Add spur at Consumer Unit

[Jupiter01]

In the same way that you are permitted to spur any socket on a RFC, can you add a spur to the MCB in a CU? This will feed a single double socket.

Or is it advisable to add a wago inside the CU, and extend the RFC to this new socket?

Thanks in advance.

 

[EFLImpudence]

In the same way that you are permitted to spur any socket on a RFC, can you add a spur to the MCB in a CU? This will feed a single double socket.

Yes.

Or is it advisable to add a wago inside the CU, and extend the RFC to this new socket?

No. That would be stupid.



Wago is not the only kind of connector.

 

[Jupiter01]

No. That would be stupid.

If joining cables and extending a ring at the back of the socket is a plausible solution, why is this considered stupid?

 

[Taylortwocities]

You don’t need to extend a ring for one socket.

Please explain your logic for even considering this as an option.

Just spur from any point on the ring, that point can be another socket, or you can spur from the MCB in the consumer unit.

 

[sparkwright]

If joining cables and extending a ring at the back of the socket is a plausible solution, why is this considered stupid?

There is no reason why you couldn't do this, but it would be unnecessary for just one accessory.

If you wanted two or more accessories, then maintaining the ring with wagos in the cu would be the way to go.

You could ring it up with wagos as you suggest, meaning your new accessory is then ready for future accessories to be added to it.

 

[sparkwright]

(Jupiter - you're getting some right stick today...)

 

[Jupiter01]

Does the ring extension make testing easier as you have a “proper” ring and can test as such?

Are there also some limitations on the a page you can draw at a spur versus a point on the ring?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Does the ring extension make testing easier as you have a “proper” ring and can test as such?

No.

You will have a ring and a radial.

Are there also some limitations on the a page you can draw at a spur versus a point on the ring?

I presume that should be 'Amperage' and the answer is 'no more than anywhere else at a spur or a point on the ring'.

 

[Jupiter01]

I presume that should be 'Amperage'

Yes, sorry, a typo.

 

[Jupiter01]

I presume that should be 'Amperage'

Yes, sorry, a typo

 

[EFLImpudence]

If you wanted two or more accessories, then maintaining the ring with wagos in the cu would be the way to go.

I disagree with that because if your requirement is more than one accessory then you would design the spur so that it is adequate for your needs.

That is by using larger cable.

I am sure that if one had a standard 32A ring from one MCB and a 32A radial from another MCB, no one would advocate making them one ring. by adding a second superfluous cable.

You could ring it up with wagos as you suggest, meaning your new accessory is then ready for future accessories to be added to it.

As it would be if it was designed for that in the first place.




Why is everyone quoting Wagos for any connections; They are no different than any other connector.

 

[Jupiter01]

You will have a ring and a radial.

Since the spur is a radial using 2.5mm cable, isn't its capacity less than a ring in 2.5mm as the load is distributed across the two legs of the ring?

 

[Jupiter01]

I disagree with that because if your requirement is more than one accessory then you would design the spur so that it is adequate for your needs.

Are you averse to the ring extension (when there is a need for multiple new sockets) because of the join it requires? Trying to understand the reasoning.

Can I also clarify, are you suggesting that a spur from any point on the ring (and in this case the MCB) could be for more than one socket if you increase the cable size? And it no longer requires an FCU at the start of the radial?

Thanks for the help.

 

[Taylortwocities]

Since the spur is a radial using 2.5mm cable, isn't its capacity less than a ring in 2.5mm as the load is distributed across the two legs of the ring?

Yes. You must try and think.

A spur from a ring at any point can only have one socket attached. If this is a double socket, the maximum load is 2x13amps.

So where could there be an overload??

 

[Taylortwocities]

Are you averse to the ring extension (when there is a need for multiple new sockets) because of the join it requires? Trying to understand the reasoning.

Can I also clarify, are you suggesting that a spur from any point on the ring (and in this case the MCB) could be for more than one socket if you increase the cable size? And it no longer requires an FCU at the start of the radial?

Thanks for the help.

You need a regs book