Wiring remote switched sockets for Kitchen appliances

[ban-all-sheds]

With identical logic, the exchange could have been like this:

When wiring accessible switches for hidden kitchen appliance sockets into a radial

Why are you using a radial?

Why not? It is a perfectly standard approved wiring method.

A reason why not would be that it was not the best design.

It is a proven design that has been in use since before you were born.

So is the ring.

Any chance you could break with the habit of a lifetime and have an important, or even useful, point to make?

That was a useful point.

In what way?

How does pointing out that a standard circuit type has been around for a long time qualify as a useful point to make wrt wondering if it is necessarily the best type to use?

So come on - answer the question - show what useful point you were making.

Or choose to ignore this or try to bluster your way out, when you realise that everything you wrote was senseless.

 

[echoes]

I'm still trying to think of an equivalent analogy. I.e. doing something unnecessary just because you can.

Using oval conduit instead of capping, on the off chance that you'll need (and be able!) to poke a new cable down at some point.

99% of the time it's unnecessary. That 1% when it works is golden.

 

[JohnW2]

Using oval conduit instead of capping, on the off chance that you'll need (and be able to!) to poke a new cable down at some point. 99% of the time it's unnecessary. That 1% when it works is golden.

If it cost nothing, then little/nothing would be lost by gambling on that 99-1 chance ... but it does cost something!

However, if it cost £5 but brought a 1% probability (sorry EFLI!) of saving £2,000 in subsequent work costs, then one would have to stop and think about one's attitude to matters probabilistic! Maths alone would say that it was a worthwhile gamble.

Kind Regards, John

 

[echoes]

If it cost nothing, then little/nothing would be lost by gambling on that 99-1 chance ... but it does cost something!

However, if it cost £5 but brought a 1% probability (sorry EFLI!) of saving £2,000 in subsequent work costs, then one would have to stop and think about one's attitude to matters probabilistic! Maths alone would say that it was a worthwhile gamble.

Kind Regards, John

Conduit or capping price difference is pennies. In fact 25mm oval conduit is cheaper on TLC right now than 25mm capping.

 

[JohnW2]

Conduit or capping price difference is pennies. In fact 25mm oval conduit is cheaper on TLC right now than 25mm capping.

Apologies - I misread what you said. My reply was assuming that you were comparing conduit with nothing, not with capping.

In that case, as per the first sentence/paragraph of what I wrote, if one is going to spend the same ('unnecessarily') on capping if one doesn't use conduit, then it's really a no-brainer - there is no apparent downside, so that even with a 0.01% chance of being able to subsequently pull new cables through, it would still make sense to use the conduit (people win Lotteries!). So that definitely would not be a case of doing something "just because it could be done". However, if one were to reconsider one's idea about using capping if one didn't use conduit (hence creating a cost difference), then one would have to make a personal probabilistic cost/risk decision per what I wrote before.

If one were concerned about such future activities, it would, of course make even more sense to install conduit through which it would almost certainly be possible to subsequently pull new cables!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Agreed, but I think you would struggle to find any conceivable safety* benefit (probably quite the opposite) in so doing.

* and I mean 'safety' in the broadest sense, including the well-being of the connected equipment.

Kind Regards, John

I was answering it in a generic context, not purely safety.

And in the generic one I'll add that I think that quite a lot of Hive/Nest/etc buyers don't actually know why they've bought it.

 

[JohnW2]

I was answering it in a generic context, not purely safety.

If you are going to be totally generic, then virtually everything we now do probably qualifies as "doing something unnecessary just because you can". Cave men did not find it 'necessary' to do much more than find food, water, clothing and shelter, and mate. Most other things we do are 'unnecessary' (for survival, of individuals or our species) are are therefore done "because we now can".

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I would say that my remark was correct and you do indeed fit lower rated fuses because you can.

I had in mind that if you lived here, or in most of the rest of the world, then you can't.

I wonder why the rest of the world has not introduced such a thing.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If you are going to be totally generic, then virtually everything we now do probably qualifies as "doing something unnecessary just because you can". Cave men did not find it 'necessary' to do much more than find food, water, clothing and shelter, and mate. Most other things we do are 'unnecessary' (for survival, of individuals or our species) are are therefore done "because we now can".

As I suspected, you're just playing games. It really is a pain having to try to check and re-check everything I write in an attempt to make sure that there is not some imperfection in my wording which you (but no-one else) can make an issue out of.

 

[JohnW2]

I would say that my remark was correct and you do indeed fit lower rated fuses because you can.

Yes, and that is obviously true since, as you go on to say ...

I had in mind that if you lived here, or in most of the rest of the world, then you can't.

Quite so. If the option was not available to me, I obviously could not do it.

However, that (the question of whether something is possible or impossible) is not the whole story. There are millions of things that I can/could do (because they are not impossible/'not allowed'), but which I am not 'compelled to do' (by laws, rules, regulations etc.) but which I choose not to do. When I do choose to do something which is possible but not 'compulsory', then, certainly in a technical area such as we are discussing, it is not just because "I can" (i.e. it is possible and 'allowed') but because I perceive a reason for doing it, often on the basis of a cost/benefit consideration of one sort or another.

You might feel that my reason is, in some cases, a very 'weak' one, and I would probably agree. However, if (as in the case we're discussing) the cost is zero and the benefit just possibly non-zero (but not negative), then I see nothing irrational about choosing to do it.

If I were talking about doing something with substantial cost but very questionable benefit (e.g. 'doubling up' on all my many RCDs), then I could more understand you questioning my wisdom - but I'm not doing that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However, if (as in the case we're discussing) the cost is zero and the benefit just possibly non-zero (but not negative), then I see nothing irrational about choosing to do it.

There is one possible benefit which has nothing to do with potentially providing protection for the appliance, and therefore sidesteps all the arguments surrounding that.

A finite supply of spare fuses.

If I use a 13A fuse on a 1kW appliance instead of a 5A, because the cable is OK for that, what will happen when I need a fuse for the kettle and all I have spare is a 5A?

 

[winston1]

If I use a 13A fuse on a 1kW appliance instead of a 5A, because the cable is OK for that, what will happen when I need a fuse for the kettle and all I have spare is a 5A?

You pop down to your local DIY shed and buy a pack.

But most people have a large supply of 13 amp fuses because most plugs and FCUs come with them and are changed to lower values so perhaps you could ask your neighbour.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Or I could just ignore your typical ********.

Or choose to ignore this or try to bluster your way out, when you realise that everything you wrote was senseless.

See - even you realise what senseless ******** you write.

 

[JohnW2]

There is one possible benefit which has nothing to do with potentially providing protection for the appliance, and therefore sidesteps all the arguments surrounding that. .... A finite supply of spare fuses.

Hmmm - OK, but a very trivial benefit, given the cost of fuses. It really is no hardship to keep a supply of all ratings of BS 1362 fuses, and one doesn't need many, since (at least in my home), replacements are only needed once in a blue moon. I imagine that one can buy 'assortments' - just like some of the 'cards' I still have which carry lengths of 5A, 15A and 30A fuse wire.

If I use a 13A fuse on a 1kW appliance instead of a 5A, because the cable is OK for that, what will happen when I need a fuse for the kettle and all I have spare is a 5A?

Ironically, you have given an example which is 'back-to-front' in terms of my usual approach - since I would normally use a 5A fuse for the 1 kW appliance, creating a spare 13A (if that's what the appliance came fitted with) for the kettle!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think you'll find, in your haste to nit-pick and find a way to quibble with everything everybody says, that my "back-to-front" example was actually an example, when choosing fuses, of what could happen when not taking your usual approach, i.e. when not using a 5A fuse for the 1 kW appliance, thus (potentially) not leaving a 13A for the kettle.