Fused spur question for 3Kw heater

Sponsored Links
The Rayrolle plug
1452075519_A-Belco-Easigo-Reyrolle-Rnge.jpg
came in two versions one fused and one not, fused plug with fit in either type socket, non fused would only fit in non fused socket, they were used a lot for 110 volt supplies as could have two fuses one for each phase or line used with 110 seen them used on 240 volt but not sure about fuse in neutral not such a good idea, the larger version had a switch built into socket and you turned plug to switch on and press red button to release.

But many immersion heaters used the old round pin 15 amp plug and socket on a radial either 15 or 16 amp so you could unplug so plumber could fit pre-wired unit but no fuse to get hot, but need a 15 or 16 amp radial or a fused connection unit supplying the socket, could not connect them to a ring final.

So select the biggest black plug you can find, which means greatest surface area to cool it and best colour to radiate heat.
 
Sponsored Links
Often those plugs suffer over-heating where the fuse clips are riveted to the plug's brass pin, but that one appears to have suffered heat damage from the fuse itself.
 
It does seem the 13 amp plug has been down graded, the necking of the live pins to put plastic sleeves on them has reduced the ability to transfer heat away from the fuse, black plugs are better than white, and clearly need to be in free air, the whole design of the ring final and 13 amp plug during the war was with the idea of powering heaters, so they should be OK, and with a thermostatic controlled oil filled radiator I have not had a problem, but 3 kW does seem today to be two much as a continuous rating. So as to if 20A switch or 13A fused spur depends what feeds it, from a ring final would need to be fused spur and with the down grading of cable from 7/0.029 (2.9 mm²) to 2.5 mm² one needs to be careful drawing over 2 kW from a ring final, OK near the centre but near the consumer unit can cause one leg to be over loaded.

The IET BS 7671 now warns of the problem with over 2 kW fixed appliances and suggests over 2 kW should have a dedicated supply, which we have done for years with the immersion heater, but do not tend to have done with tumble drier or washer drier, there has been a move to 2 kW for cloths drying, but it means the answer to your question in not cut and dried due to the down grading of the ring final.

Least we forget the ring final was designed during the war to assist with the rebuilding they realised would be required post war, and the shortage of copper. It does seem a FCU can dissipate the heat from the fuse better than a plug.

How exactly can you overload just one leg of a ring, when the ring is fed from two ways?
 
How exactly can you overload just one leg of a ring, when the ring is fed from two ways?
The regulation which 'dispensates' ring final circuits requires the cable only to have a minimum CCC of 20A.

If a load is right at the middle of a ring, the current will be shared equally between both 'arms' of the ring. However, as one moves the load away from the centre of a ring, then the proportion of the current going through the shorter arm gradually increases (because the impedance of that path is lower), and when one gets very close to one end of the ring, one approaches the situation in which virtually all of the current goes through that shorter arm.

So, if a 32A load were connected very close to one end of the ring, then there could be nearly 12A more going through the 'short arm' than the minimum required CCC of that cable (20A).

In practice, if one has Method C 2.5mm² (CCC=27A), one has to apply an entire 32A extremely close to the end of the ring to get any 'overload', and could never get an appreciable overload (5A being the absolute maximum)

Kind Regards, John
 
How exactly can you overload just one leg of a ring, when the ring is fed from two ways?

Quite easily.

If a majority of the load is plugged in at one end of the ring, then the current will take the shorter path to and from the consumer unit, due to the higher resistance of the longer leg. Standard practise is to consider how ring circuit might be loaded and lay it out to distribute the potential load as evenly as possible.

One way, where the ring circuit is all in a straight line along a wall, is to use 'alternate wiring' for sockets. Call the two runs out and back A and B, first socket along the wall connected to A, second socket connected to B, followed by A then B all the way to the far end.
 
One way, where the ring circuit is all in a straight line along a wall, is to use 'alternate wiring' for sockets. Call the two runs out and back A and B, first socket along the wall connected to A, second socket connected to B, followed by A then B all the way to the far end.
Do you see any advantage in that method over having a radial circuit?
 
One way, where the ring circuit is all in a straight line along a wall, is to use 'alternate wiring' for sockets. Call the two runs out and back A and B, first socket along the wall connected to A, second socket connected to B, followed by A then B all the way to the far end.
I'm not really sure how that would help anything. It remains the case that the theoretical risk of somewhat 'overloading' one arm of the ring will exist if something approaching 32A worth of loads is connected to sockets close (electrically) to one end of the ring, and that is regardless of where the sockets are physically located.

Indeed, if someone wanted to avoid that theoretical/hypothetical risk by avoiding plugging several large loads into sockets which were (electrically) close to one end of the ring, what you suggest would make life more difficult for them, because they could not so easily deduce which of the sockets were (electrically) close to (the same) one end of the ring!

Kind Regards, John.
 
Indeed, if someone wanted to avoid that theoretical/hypothetical risk by avoiding plugging several large loads into sockets which were (electrically) close to one end of the ring, what you suggest would make life more difficult for them, because they could not so easily deduce which of the sockets were (electrically) close to (the same) one end of the ring!

Where things need to be plugged in, is where things need to be plugged it - usually there is little choice as to which socket to use and certainly never considered by a user.

The other way to wire a long straight run of sockets on a wall, would be for each socket to be wired in turn, with the final socket at the far end - having a long run back to the consumer unit. Are you suggesting that might be a better way of laying out the circuit John?
 
I'm not really sure how that would help anything. It remains the case that the theoretical risk of somewhat 'overloading' one arm of the ring will exist if something approaching 32A worth of loads is connected to sockets close (electrically) to one end of the ring, and that is regardless of where the sockets are physically located.

Indeed, if someone wanted to avoid that theoretical/hypothetical risk by avoiding plugging several large loads into sockets which were (electrically) close to one end of the ring, what you suggest would make life more difficult for them, because they could not so easily deduce which of the sockets were (electrically) close to (the same) one end of the ring!

Kind Regards, John.
it's a good point.
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top