Adding extra double sockets to my kitchen 'ring'

[sjw64]

Hi

I have probably the simplist kitchen 'ring' and want to add a couple of double sockets to it. Below is my Van Gogh picture effort to show what I have. Its pretty simple, one cable comes out of the fuse box, runs along the wall under the kitchen units and terminates inside a double socket.

So, can I add some more sockets (max 3) that will be running usual kitchen appliances.

Thanks

Picture Title

• sjw64
• 22 Apr 2014
• 1

 

[AndyPRK]

thats not a ring as its only one cable.

what size breaker/fuse controls the kitchen sockets ?

 

[sjw64]

Thanks

I used the term 'ring' as I dont know what a ringless ring is!

Anyway, Ive upped a photo of my fuse box. The bit about kitchen ringless ring says:

MCB
B16
61/B16

If that helps

Untitled

• sjw64
• 22 Apr 2014
• 1

 

[Greenie9657]

Hi

Can you get a cable from the kitchen back to the CU under the units? If you can it would be worth doing therefore making a "ring" with 2.5mm (squared, not sure how to do the small 2) cable. Use a 32A MCB then add as many sockets as you want.

 

[ekmdgrf]

Thanks

I used the term 'ring' as I dont know what a ringless ring is!

It's called (somewhat inaccurately imho) a radial final circuit.

You can add extra sockets to it, if you wish. I would have a think about what you plan to plug in as kitchen loads (toaster, kettle, fryer, steamer, etc), can add up to some considerable current draw. Also add consideration to what you're going to use at the same time. It might be likely for example, that you'll be boiling the kettle while making toast. It's less likely that the fryer will be running at the same time, unless you're in the habit of having chips on toast for breakfast.

 

[AndyPRK]

Yes you can add sockets to your existing radial circuit.

Although you could soon run into problems if operating 2 juicy appliances at the same time e.g washing machine and kettle.

Therefore it would be best to form a ring if possible with the end socket returning to the cu

 

[JohnW2]

It's called (somewhat inaccurately imho) a radial final circuit.

I know what you mean, but the primary cable(s) of a radial circuit do 'radiate' from a central point. Would you be happier if it were called 'linear' or something like that?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ekmdgrf]

It's called (somewhat inaccurately imho) a radial final circuit.

I know what you mean, but the primary cable(s) of a radial circuit do 'radiate' from a central point. Would you be happier if it were called 'linear' or something like that?

That's a good question. In computer networking both topologies are used, connecting all the nodes to a central point (called star) and connecting the nodes in a daisy chain (called a bus). I'm not entirely sure that's a great fitting name either, although the bus does go from node to node and it does tend to break down, kicking everyone off half way along, as well as suffering from collisions.

Maybe a ring circuit and a chain circuit?

 

[JohnW2]

That's a good question. ... Maybe a ring circuit and a chain circuit?

I suppose the problem (both in computer networks and electrical wiring), almost any word we can think of (radial, linear, chain) tends to become less obviously appropriate when there are branches. Of those three I've mentioned, I suppose that 'radial' is, in fact, the one which would sounds most right if (as is possible) what one had was what you would call a 'star' configuration, with two or more 'arms' radiating from the CU.

Maybe we should just use 'ring final' for rings, and call everything else ('stars', branching circuits etc.) just 'a final circuit' After all, that's really the only distinction which is of any particular importance.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ekmdgrf]

I thought about open circuit and non-ring circuit. Then I came up with non-returning circuit, which is the best I've found so far.

 

[phatboy]

You could run extra sockets from that one, but with a maximum breaker size of 20amps. Or you could run more sockets, and from the final one return a 2.5mm cable back to the consumer unit, then you should be able to use a 32a breaker (MCB).

But for the latter I would probably get an electrician to do it.

 

[JohnW2]

I thought about open circuit and non-ring circuit. Then I came up with non-returning circuit, which is the best I've found so far.

'Open circuit' would be too confusing and 'non-ring circuit' is similar to my "just 'circuit'" - but I agree that 'non-returning' would precisely convey what actually matters. However, neither you nor I are going to change the established terminology/jargon!

Kind Regards, John