Planning Kitchen Wall Electrics - Is This Good? [PIC]

[deadshort]

It is not difficult.

For a experienced ,competent electrician, with good eye sight To be fair, judging by you're plastering - on you go !

DS

 

[EFLImpudence]

For a experienced ,competent electrician, with good eye sight To be fair, judging by you're plastering - on you go !

Just to point out for the OP - that was said in relation to two spurs from a socket on the ring.

In this case it doesn't apply as both legs of the ring will not be connected to the socket.

 

[JohnW2]

I think 'bypass' means 'go round' which technically would not comply.

If the word "bypass" was unqualified, I would certainly agree with you. However, as I wrote to secure, does not "bypasses the first socket within the back box " rather change things?

Furthermore, if (as the drawing seemed to imply) it did "go round" a single box, but remained within the vertical safe zone created by the double socket below, would it not be complaint?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ILikeDIYS]

I just drew it that way to avoid confusion with you guys thinking it was terminated in the back box socket... but introduced a different type of confusion with people thinking it goes around!

 

[JohnW2]

I just drew it that way to avoid confusion with you guys thinking it was terminated in the back box socket... but introduced a different type of confusion with people thinking it goes around!

That's what I rather assumed, and have been saying to people. You words seemed very clear to me, despite the drawing!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

If the word "bypass" was unqualified, I would certainly agree with you. However, as I wrote to secure, does not "bypasses the first socket within the back box " rather change things?

Ah. All settled.
It depended how you read it and which cable - "bypass" (a socket with cable within a back box) like this - plus diagram, of course.

Furthermore, if (as the drawing seemed to imply) it did "go round" a single box, but remained within the vertical safe zone created by the double socket below, would it not be complaint?

To be picky, how can it go round the socket and remain within the vertical - not to mention horizontal - zone?

To be less picky, if someone were to try and remove the backbox with chisel or drill, say to fit a double, how would they know the cable was there?
Also, it wouldn't be connected to that accessory, so cannot use the safe zone of the other cable.

I'm afraid there is no getting away from the fact that a ring with both legs in the same place is not good design.[/QUOTE]

 

[JohnW2]

To be picky, how can it go round the socket and remain within the vertical - not to mention horizontal - zone?

As I said, it could go round a single socket yet remain within the safe zone created by a double box below, couldn't it?

I'm afraid there is no getting away from the fact that a ring with both legs in the same place is not good design.

As I wrote before, unless one regards CPC redundancy as a high priority (despite 'balancing' downsides), it is very difficult to argue with that view.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

To be picky, how can it go round the socket and remain within the vertical - not to mention horizontal - zone?

The double socket below creates a wider safe zone.

To be less picky, if someone were to try and remove the backbox with chisel or drill, say to fit a double, how would they know the cable was there?

Doesn't that generally apply anyway. Regardless of the rules about safe zones, only a fool would assume that there cannot be a cable there and chop away blindly - especially in a kitchen with a higher density of cabling than other rooms.

One of the things "not quite right" in my Mum's new house is cables not in safe zones - but unfortunately it's a case of the cables were in (loop left sticking out of wall), all covered over, splashbacks fitted etc - and then the socket was needed a bit to one side leaving the cables outside the safe zone (by a good margin actually).
The developer has no clue - all he knows about electrics is that he's got a bit of paper with someone's signature on it.

 

[EFLImpudence]

The double socket below creates a wider safe zone.

Ah. Yes, it does. Thanks.

Doesn't that generally apply anyway. Regardless of the rules about safe zones, only a fool would assume that there cannot be a cable there and chop away blindly - especially in a kitchen with a higher density of cabling than other rooms.

Yes, true.
However, the logical conclusion of that is that the (so-called) safe zones are a waste of time.

 

[JohnW2]

To be less picky, if someone were to try and remove the backbox with chisel or drill, say to fit a double, how would they know the cable was there?

I didn't notice that bit before ....

... if they were chiselling/drilling within a safe zone created by a double socket lower down the wall, they should not be all that surprised if they drill/chisel through a cable, should they?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

No, Simon has pointed out that - I was not considering the double below.

 

[JohnW2]

However, the logical conclusion of that is that the (so-called) safe zones are a waste of time.

So long as a reasonable proportion of people respect them, they obviously help a bit, since the probability of hitting a cable is greater in a "safe zone". However, it is never going to be the case that one can drill/chisel/whatever with impunity in places which are not "safe zones", so their value is clearly limited.

I can only recall once having drilled through a cable in a wall, and that was miles from any "safe zone", and in a place where I had no reason to suspect a cable being present.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

No, Simon has pointed out that - I was not considering the double below.

To be fair to myself, I also "pointed it out", in the post before Simon's, but I guess you didn't notice that

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I missed that. Sorry.

 

[securespark]

No, Simon has pointed out that - I was not considering the double below.

Did I?

Ah, you mean H2......!