Newish cooker.
Previously old cooker ran just dandy on the still present old cooker control panel. It's a size that I can't find anywhere, so although I've not tried phoning component outlets yet, a possible workaround occurred to me.
Can I lay out what's happening? I'll assume there's a chorus of "Sure You Cans" echoing around the forum...
Old wall switch unit. left unreplaced when house was rewired several years back. The re wiring electricians said something then about not having one similar. The control has the common two isolator switches, one for the cooker and one for the 13A socket. There's no misbehaviour from the socket. It does its stuff.
However - the control switch feeding the hard wired cooker, like the 13A socket, has an LED to indicate when the switch is down-live.
The cookers LED is abnormally dim, and flickers some. When the cooker's control switch is ON, the cooker doesn't trip the breaker. But then, after irregular time passing, it does. Kills the feed to the cooker-socket. As you'd expect. This never happens when the cooker is under load, only when not being used.
My question. There seems to be some minute leakage of maybe even nano-amps that sometimes isnt enough to trip the breaker, and then- seemingly is. At times if I've left it on, it might still be live next morning.
So. I'm wondering if an LED going marginal might just persuade the breaker that there's an issue of moment enough to shut everything down?
I can live without an LED. anyone ever seen this exact problem? I sure haven't.
I might even find a similar LED somewhere and substitute it.
If, that is, the company here sees adequate logic in this rather desperate conclusion.
If the switch unit were a size available today, I'd soon replace it. But the wall is tiled, the box behind and the switch unit are deeper and narrower than the standard one used today. I've been making do by keeping the cooker off until I want to use it, then when finished, I kill its control switch again. Which is evading the issue, I know.
With apologies for the novelette, but I thought I'd try to be as exact as possible straight away.
Previously old cooker ran just dandy on the still present old cooker control panel. It's a size that I can't find anywhere, so although I've not tried phoning component outlets yet, a possible workaround occurred to me.
Can I lay out what's happening? I'll assume there's a chorus of "Sure You Cans" echoing around the forum...
Old wall switch unit. left unreplaced when house was rewired several years back. The re wiring electricians said something then about not having one similar. The control has the common two isolator switches, one for the cooker and one for the 13A socket. There's no misbehaviour from the socket. It does its stuff.
However - the control switch feeding the hard wired cooker, like the 13A socket, has an LED to indicate when the switch is down-live.
The cookers LED is abnormally dim, and flickers some. When the cooker's control switch is ON, the cooker doesn't trip the breaker. But then, after irregular time passing, it does. Kills the feed to the cooker-socket. As you'd expect. This never happens when the cooker is under load, only when not being used.
My question. There seems to be some minute leakage of maybe even nano-amps that sometimes isnt enough to trip the breaker, and then- seemingly is. At times if I've left it on, it might still be live next morning.
So. I'm wondering if an LED going marginal might just persuade the breaker that there's an issue of moment enough to shut everything down?
I can live without an LED. anyone ever seen this exact problem? I sure haven't.
I might even find a similar LED somewhere and substitute it.
If, that is, the company here sees adequate logic in this rather desperate conclusion.
If the switch unit were a size available today, I'd soon replace it. But the wall is tiled, the box behind and the switch unit are deeper and narrower than the standard one used today. I've been making do by keeping the cooker off until I want to use it, then when finished, I kill its control switch again. Which is evading the issue, I know.
With apologies for the novelette, but I thought I'd try to be as exact as possible straight away.
