Ring extension

paddyfitz · Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:38 am Post Subject: Ring extension

Can a ring be extended from an exsisting socket.I mean can one old and one new end of the cables be connected at the terminals then extend the ring and return to that socket and connect the other ends with 30 amp block connector so closeing the ring.I want to do this to cut down on mess but is this type of connection OK?

[Edited by paddyfitz on 04-09-2002 at 12:40 PM GMT]

Guest · Location: United Kingdom Thanked: 0 times

Should be OK if you make sure the connector strip is protected from prying fingers etc. You could put a new cavity box (or plaster box depending one your wall) beside the existing socket, put the connector strip inside the new box closing the ring, and finish it off with a blanking plate.

teecee90 · Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2004 5:39 pm Post Subject:

Rather than use a block connector is it ok to use crimp connectors to save space inside the socket box?

Big_Spark · Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2004 7:03 pm Post Subject:

Insulated crimps are the only acceptable method for doing this in the way you describe. However niether is truly ideal.

You would be much better of breaking into the ring under the floor and making the connections using two 30 A 3 terminal Junction boxes.

__________________
I only do commercial and Industrial so Prescott can shove his Part P tax

il78 · Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2004 9:36 pm Post Subject:

JB's under the floor!.......I am suprised FWL.......

Scoby_Beasley · Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2004 9:41 pm Post Subject:

I always believed j/b's should be accessible in case of problems

__________________
Scoby

Here for a good time,
Not a long one.

Big_Spark · Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2004 10:20 pm Post Subject:

Well if you gentlemen know of a way to solve this common dilemna without rewiring half the ring to avoid joints, I and the entire contracting industry are all ears.

So long as the JB is checked to ensure proper connection, and you test it first, before closing the floor up, and the JB is marked as to what it is, then what, pray tell, is the problem?

__________________
I only do commercial and Industrial so Prescott can shove his Part P tax

il78 · Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2004 11:05 pm Post Subject:

You cant be doin that......

Work to BS7671 when it suits.....after reading all your other posts you seem strict to stick to them...but not now?

securespark · Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 12:21 am Post Subject:

I'm with JWL here.

The JB is accessible. all you have to do is lift carpet & short board - can always label board (JB UNDER HERE!!!!!!)

You can't always put them above board (ha,ha!!!!)

Big_Spark · Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 12:44 am Post Subject:

Where else do you do the joint so it will not be disturbed?

Using the appropriate Junction Box to create a joint in a cable underneath a floor is more in breach of 7671 than bonding bathroom pipes.

In an ideal world all joints would be readily accessible for future inspection, however we do not live in the real world.

I will agree that all steps should be taken to avoid jointing any cable, alternatives are always preferable, but there are times when this is simply not a practical option.

Regulation 526-03-02(i) states:

A suitable accessory complying with appropriate British Standards.

A Junction box will comply with BSi requirements or it would not be for sale.

Regulation 526-04-01 states:

Except for the following, every connection and joint shall be accessible for inspection, testing and maintenance.

It does not say you cannot put a joint beneath floorboards. I accept that accessibility may be an issue, but it is not as if you are sealing the joint for eternity.

The Regulations are a GUIDE that must be adhered to, however they MUST not be read literally in such a way as to create unecessary work or situations were people may be tempted to take short cuts around a problem due to adherance to a strict and unbending regulation that has been too literally interpreted.

If the Regulations clarified what they mean by "accessible" then perhaps this conversation would be a moot point, but as usual they are a clear as mud.

The Regulations must be used in a practical manner in the real world, complying with ever part to as high a degree as is practical in that situation, if they are too inflexible for this, then they will be ignored completely, then we have a serious problem.

__________________
I only do commercial and Industrial so Prescott can shove his Part P tax

il78 · Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:51 am Post Subject:

I was only waiting for you to turn round and say "crimp it then".... I agree with you, and have, and still will use JBs (within reason) under floors.

But as I said above, you seem strict to stick to the regs and the remark seemed to be out of the blue.....

Big_Spark · Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:02 am Post Subject:

iL, I take your point, it is an unhappy marriage between the Regs and reality, I hope that it is one they tackle too. All sparks need this clarified one way or the other.

__________________
I only do commercial and Industrial so Prescott can shove his Part P tax

teecee90 · Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 7:21 am Post Subject:

Hang on - crimping it an existing socket box is surely more acessible than junction boxes under the floor, so why is it less desirable?

Is crimping against the regs?

Big_Spark · Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:27 am Post Subject:

It's not "against the Regs" but it is not seen as good practice as the joints are capable of being disturbed, but also there is the guarantee you have a good joint.

__________________
I only do commercial and Industrial so Prescott can shove his Part P tax

teecee90 · Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 12:26 pm Post Subject:

Thanks for the response.

If I put in a 13A fused spur instead, presumably it doesn't matter if I have more than one double socket on the spur?