DIY replacement of electrics in kitchen, sanity check & questions

[ban-all-sheds]

It doesn't but it stipulates a minimum csa of 2.5mm² which has an Iz of 27A method C.

And an Iz of 13.5A with Method 103.

What it does stipulate is an Iz of at least 20A. So an Iz of 20A complies,

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Whatever tests BS1363 may or may not require, I seriously doubt that any significant number of people (if any) have ever done as you suggest for the reason you are mentioning, and I am not aware of any reports of a problem with the 'standard practice'.

Be that as it may, a BS 1363 socket is not required to remain safe and undamaged if > 20A is flowing in the cable which supplies it.

Whatever tests BS1363 may or may not require, I seriously doubt that there is any issue relating to a current of 32A (or probably more) passing between two conductors that happen to be joined in the terminal of a BS1363 socket. Those terminals are generally no 'inferior' to those of a 30/32A JB, and if the connection is made securely virtually no heat will be generated at the joint, so there will be virtually no thermal implications for the socket.

Be that as it may, a BS 1363 socket is not required to remain safe and undamaged if > 20A is flowing in the cable which supplies it.

To do as you suggest and introduce countless additional ('unnecessary') joints into a radial circuit, as compared with the way in which virtually everyone has always wired such a circuit would seem to me to be undesirable.

Be that as it may, a BS 1363 socket is not required to remain safe and undamaged if > 20A is flowing in the cable which supplies it.

 

[JohnW2]

Be that as it may, a BS 1363 socket is not required to remain safe and undamaged if > 20A is flowing in the cable which supplies it.
Be that as it may, a BS 1363 socket is not required to remain safe and undamaged if > 20A is flowing in the cable which supplies it.
Be that as it may, a BS 1363 socket is not required to remain safe and undamaged if > 20A is flowing in the cable which supplies it.

No, it is not 'required' to.

However, you are surely as aware as I am that, provided the conductors are terminated satisfactorily into the socket's terminals, that 32A flowing in one or both of the cables will have no noticeable effect on the 'remaining safe and undamaged' of the socket.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No, it is not 'required' to.

In which case there are no guarantees pf performance outside that limit which can be relied upon.

However, you are surely as aware as I am that, provided the conductors are terminated satisfactorily into the socket's terminals, that 32A flowing in one or both of the cables will have no noticeable effect on the 'remaining safe and undamaged' of the socket.

I am unaware of any guarantees of that which can be relied upon given that there are no requirements for sockets to remain safe and undamaged when 32A is flowing in the supply cable.

How are you aware that there are?

 

[JohnW2]

I am unaware of any guarantees of that which can be relied upon given that there are no requirements for sockets to remain safe and undamaged when 32A is flowing in the supply cable.

I'm sure there are no 'guarantees'. However, I am perfectly happy to trust my judgement in this matter - as, I imagine, are the majority of electricians, since I have never heard of one unhappy to wire BS1363 sockets directly into a 32A radial.

Do I take it that you would not be happy to connect a "6A rated" ceiling rose, batten holder or switch (if involved in 'looping') to a 10A (or even 16A) lighting circuit?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

In which case there are no guarantees pf performance outside that limit which can be relied upon.
I am unaware of any guarantees of that which can be relied upon given that there are no requirements for sockets to remain safe and undamaged when 32A is flowing in the supply cable.

It seems strange that you are basing this argument on the part of the table which you say ""Evenly distributed in the supply cable" makes no sense, as the supply cable carries 20A" yet are rejecting 433.1.204 and Appendix 15 which clearly expect and allow more than the stated current in the cables.

 

[securespark]

I have never heard of one unhappy to wire BS1363 sockets directly into a 32A radial.

Indeed. Isn't it a standard circuit arrangement?

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed. Isn't it a standard circuit arrangement?

I would have said so, and, for what it's worth, Appendix 15 of BS7671 shows such a circuit, with a string of BS1363 sockets and a BS1363 FCU on a 4mm² 32A radial.

BAS must understand that it is what everyone does, and 'always' has done, and what Appendix 15 shows, so I'm not at all sure why he has suddenly decided to question the practice!

Kind Regards, John

 

[mwatsonxx]

I'm not at all sure why he has suddenly decided to question the practice!

Because he is guessing and dreaming up nonsense words to justify his guesswork. Best to ignore him.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm sure there are no 'guarantees'. However, I am perfectly happy to trust my judgement in this matter - as, I imagine, are the majority of electricians, since I have never heard of one unhappy to wire BS1363 sockets directly into a 32A radial.

I've also seen people, when they encounter a regulation which they simply do not like, prepared to employ arguments so ludicrously at odds with clear and unambiguous wording that they border on the delusional.

The inescapable fact is that a BS 1363 socket is not required to pass any tests for temperature rise which involve a current of over 20A flowing in the cable connected to it. You may be happy to trust a judgement which says "I don't care if I have no guarantee that it will not overheat, I'm going to do it anyway", but I am not, and I am not happy to advise others to trust it.

Do I take it that you would not be happy to connect a "6A rated" ceiling rose, batten holder or switch (if involved in 'looping') to a 10A (or even 16A) lighting circuit?

I would not be happy to use an electrical accessory in a way in which I had no assurance that it would safely carry the currents involved.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Because he is guessing and dreaming up nonsense words to justify his guesswork.

I am not guessing, or dreaming anything up.

Nor have I written nonsense words, but I accept that you might think they are nonsense because of your limited comprehension.

Best to ignore him.

I would be delighted if you were to ignore me.

I'm sure that we all eagerly await the day when you ignore every singe thing posted on this site.

 

[EFLImpudence]

...but why have you just realised this?

The logical conclusion is that only one socket may be fitted to a circuit, ring or radial.

Patently ridiculous for a ring, for no other reason than a ring would not be required.

 

[JohnW2]

...but why have you just realised this? The logical conclusion is that only one socket may be fitted to a circuit, ring or radial. Patently ridiculous for a ring, for no other reason than a ring would not be required.

Exactly - and, I would say, "patently ridiculous" for other reasons as well.

He seems to be being selective in what he choose to take notice of. He appears to believe that multiple BS1363 sockets on a ring final (but not a 32A radial) is acceptable because the regs only require a minimum cable CCC of 20A and BS1363 "guarantees that the socket will not suffer harm" if no more than 20A is flowing in the attached cable(s).

What he is choosing to overlook is that BS7671 does not impose a 'limit' of 20A CCC and merely requires that the circuit be designed "so that it is not likely that any of the cable will be overloaded for long periods". For a start, as you have said, the CCC will commonly be 27A, so a ring final would often be compliant with at least that current flowing in any of its cable. Furthermore, "not likely" does not mean that it will/can never happen, so BS7671 is accepting that a higher current than the CCC (i.e. >27A in many cases) may sometimes flow and, in event, BS1363 tests give him no 'guarantee' that the socket will not be harmed by a current >20A in the connected cable "for short periods".

Even if an attempt is being made to get some sort Jobsworth Award, he's therefore not even being a particularly good Jobsworth.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

...but why have you just realised this?

The logical conclusion is that only one socket may be fitted to a circuit, ring or radial.

No - that is patently illogical.

Q - is a ring final, with a cable with a minimum Iz of 20A, allowed to carry significantly more than Iz for an appreciable time in any part?

With any circuit, is it allowed for the current to be significantly above the ccc of the cable for any appreciable time?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Even if an attempt is being made to get some sort Jobsworth Award, he's therefore not even being a particularly good Jobsworth.

I'm attempting to draw the logical conclusions from plain and unambiguously written requirements.

You are attempting to rubbish them because (it seems) this is another of the ever burgeoning list of requirements which you try to argue against simply because you do not like them.