13amp sockets on lighting circuits.

[JohnW2]

"Require"" (it was a typo). What you say is not relevant. A socket on a lighting circuit is permitted, if it makes design sense to do that, provided it is labeled.

The most important point is obviously your last sentence - a BS1363 socket on a lighting circuit is explicitly permitted by the regs. As for your first sentence, although I always do it (and would encourage others so to do) where is this 'requirement' for labelling?

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

One is responsible for finding out what the designed parameters are, Especially in a strange building. That is part of being a responsible and intelligent person. Deliberately abusing an electrical circuit can create all sorts of problems.

As I mentioned before I've spent a lifetime working in strange properties/on strange circuits.

Back in 1995 I provided lighting on an outdoor music stage, I'd asked for 32A but told there'd only be 16A, therefore I used a smaller light rig of 12x 500W, intending limiting to 4KW and adding an inline MI ammeter to monitor it, on arrival I found a 32A socket provided for me, I confirmed the capacity with the site temp guys and was told it was 32A. At that I realised I wouldn't need to restrict my useage to 16A and soon lost power. Yes I was on a 16A MCB actually a type 1.

That is the only time in the 50+ years of puplic entertainment in untold venues I've made that mistake including my day work.

Sure I've blown fuses/tripped MCB/RCD due to faults/mistakes but always stayed within OCD parameters and I make sure I check them and also very importantly what else is is on the circuit.

YOU ARE BEING RUDE AND INSULTING AGAIN.

Maybe... But... It is you, not me, who's PROOVED BEYOND ALL DOUBT by confessing to have overloaded perfectly valid circuits, not once, not twice but three thrice that you are not

intelligent enough to work within designed parameters.

 

[SUNRAY]

One is responsible for finding out what the designed parameters are, Especially in a strange building. That is part of being a responsible and intelligent person. Deliberately abusing an electrical circuit can create all sorts of problems.

As I mentioned before I've spent a lifetime working in strange properties/on strange circuits.

Back in 1995 I provided lighting on an outdoor music stage, I'd asked for 32A but told there'd only be 16A, therefore I used a smaller light rig of 12x 500W, intending limiting to 4KW and adding an inline MI ammeter to monitor it, on arrival I found a 32A socket provided for me, I confirmed the capacity with the site temp guys and was told it was 32A. At that I realised I wouldn't need to restrict my useage to 16A and soon lost power. Yes I was on a 16A MCB actually a type 1.

That is the only time in the 50+ years of puplic entertainment in untold venues I've made that mistake including my day work.

Sure I've blown fuses/tripped MCB/RCD due to faults/mistakes but always stayed within OCD parameters and I make sure I check them and also very importantly what else is is on the circuit.

YOU ARE BEING RUDE AND INSULTING AGAIN.

Maybe... But... It is you, not me, who's PROOVED BEYOND ALL DOUBT by confessing to have overloaded perfectly valid circuits, not once, not twice but three times that you are not

intelligent enough to work within designed parameters.

 

[JohnW2]

One is responsible for finding out what the designed parameters are, Especially in a strange building. That is part of being a responsible and intelligent person. Deliberately abusing an electrical circuit can create all sorts of problems.

Whilst, needless to say, I am totally with you in terms of virtually everything you say about winston and his opinions, this one is a bit different.

We are potentially talking about Joe Public who, no matter how intelligent he/she may be in general, may well assume that if they find a 13A socket, they can plug into it anything which is powered via a 13A plug. I accept that, although even this would be very rare, it's therefore not impossible that a third party Joe P would plug a high-power load into a socket they found in a loft. The reason I consider 'the practice' to be reasonable (although not totally ideal) is that (a) as above, it's very unlikely that anyone would do that in the first place and (b) even if they did, the chances of anyone coming to harm as a result would be extremely low - probably less of a risk than crossing a road or driving a few miles.

Having said all this, for purely practical reasons (not considerations of 'good/bad practice'), I do try to avoid having the lighting (or anything else electrical) in a loft/roofspace powered from the lighting circuit of the floor below. Whilst that is obviously usually the most convenient way to 'find electricity' for such a place, one of the fairly common things one does in a roofspace is work on the lighting circuit of the floor below, which obviously has to be de-energised whist one does that work.

Kind Regards, John

 

[BS3036]

The most important point is obviously your last sentence - a BS1363 socket on a lighting circuit is explicitly permitted by the regs. As for your first sentence, although I always do it (and would encourage others so to do) where is this 'requirement' for labelling?

You presumably meant the last phrase. I think I found the requirement a few days ago, but I have a migraine at the moment and can't go searching. I could of course be wrong, but I have to say that logically it's the minimum requirement to do this (or using you method which is equally satisfactory).

 

[SUNRAY]

Whilst, needless to say, I am totally with you in terms of virtually everything you say about winston and his opinions, this one is a bit different.

We are potentially talking about Joe Public who, no matter how intelligent he/she may be in general, may well assume that if they find a 13A socket, they can plug into it anything which is powered via a 13A plug. I accept that, although even this would be very rare, it's therefore not impossible that a third party Joe P would plug a high-power load into a socket they found in a loft. The reason I consider 'the practice' to be reasonable (although not totally ideal) is that (a) as above, it's very unlikely that anyone would do that in the first place and (b) even if they did, the chances of anyone coming to harm as a result would be extremely low - probably less of a risk than crossing a road or driving a few miles.

Having said all this, for purely practical reasons (not considerations of 'good/bad practice'), I do try to avoid having the lighting (or anything else electrical) in a loft/roofspace powered from the lighting circuit of the floor below. Whilst that is obviously usually the most convenient way to 'find electricity' for such a place, one of the fairly common things one does in a roofspace is work on the lighting circuit of the floor below, which obviously has to be de-energised whist one does that work.

Kind Regards, John

Some years ago I was in a hotel clearing out the equipment from a companies annual dinner/prizegiving and a group were escorted in to view for an upcoming event.

Alarm bells rang in our heads when they counted the 13A sockets and then started discussing who had what extention leads and double adapters.

This was for a hairdressing competition with plans for 80 stations/competitors. There were a little more than 20 double sockets across 3x 32A circuits and they were planning to use a double adapter in each socket and a domestic extention lead to each station.

We joined in the conversation and asked what was likely to be used - a 2KW hair dryer and hair straighteners/curling tongs each.

As I say it is their responsibility to investigate properly, that's what H&S RAMS are all about.

 

[winston1]

Maybe... But... It is you, not me, who's PROOVED BEYOND ALL DOUBT by confessing to have overloaded perfectly valid circuits, not once, not twice but three thrice that you are not

Don’t put words in my mouth. I never confessed to overloading any circuits. They were examples I was asked to look into. I looked into them and rewired the sockets to the ring finals they should have been wired to initially.

 

[winston1]

The most important point is obviously your last sentence - a BS1363 socket on a lighting circuit is explicitly permitted by the regs.

I know that and it is clearly wrong. How long it will be before it is changed I don’t know.

 

[SUNRAY]

I know that and it is clearly wrong. How long it will be before it is changed I don’t know.

It will never be changed as it does not create any problems.

 

[sparkwright]

If it is explicitly permitted by the regs, and all relevent safety measures are undertaken, it's not clearly wrong - is it?

 

[JohnW2]

You presumably meant the last phrase.

No, I meant wrote I wrote - (the first part of) the last sentence ("A socket on a lighting circuit is permitted ...") - which, as I said, is explicitly true. I deal with the last phrase of that lat sentence (about labelling, separately.

I think I found the requirement a few days ago, but I have a migraine at the moment and can't go searching. I could of course be wrong, but I have to say that logically it's the minimum requirement to do this (or using you method which is equally satisfactory).

I certainly don't recall having seen any such requirement stated explicitly in the regs - although one could probably argue that it is caught by some of the vague 'catch all' regs.

Kind Regards, \John

 

[JohnW2]

If it is explicitly permitted by the regs, and all relevent safety measures are undertaken, it's not clearly wrong - is it?

Of course it isn't ("clearly wrong") - there appears to be only one person around here who believes that it is!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

I know that and it is clearly wrong. How long it will be before it is changed I don’t know.

I assume you are not singling out the 13A socket for this?

 

[SUNRAY]

Don’t put words in my mouth. I never confessed to overloading any circuits. They were examples I was asked to look into. I looked into them and rewired the sockets to the ring finals they should have been wired to initially.

My apology for misunderstanding your posts.

 

[winston1]

If it is explicitly permitted by the regs, and all relevent safety measures are undertaken, it's not clearly wrong - is it?

Yes it is. Someone, somewhere has clearly not thought about it. Why would anyone with more than 2 brain cells explicitly permit an arrangement that can overload the circuit with one plugged in appliance?