17th Edition for extra sockets.

[GaryMo]

The rules are that "where a socket might generally be available to be used externally via a extension lead"

where is this wording from?

Think it's a twist on the 'reasonably expected' wording.
Depends how far you want to take it, afterall an extension lead can be thrown out of a first floor window.....

 

[JohnD]

but is it an "official" wording? "Reasonably Expected" does not convey the same meaning as Chri5's words.

 

[GaryMo]

but is it an "official" wording? "Reasonably Expected" does not convey the same meaning as Chri5's words.

By no means official John, I'm just guessing at where Chris is coming from.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes, but he didn't say "I think that..", or "I believe good practice to be.., he said "The rules are...", and put where a socket might generally be available to be used externally via a extension lead in quotes.

So all in all it looks as though he is actually quoting from some actual rules....

 

[GaryMo]

Come on Chris, clarification needed!

 

[Taylortwocities]

I'll also take issue with your statement, Chris. Your post implies that you could plug in a lawn mower with a long lead without an RCD.
And that an RCD is only needed if an extension lead is used.. that is absolutely not what is stated in the regs.

Sorry, but I have to pull you up on your other suggestion:

Could you not protect the whole ring by providing a RCD carrier adjacent to the CU with tails to a henly block?

If you mean, protect the whole installation with a 30mA RCD then you cannot do that as you would then create a single point of failure.
Yes, you could bring the whole of the ring final through an external RCD but you would not need Henleys for that..

 

[GaryMo]

I'm taking what he says as meaning no socket is out of range from an extension lead and that it needs RCD protection due to 'reasonably expected', not just those by external doors, windows etc.

Then again, only Chris can clarify......

 

[Chri5]

Taken from inside my head, based on what the NIC training chaps mentioned when doing my Part P and when doing my BS7671:2008

Guys, sorry if my wording was incorrect (as in maybe I shouldn't use the word rules or make a statement which is MY interpretation rather than a direct quote from a rule book).

I didn't really feel it necessary to search through books and manuals to quote precise wording- I had kind of hoped you'd know what I meant. Even if my syntax was slightly erroneous

 

[SeanT]

If we're still talking 17th then the socket would still need RCD protection unless its for a dedicated appliance, for example, a freezer and marked accordingly.

So I could make my entire (non RCD protected) ring main compliant with the 17th regs using a dymo machine and a little imagination? ("hoover", "TV", "kettle", "baby monitor", etc.)?

 

[GaryMo]

If we're still talking 17th then the socket would still need RCD protection unless its for a dedicated appliance, for example, a freezer and marked accordingly.

So I could make my entire (non RCD protected) ring main compliant with the 17th regs using a dymo machine and a little imagination? ("hoover", "TV", "kettle", "baby monitor", etc.)?

No!

 

[SeanT]

Lol, thought as much

 

[karlpeg]

So the outcome is what then. Put in an RCD Socket or take out the ring and put in a seperate rcd unit back at the CU.

 

[GaryMo]

By fitting an RCD socket you'll still have to consider the cable feeding it which may in itself need RCD protection.

I personally think the best way would be to look at putting the whole ring final on an RCD / RCBO.

 

[karlpeg]

Many thanks for that.

 

[GaryMo]

Karl, that was based on future 17th edition thinking.
If you're still looking for a 16th edition answer then look at the first reply in this topic.