I want to remove a 3 pin round lamp socket - how??

[JohnW2]

So when creating a spur from a spur, can you tell me where it is specified the maximum distance of wiring that may be allowed beween socket 1 and socket 2. Are you saying that 5cm is OK, but 10cm is not? ... In my book, and according to the regs, a spur cannot have another socket connected to it.

There is surely need for common sense. I think that all off-the-shelf double sockets are configured either with one socket technically 'a spur' from the other or, if the current path splits, as two separate single sockets. In either case, a pedantic view would presumably say that they could not be used on an unfused spur - which would make nonsense of the regs (well, an informative Appendix thereto), which indicate that a double socket on an unfused spur is acceptable!

I can but presume that the thinking behind Appendix 15 is that two 13A outlets on the same faceplate are 'unlikley' to be loaded to more than 20A (the minimum CCC allowed for ring final/spur cable) for 'long periods', whereas that may be less true of two 'separate' 13A sockets (even if in very close proximity).

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

So when creating a spur from a spur, can you tell me where it is specified the maximum distance of wiring that may be allowed beween socket 1 and socket 2. Are you saying that 5cm is OK, but 10cm is not?

I'm just saying that from the technical point of view, it makes no sense to say that you can put one of these at the end of a spur cable:

But that you can't use two of these next to each other in a grid with a few inches of wire linking them together:

In my book, and according to the regs, a spur cannot have another socket connected to it.

I agree that if we take "double socket" (assuming that's still the term used in BS7671?) to mean only "a unit manufactured as a single device containing two socket outlets," then by a strict application of the rule two single sockets as above would not be permitted.

I was just observing that you yourself, perhaps subconsciously, talked about linking two devices to "make it a double, rather than two singles" in the context of the two single devices being mounted right next to each other in the same box. If there is no specific definition of what is to be considered a double socket for the purpose of the rule, couldn't such a unit be considered to be a double socket?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Whilst I agree with TTC's interpretation, and also John's reasoning, it can be seen from the picture I posted the other day that double sockets are indeed connected in the same way as these proposed Twin single sockets, albeit with a piece of metal rather than a wire.

Another pointless regulation.

 

[eveares]

The 'link' would then be your new extension wiring, which would do away with having to join 2 cables in the back of the box with crimps or whatever.

Why would you need to join two cables with crimps anyway?, one should know that if each type of conductor is joined together then to keep them joined together; you would normal put both matching conductors in each respective terminal of the socket.

By linking the two sides together, your effectively turning it into a normal double socket what could then still feed multiple spurs from spurs using normal type sockets.

They would soon discover their error if they installed more than one. Even better if they had done every socket in the house.

True, but one could still end up spuring from spurs and simply link both sides of each socket together; educating DIY'ers on how ring final circuits work is what really needs to be done.

They would soon discover their error if they installed more than one. Even better if they had done every socket in the house.

True, but one could still end up spuring from spurs and simply link both sides of each socket together; educating DIY'ers on how ring final circuits work is what really needs to be done.

I have come across a customer-supplied double socket - can't recall the make - that had this "feature" of two separate sockets in the one enclosure. IIRC it was one of those triangular ones that goes on a kitchen worktop. It was a bloomin' nuisance.

As I was installing it (and linking the two halves to make it a double, rather than two singles) it broke the regs as the socket location was a spur. One half was a spur, and the second was therefore a spur from a spur.

I guess the regs are not expecting 26A to be drawn from a double socket but are from two single sockets, thus the reason why your allowed to have a double socket but not two single sockets.

 

[Echo the husky]

Why would you need to join two cables with crimps anyway?, one should know that if each type of conductor is joined together then to keep them joined together; you would normal put both matching conductors in each respective terminal of the socket.

I was referring to the comment BAS made about it being useful when extending ring finals. As you would have 4 T+E cables in the box. I would never do it the American pigtail way!

 

[Iggifer]

The 'link' would then be your new extension wiring, which would do away with having to join 2 cables in the back of the box with crimps or whatever.

Why would you need to join two cables with crimps anyway?, one should know that if each type of conductor is joined together then to keep them joined together; you would normal put both matching conductors in each respective terminal of the socket.

When extending a ring final, you have 2 existing cables, 2 new cables.

Remove one existing, crimp to new
Insert new into socket, terminate with existing.

So you have in the faceplate 1 x existing, 1 x new and crimped together 1 x existing, 1 x new.

Ring extended.

 

[PBC_1966]

I guess the regs are not expecting 26A to be drawn from a double socket but are from two single sockets, thus the reason why your allowed to have a double socket but not two single sockets.

There's the logic that if you have two single sockets separated by a wide distance (or especially in different rooms) that both might be fully loaded whereas a regular double socket is less likely to be (and at one time the regs. did allow two single sockets on a spur, with no stipulation as to where they may be located in relation to each other).

But when we're talking about two single sockets which are mounted right next to each other in the same box, can anyone really see that from the point of view of what somebody might plug into either or both of them, it's any different from just having an all-in-one double socket at the same location? And what exactly is a "double socket" for the purpose of this regulation? In the absence of something specifically defining it, I think a pretty good case could be made for saying that two modular single sockets fitted on a grid and mounted in the same box become a double socket. Or indeed two single sockets mounted together in any combined enclosure, for example:

 

[eveares]

When extending a ring final, you have 2 existing cables, 2 new cables.

Remove one existing, crimp to new
Insert new into socket, terminate with existing.

So you have in the faceplate 1 x existing, 1 x new and crimped together 1 x existing, 1 x new.

Ring extended.

I was referring specifically about why use crimps, but I guess it's because their maintenance free and cheap. You could use terminal blocks or wagos, but crimps will do. And when you said "The 'link' would then be your new extension wiring", I was thinking about a link bridging each side of the double sized single socket, not extending the RFC.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Crimps are not suitable for solid conductors.

 

[Echo the husky]

Crimps are not suitable for solid conductors.

It could be a load of 7/.029! I did say or whatever!

 

[Iggifer]

I was referring specifically about why use crimps, but I guess it's because their maintenance free and cheap. You could use terminal blocks or wagos, but crimps will do.

Aside from the fact that you 'shouldn't use crimps on solid cable' it's more to do with the fact that with that many cables in a backbox, you need all the space you can get. Good luck doing the same with Wagos. IMO crimps are better than either, but i'll undoubtedly get shot down for saying that

 

[Echo the husky]

Ah but if you had the superb 2 separately wired sockets in one double plate you wouldn't have to worry about any of this!

 

[eveares]

Crimps are not suitable for solid conductors.

Really!?, so when my house was wired, my electrician should not have of used crimps to extend 2.5mm² T&E to sockets because the cables were not long enough? That's a new one to me of not using crimps for solid cable.

Good luck doing the same with Wagos.

Then get a deeper back box...if possible of course.

 

[stillp]

I guess the regs are not expecting 26A to be drawn from a double socket but are from two single sockets, thus the reason why your allowed to have a double socket but not two single sockets.

There's the logic that if you have two single sockets separated by a wide distance (or especially in different rooms) that both might be fully loaded whereas a regular double socket is less likely to be (and at one time the regs. did allow two single sockets on a spur, with no stipulation as to where they may be located in relation to each other).

But when we're talking about two single sockets which are mounted right next to each other in the same box, can anyone really see that from the point of view of what somebody might plug into either or both of them, it's any different from just having an all-in-one double socket at the same location? And what exactly is a "double socket" for the purpose of this regulation? In the absence of something specifically defining it, I think a pretty good case could be made for saying that two modular single sockets fitted on a grid and mounted in the same box become a double socket. Or indeed two single sockets mounted together in any combined enclosure, for example:

View attachment 90940

Double socket-outlets are defined in BS 1363. Your pair of singles differs in that it isn't type-tested to BS 1363 as a dual socket-outlet.

 

[EFLImpudence]

From what has been said (over the years), that type-testing, surely, is satisfied with them being less good than two singles.