Removing a socket from a ring main

[JohnW2]

Yes, I think you'll find that's what I said above. And I don't even have a green book. ... It probably does, but neither of you said that. ... Maybe, maybe not. I was only concerned with novel interpretations of well established rules.

I don't think there was anything novel about BAS's or my interpretations - ours is much the same as everyone else's, but we didn't express ourselves very clearly.

However, I think you may have missed the main point I was trying to make - probably because, again, I did not express myself very clearly. I was talking about "100mm and a bit" partitions - which are, of course, too 'thick' for the part of 522.6.101(v) we are discussing to apply. As I said, particularly if (as is common) the cable enters the partition at about its midpoint from the void above, how can one be sure that none of the cable is within 50mm of the 'non-accessory side' (where, with a wall that thick, there is no safe zone created by the accessory on the other side).

Kind Regards, John

 

[Scotsandy]

Thanks Securespark. If this were practicable (I'll have to wait for a day off to go fishing) would such a connection need a blanking plate to identify it, even if I used a MF connector?

There are actually two different issues here. Firstly, something visible (e.g. a blanking plate) would be needed to create a safe zone for the cable if the end of the cable (i.e. the new JB or whatever) was more than 150mm from the ceiling (the top 150mm of a wall is always a 'safe zone'). If it was right up high (within 150mm of ceiling) then such 'identification' would therefore theoretically not be required.

Secondly, there's the issue of accessibility. Theoretically, an MF junction box can be totally hidden and inaccessible (e.g. behind the plastboard, and maybe even tiled over). However, if (as I presume will be the case) that JB will still be part of a sockets circuit, I personally would not want it to be 'totally hidden and inaccessible' - just in case (despite being 'MF') something ever went wrong with it. However, that's a matter of how 'cautious' one is - as I've said, regulations do not require it to be 'findable' or accessible.

As I mentioned a few posts back, if you could locate the cables in question under the floorboards of the floor above, that would be an ideal place to join/terminate the cables (with an MF JB) - you could probably pull the cables all the way up from the socket (after disconnecting it!) - but even if you had to cut them off, they would simply be 'dead' in the wall.

One other thought - I don't suppose you are thinking of having any sort of light or extractor/hood (maybe not allowed with stove?) or suchlike above the stove/range, are you? If you were, then these 'fished out cables', connected to a fused connection unit (non-conspiculously up high, and creating a 'safe zone' for any cable above) would probably be the ideal source of an electricity supply for them.

Kind Regards, John

Are you a certified mind reader as well John? The stove is going in a corner, away from windows, so we had been thinking about the options Re: lighting. I just have to work out how to get switching sorted, I guess a ceiling mounted pull cord switch could be connected by fishing through the ceiling, yet still be a little away from the stove itself. I'm guessing a switch directly over the stove would be a bad idea :0

 

[Scotsandy]

Could I power the light by taking a spur off the ring main, or is that very bad?

 

[Scotsandy]

However, I think you may have missed the main point I was trying to make - probably because, again, I did not express myself very clearly. I was talking about "100mm and a bit" partitions - which are, of course, too 'thick' for the part of 522.6.101(v) we are discussing to apply. As I said, particularly if (as is common) the cable enters the partition at about its midpoint from the void above, how can one be sure that none of the cable is within 50mm of the 'non-accessory side' (where, with a wall that thick, there is no safe zone created by the accessory on the other side).

Kind Regards, John

Sounds like the whole of our house!!!

 

[JohnW2]

One other thought - I don't suppose you are thinking of having any sort of light or extractor/hood (maybe not allowed with stove?) or suchlike above the stove/range, are you? If you were, then these 'fished out cables', connected to a fused connection unit (non-conspiculously up high, and creating a 'safe zone' for any cable above) would probably be the ideal source of an electricity supply for them.

Are you a certified mind reader as well John? The stove is going in a corner, away from windows, so we had been thinking about the options Re: lighting. I just have to work out how to get switching sorted, I guess a ceiling mounted pull cord switch could be connected by fishing through the ceiling, yet still be a little away from the stove itself. I'm guessing a switch directly over the stove would be a bad idea :0

Could I power the light by taking a spur off the ring main, or is that very bad?

No, that's not bad - it would be fine, provided you used a fused connection unit (FCU) with a, say, 3A fuse - it's essentially what I was suggesting. As you will realise, what I was suggesting as a possibility would be to 'interecept', somewhere high up the wall, the cables going to the problem socket and connect them at an FCU (for the light).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Sounds like the whole of our house!!!

.. and much of mine, and many other houses I've seen. That was the point I was trying to make (badly!). I wonder how much thought is given to the fact that cables within partition/stud walls >100mm thick may well 'stray' to within 50mm of the other side, thereby becoming theoretically non-compliant with regulations because there is no safe zone created by an accessory on the reverse side of a partition that thick.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ah, this must be a new meaning of the word 'simultaneously' that I haven't previously encountered.

Get over yourself:

without one being able to see both sides of the wall simultaneously
.
.
since both sides cannot be seen simultaneously...

Now back in proximity with my BGB (I was working from memory before), I can tell you that what 522.6.101 actually says is "Where the location of the accessory etc. can be determined from the reverse side...".

Yes, I think you'll find that's what I said above.

I think you'll find that's what I said too.

near enough to a doorway/opening/etc to be able to determine where the accessory is on the reverse side

That's pretty vague, and I think probably allows for a person standing in a doorway and moving their head around a bit, as well as various other strategies for 'determining'.

It probably does, but neither of you said that.

Sorry - I didn't realise - I'll try to remember in future that you are unable to think for yourself.

Maybe, maybe not. I was only concerned with novel interpretations of well established rules.

There have been none.

Good. Because 'and the accessory cannot be seen from both sides' didn't convey that to me.

I'm not surprised.

I'm beginning to get the feeling that very little conveys anything to you.

 

[Scotsandy]

Sounds like the whole of our house!!!

.. and much of mine, and many other houses I've seen. That was the point I was trying to make (badly!). I wonder how much thought is given to the fact that cables within partition/stud walls >100mm thick may well 'stray' to within 50mm of the other side, thereby becoming theoretically non-compliant with regulations because there is no safe zone created by an accessory on the reverse side of a partition that thick.

Kind Regards, John

Kind of like "every front has a back."

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Not necessarily.

 

[Scotsandy]

Not necessarily.

Now that, with a partition wall, would be a really good trick!

 

[JohnW2]

Not necessarily. <image of a Mobius Strip>

You may have stumbled across the wall design that would rid us of the need for these discussions about safe zones created by accessories 'on the other side'! However, there might be in issue in defining 'vertically and horizontally from the accessory' in order to identify where the safe zones actually were

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

 

[Scotsandy]

I think the guy who wrote the regs. just passed out.

 

[Scotsandy]

Thanks for all your input. I've got an electrician coming in on Wednesday to sort it out.