saying the situation is not dire as you seem to be implying."

 

[John D v2.0]

No idea what the argument is, clearly you can design any circuit you like as long as it complies with the regs, doesn't have to follow the guidance. If people are concerned about the 2.5 cable being overloaded by something (fan heater in the socket while the nest is operating at full whack?) then would they be happy if the cable was replaced by 4mm?

 

[securespark]

I'm not upset.

Disappointed.

I do think the honourable thing....

Blimey. Have I broken a gentlemen's agreement, a code of conduct?

I think I know what has happened. It wasn't a direct reply to you. It just happened to come after yours. Then I realised I should add the quote from DD on to it to give it context.
Looking back, EFLI explained it.

 

[securespark]

I understand the confusion, I don't understand why it's such a big deal?

If it's the bit about all getting days like that, then that, as denoted by the smiley, was a little joke.

 

[Astra99]

Fair bit of squabbling going on here then, eh? Best solution, which keeps everything to the letter of the regs.

Leave the existing FCU where it is. Disconnect the alarm from the load side. From the load side of the (existing) FCU connect a single socket, and then daisy-chain a new FCU from the socket. The original FCU should have a 10 or 13A fuse and the new FCU, to which the alarm is connected, a 3A fuse. Everything from the load side of the original FCU may be wired in 1.5mm² cable, as it is protected by the 10/13A fuse in the FCU

Hopefully now the squabbling will stop.

 

[EFLImpudence]

FFS - just fit a double socket in place of the existing FCU and put a plug on the alarm cable.

Then you can plug in two welders whenever you want.