Socket for vacuum cleaner from lighting circuit?!

[Sureitsoff?]

Of course it could turn out that the socket isn't fed by the flex from the rose and that cable goes elsewhere......
Was there another socket lower down the wall by any chance?
Perhaps there used to be a serving table in front of the socket with a lamp on it?

 

[blup]

Hi folks. I realise the the person who would probably have most interest in this does not appear to be any longer with us, but ....

.. I recently stayed in a hotel which started life as an 18th century coaching inn. Whilst sitting at my table in the restaurant, I found myself just adjacent to what is shown in photo below. I suppose it may not be 'as it seems', and the cable in surface trunking may be related to the fact that the building is listed, but the (double) socket is certainly in a location which (in contrast to the situation in a loft) is probably quite likely to be used by a cleaner to plug in his/her vacuum cleaner.

Any comments?

View attachment 321715

Kind Regards, John

Its the reverse, the socket circuit is supplying the light, which was subsequently d3commissioned and now acts as a jb. You can see the black cable supplying the fan just behind.

Blup

 

[EFLImpudence]

Why does the UK use twin and earth?

 

[JohnW2]

I cannot see what you're getting at. It's acceptable to use, so what's the issue? ..... You keep stressing a UK electrician, yet you have already agreed it is compliant.
It's compliant, end of story!

Fair enough but, in turn, I cannot see why you are seemingly being so 'defensive'.

I was merely making the observation that I believe that it would be 'extremely unusual' for a UK electrician to use flex to wire a socket, unless there were some 'goo job-specific reason' for favouring flex (as in your supermarket examples). Do you really disagree with that?

It might be that someone has a roll of flex on the van that would do the job.

It might be. However, if an electrician went to a job armed with a socket they were going to install, one might expect/hope that they would also have at least the required ~3m of T+E for the job 'in their van'.

You may be losing sight of the fact that I started this 'weekend thread' essentially for 'amusement', in view of the views of 'you-know-who'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Of course it could turn out that the socket isn't fed by the flex from the rose and that cable goes elsewhere......

Well, there's absolutely no doubt that the trunking (which the cable enters at the top) goes to the socket (with no branches to anywhere else), so I'm not sure what other ;elsewhere' you might have in mind.

Was there another socket lower down the wall by any chance?

No evidence of that. There is wood panelling from the position of the socket right down to skirting level and,judging by the general state of 'maintenance of decor' in the place, if there had, for whatever reason, been a socket lower down, it's very likely that evidence of that would still exist

Perhaps there used to be a serving table in front of the socket with a lamp on it?

No space. It's in a tiny 'bay'/alcove', just the width of the double doors (which serve as an emergency exist) and only (just about!) big enough for one small round 2-pwerson table + chairs. I'm well known at the place, and it is,when I'm there, known as "my table"

Whatever, I don't think that there is any getting away from the fact that (even if it's not 'feeding the socket') there is a a length of flex which goes from a socket and which enters the 'outlet' of a ceiling rose - which surely is an 'unusual' situation, to say the least, isn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Its the reverse, the socket circuit is supplying the light, ....

I don't really get that. How could one 'supply a light' through a cable entering the 'outlet hole' of a ceiling rose?

Particularly given that (as you can see) the style of the lights in the room is to have large/wide shades/whatever, not to mention 'where it is', it would seem extremely unlikley that there was ever a light in the position of that rose, only about six inches from the adjacent wall.

.... which was subsequently d3commissioned and now acts as a jb.

It has always been my greatest suspicion that it was being used as a JB, albeit not in the manner you describe.

As I keep saying, I think people are overlooking the ('for weekend amusement') reason I started this thread. I obviously can but guess/speculate, but I suspect the most likely situation is that the socket IS being supplied from a 'lighting circuit', via that rose. However, my point (remembering the views of 'you-know-who) is that not only would that, in itself, be fully compliant with BSy7671 but that, if (as could ell be the case in a hotel) it is a 16A (or even 10A) lighting circuit, then no problems would be likely to arise even if someone plugged a vacuum cleaner into the socket. The only possible compliance issue would then be that eric would probably point out that a ceiling rose would probably not be 'rated' for the current it might carry in that situation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

That’s easy to answer. You take subjects off topic and spend hours wasting time, along with writing misleading posts at times

What are you talking about? How on earth can this discussion be "off-topic" when I started it myself, specifically to discuss the issue which is being discussed.

I'm getting very tired of this 'vendetta' you seem to have in relation to me.

 

[JohnW2]

Why does the UK use twin and earth?

Good question.I imagine that the answer is that someone (or some 'committee') once decided that that is what we would do, whereafter it became "the way we've always done it".

There are probably some 'advantages'. The fact that it is stiffer means that t needs less support when clipped to surfaces, and the impression I get is that the outer sheath is a bit 'tougher' (more 'protective'?) than that of flex - but there are also 'disadvantages' (advantages of flex). Indeed, the very fact that flex is more flexible is sometimes advantageous or, at least, more convenient.

However, the fact remains that, and for whatever reason, except when singles are used (or there is some 'good job-specific reason' for using flex), T+E has become 'the norm' in the UK - hence my belief that it would be 'very unusual' for a UK electrician to wire sockets with flex. Do you disagree with that?

As always, I may be wrong,but I would strongly suspect that the great majority of sockets wiured with flex in the UK have been installed by 'DIYers', rather than professional electricians. Do you disagree with that?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Good question.I imagine that the answer is that someone (or some 'committee') once decided that that is what we would do, whereafter it became "the way we've always done it".

Do you know when was that?

There are probably some 'advantages'. The fact that it is stiffer means that t needs less support when clipped to surfaces, and the impression I get is that the outer sheath is a bit 'tougher' (more 'protective'?) than that of flex - but there are also 'disadvantages' (advantages of flex). Indeed, the very fact that flex is more flexible is sometimes advantageous or, at least, more convenient. However, the fact remains that, and for whatever reason, except when singles are used (or there is some 'good job-specific reason' for using flex),

Better from a ceiling rose and through conduit perhaps?

T+E has become 'the norm' in the UK - hence my belief that it would be 'very unusual' for a UK electrician to wire sockets with flex. Do you disagree with that?

Well, I suppose other than the norm is unusual.

As always, I may be wrong,but I would strongly suspect that the great majority of sockets wired with flex in the UK have been installed by 'DIYers', rather than professional electricians. Do you disagree with that?

I have no idea. Don't DIYers buy T&E?

 

[Jurassicspark]

However, the fact remains that, and for whatever reason, except when singles are used (or there is some 'good job-specific reason' for using flex), T+E has become 'the norm' in the UK - hence my belief that it would be 'very unusual' for a UK electrician to wire sockets with flex. Do you disagree with that?

I agree. What electrician wires in flex? If majority did then

Next, people will be saying it's ok to use bell wire for fire alarms and it's ok to use multi core flex to carry 240v circuits alongside ELV circuits just because it's easier than running two seperate and segregated circuits.

 

[JohnW2]

Do you know when was that?

I suppose that depends to some extent on what you mean by "T+E". My understanding that thermoplastic-insulated cables (briefly polythene but soon changed to PVC),with 'two conductors + E', which would have resembled current T+E (apart from the stranded conductors for all sizes), first appeared in "the early 1950s"

Better from a ceiling rose and through conduit perhaps?

"From a ceiling rose" is obviously a special case, which requires both the flexibility and round cross-section of flex. 'In conduit' is really a different issue,which we are not really discussing here.

Well, I suppose other than the norm is unusual.

Exactly, so if you agree with me that T+E is 'the norm' for wiring sockets, then you presumably also agree that it would be unusual (or maybe 'very unusual') for flex to be used for that purpose - which is really the only point I was making.

I have no idea. Don't DIYers buy T&E?

Many DIYers obviously do buy, and use, T+E. However, I still think that those who wire sockets with flex are far more likely to be DIYers than professional electricians - and I'm a little surprised thst you don't feel able to agree with that..

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I agree. What electrician wires in flex?

As I've said, I would think that extremely few do, unless there is some specific good reason for using flex - but I seem to be encountering some resistance to expressing that view!!

If majority did then .... Next, people will be saying it's ok to use bell wire for fire alarms and it's ok to use multi core flex to carry 240v circuits alongside ELV circuits just because it's easier than running two seperate and segregated circuits.

A fair bit of that is, of course, possible if one uses cables designed for such use - but that certainly would not be 'the norm'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[sparkwright]

Bit late on the topic, don't pretend to have read every word, but I can't really see any difference here to the stuff people here have always suggested to other people when faced with no convenient socket point to connect into.

We recommend it as a last resort, yet some seem horrified when they see it in real life.

If this really is connected to a lighting circuit, there is a chance the circuit is protected at 10 amp, the rose rated at 10 amp, and the cable rated at 10 amp or more.

 

[securespark]

Well, there's absolutely no doubt that the trunking (which the cable enters at the top) goes to the socket (with no branches to anywhere else), so I'm not sure what other ;elsewhere' you might have in mind.

You're assuming that a cable does not go through the wall into or out of the trunking.

I agree. What electrician wires in flex? If majority did then

Next, people will be saying it's ok to use bell wire for fire alarms and it's ok to use multi core flex to carry 240v circuits alongside ELV circuits just because it's easier than running two seperate and segregated circuits.

Are those two examples you quote compliant?

Wiring with flex is.

 

[JohnW2]

Bit late on the topic, don't pretend to have read every word, but I can't really see any difference here to the stuff people here have always suggested to other people when faced with no convenient socket point to connect into.

Exactly. My main point in posting this was to indicate that this may well be (although may not be) an example of even a commercial installation having a (compliant with BS7671) socket installed on a 'lighting circuit', even though (if that were the case) this use of a ceiling rose is rather 'interesting', unusual and perhaps 'quaint', no matter what you-know-who would be saying about the arrangement, it if he could

We recommend it as a last resort, yet some seem horrified when they see it in real life.

It's obviously not how one would normally plan to do things from scratch, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it

If this really is connected to a lighting circuit, there is a chance the circuit is protected at 10 amp, the rose rated at 10 amp, and the cable rated at 10 amp or more.

Indeed - but, as I said, it could even be a 16A lighting circuit - even better for vacuum cleaners but, in that case, it would be unlikely ('impossible'?) that the ceiling rose would be rated at 16A, so eric could still 'complain'!

Kind Regards, John