Well, some people will find fault with anything anyone else says or does. It so happens we wanted the freedom to plug in floor-standing lamps at flexible locations around the room, and use a single light switch to turn them all on at once when entering the room. We have not had cause to regret it.
13amp sockets on lighting circuits.
- Thread starter winston1
- Start date
Sponsored Links
You are out of context. FCUs are not needed on lighting circuits. I never said they were not needed on 32a rings.
Not necessarily, I'm finding new builds are installing those and of course all new table/floor lamps sold in UK come with 13A moulded plugs. I'm surprised that has a switch though the 2A & 5A versions it replaces didn't.
Are you addressing the same issue as I have raised recently - or are you, perhaps, still thinking about the avoidance of someone plugging in a vacuum cleaner?
As for the latter, yes, I agree (and have agreed) that clear labelling saying 'lighting only' is plenty adequate, but that's not what I've been talking about most recently. What about the person who plugs a light into the "lighting only" socket, switches the switch on that socket on and finds that the light doesn't work (because he/she did not know that there was still another switch somewhere which also had to be switched on for it to work)?
I merely said that, IF the change from 2/5A to 13A socket still left the socket controlled by a 'remote' light switch, then I think that a label more explicit than just "lighting only" would be helpful, don't you? You say ....
... and that will usually be true, but I don't think that's necessarily a reason for being against 'helpful labelling' - don't forget that when I suggested that, you didn't merely say something like "probably not necessary" but, rather, a fairly emphatic "No"!
I suppose I must be a prat, maybe even a total prat, since more than once in my life I have wasted vast amounts of time hunting for the reason why a socket or switch in a new/unfamiliar house was not doing what I expected!
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
Can I pinch your words too, in my case in work places & entertainment venues, village/church halls seem to be the worst especially those fitted with sound sentrys, finding the power switch for them is often impossible and we end up plugged into uncontrolled sockets - totally defeating the reason for installing them.
Same issue as you raised recently, not the vacuum cleaner.
My only concern with printing more than 'lighting only' on a single socket, and adding directions to nearest appropriate light switch, is that I wouldn't want to see too much writing on the socket.
It wouldn't look good, it wouldn't be simple, it would be like a mini essay, and it will get expensive at the engravers!
That said, I am all for clarity if it saves a return visit to explain how it all works.
In most houses, where you get to talk to the owners, I think printing 'lighting only' and explaining how it works would do.
Sunray has raised an excellent point about portable lamps having plugs already fitted, the waste in changing the plugs, and the interchangability of plugging the lamp in either the controlled lighting circuit points, or a regular 13amp socket if you wanted to.
Fair enough. However, particularly in this day and age, I think the "(150W max)" is probably unnecessary, so that's 9 characters of essay/engraving that could probably be eliminated. Something like "Remote switched lights only" would require only 3 characters more essay/engraving than does "Lighting only (150W max)". Even the "only" is really redundant, so "Remote switched lights" would actually be one character less than what you currently have. I would also suggest that it would probably be better, and maybe even easier to understand,if the socket did not have a switch.
It definitely would. Once someone has explained "how it works", it's simple enough for even one of the prats to understand. However, whenever I have gone into, or moved into, a house where there were difficulties in understanding how some of the electrical; installation worked, there has never been 'a sparkwright' to hand to 'explain' to me
Sure, that's the reason for having 13A sockets (on a lighting circuit) in relation to 'plug-in lamps', just as wallwarts are the usual reason for having them (on lighting circuits, for convenience) in lofts. In neither case do I have any problem with the practice, given reasonable labelling.
Kind Regards, John
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 23,696
- Reaction score
- 2,670
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
In commercial premises it was common to have red, yellow, blue round stickers to show which phase or DB2 etc marked on sockets, but in domestic most house holders don't want little stickers on their sockets.
Seem to remember under 17th edition BS7671:2008 you could have sockets without RCD protection if marked as for some special equipment, i.e. freezer, so there was a time when to comply sockets were labelled.
Today it seems the idea of not having anything not RCD protected has gone, my home every circuit has its own RCBO, however no one expects home owners to update to latest edition of BS7671 each time a new version is released, so we need to consider each home independently and decide what is appropriate for that home.
It is easy to make errors, I remember some one had fitted emergency lights around a factory, however they had installed a new circuit to power them, so when there was a power cut yes they worked, but if a lighting MCB tripped they did not. I know why it was done, it allowed the lights to be tested without turning off main lights.
But as to using an over sized outlet for the supply, this is common, socket outlets seem to go 2, 5, 6, 10, 13, 15, 16, 32, 63, 128 amp and it is common to use a 32 amp outlet for a 20 amp supply to a bit of equipment. I see nothing wrong with using plugs and sockets in this way, better for a 32 amp to be used than 16 amp to supply 20 amp.
The only difference is danger from loosing lights, but until a rule is made banning the use of same RCD for sockets and lights there is no point saying should not fit a 13 amp socket to lighting circuits.
Seem to remember under 17th edition BS7671:2008 you could have sockets without RCD protection if marked as for some special equipment, i.e. freezer, so there was a time when to comply sockets were labelled.
Today it seems the idea of not having anything not RCD protected has gone, my home every circuit has its own RCBO, however no one expects home owners to update to latest edition of BS7671 each time a new version is released, so we need to consider each home independently and decide what is appropriate for that home.
It is easy to make errors, I remember some one had fitted emergency lights around a factory, however they had installed a new circuit to power them, so when there was a power cut yes they worked, but if a lighting MCB tripped they did not. I know why it was done, it allowed the lights to be tested without turning off main lights.
But as to using an over sized outlet for the supply, this is common, socket outlets seem to go 2, 5, 6, 10, 13, 15, 16, 32, 63, 128 amp and it is common to use a 32 amp outlet for a 20 amp supply to a bit of equipment. I see nothing wrong with using plugs and sockets in this way, better for a 32 amp to be used than 16 amp to supply 20 amp.
The only difference is danger from loosing lights, but until a rule is made banning the use of same RCD for sockets and lights there is no point saying should not fit a 13 amp socket to lighting circuits.
Several years ago we requested a 40A 3ph supply for a control panel, normally these run directly into the panel to an internal isolator.
The sparks installed the cable as requested and seen by the boss. When the installers arrived a 63A isolator and socket had been added.
As Eric says; what socket is to be used for a 40A supply?
As it happens we didn't want it and it was a PITA as the cable was now too short to terminate in the panel and there was not space for the isolator and the panel.
Not in terms of undertaking electrical work - since the only (implicit) 'requirement' is that the person has the knowledge to enable him/her to certify compliance with current regs. However, for those undertaking EICRs, it is probably important knowledge to have, since it can influence one's judgement about the coding of non-conformities (with current regs) - they may well take a different view of a non-conformity which would have been compliant with previous regs (maybe even only 'last year' in some cases) in comparison with something that would not have been compliant with regs for decades.
There seem to be two main aspects of "modernization", both of which are seen throughout life (not just electrical regulations!)...
... firstly, attitudes to the 'acceptability of risks' changes over time, in all walks of life. Many risks that were 'fully accepted' in my youth would, rightly or wrong in individual cases, be regarded as 'unthinkable' today. Attitudes to that vary considerably, dependent on the extent to which one believes that individuals must be as 'protected as possible' by what one would call a 'Nanny State'.
Secondly, particularly in terms of electrical regs, there is at least an accusation by some that some of the new 'requirements' come into being because of what becomes 'technologically possible' (and there is clearly scope for pressures from those with 'vested interests' here), not because there is really a pressing and justifiable 'need'. It's difficult enough to be certain that even the introduction of RCDs has had a significant (and 'cost effective') beneficial effect, but SPDs and AFDDs (and non-combustible domestic CUs!) have taken this to a whole new level. Maybe the passage of time will prove me wrong, but I currently find it hard to believe that (if I were doing EICRs) I would ever come to feel that the absence of either of those devices in a domestic installation represents a "potential danger which requires urgent remedial action" (i.e. an EICR C2).
When one tries to take a reasonable/sensible approach to risk minimisation, there will always be those who produce the "one death is one death too many" argument, but there is a limit to how far that can (or, in my opinion, should) be taken. In terms of the tightening of electrical regs in recent decades, and undoubtedly into the future, in the name of 'improved safety' (particularly as they apply to domestic environments), I would merely observe that if, decades ago, there had been, say, 2 or 3 deaths per month on UK roads, I feel sure that it would not have been considered appropriate to spend much of the 'billions' that has been spent over the years/decades in the name of 'road safety'.
Kind Regards, John
I recall many electrical devices in my infancy which thinking back were just about as lethal as could be:
And the earlier versions of these
Were also a spiral element (This version looks like it's enclosed in a quartz? tube) with much bigger gaps in the grill and these were often installed in bathrooms! Ours was and on the lighting circuit operated by a 2G switch outside the door and it was 1KW. It was there when we moved in 1961 and regularly used, we removed it mid 90's after parents passing and I cut the element into 4 to use as 16Ω elements in an audio dummy load.
Oh yes I'm very pleased the safety of such equipment has been improved.
Let's not forget the early electric toasters:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/30311125...7aIC2ZgibSyIC4pG-T8p5fdT8-St-uyRoCUpMQAvD_BwE
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/30311125...7aIC2ZgibSyIC4pG-T8p5fdT8-St-uyRoCUpMQAvD_BwE
Links in this post may contain affiliate links for which DIYnot may be compensated.
Same here - and, of course, they were 'fully accepted' (and, in the vast majority of cases, treated with the respect they deserved and so, at least electrically, fairly 'safe' in use).
Sure, at the extremes it's easy to say (and feel) things like that (although one still has to wonder how many people actually did come to harm {electrically} as a result of such equipment!). However, there are countless examples which are far less 'obvious' (and much more questionable'), many of which a lot of people would regard as 'verging on the ridiculous', particularly when " 'elf and safety " is (quite often unfairly) 'blamed'!
Kind Regards, John
Not electric but just as hot; we used to set fire to stuff in the living room.
I do not recall ever seeing a warning label. We just seemed to know not to touch it.
I do not recall ever seeing a warning label. We just seemed to know not to touch it.
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
