Splitting lighting circuit from one bulb to three?

[DizzieB]

Hello!

I want to change a light fitting in my lounge from a single bulb on a pendant to three bulbs clustered together. Each of the bulbs will be attached to its own ceiling rose, but they will be close together.
I need to spilt the circuit somehow, so I can get current to the three bulbs, rather than one.
A) what's the safe way to do this?
B) is it something I should be messing with myself, or do I need an electrician?

Thanks!

 

[flyingsparks]

The ceiling rose will have a connector inside where you connect your L, N, E, all the wiring to the three lamps is integral to the fitting and you don't need to worry about that!

 

[DizzieB]

Ah, I'm using three separate ceiling roses for the three bulbs, and they'll be right next to each other. So I'm not getting a ready-made 3 light ceiling rose. How do I do it if I've not got a bought 3 light rose?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Connect the 3 together.

//www.diynot.com/wiki/electrics:lighting

 

[riveralt]

I assume you want the three ceiling roses to operate from one switch.
Just remember that you will need to link the first to the second and the second to third via the switch live, neutral and earth cables.

 

[DizzieB]

Great, thanks for the tips, the article on linking lights in parallel was what I was looking for.

 

[riveralt]

Great, thanks for the tips, the article on linking lights in parallel was what I was looking for.

It was that I was referring to.
The diagram at the top of the page is in actual fact the 2nd and 3rd ceiling rose in your set up.
For the first ceiling rose in your proposed installation the statement regarding 'cable from supply' is actually 'cable from supply via switch'.
I know this seems pedantic but there is a difference when you are linking ceiling roses via the switch supply (which is what you are doing) rather than the live/neutral/earth loops.

 

[JohnW2]

[The diagram at the top of the page is in actual fact the 2nd and 3rd ceiling rose in your set up. For the first ceiling rose in your proposed installation the statement regarding 'cable from supply' is actually 'cable from supply via switch'. I know this seems pedantic but there is a difference when you are linking ceiling roses via the switch supply (which is what you are doing) rather than the live/neutral/earth loops.

There is one (small) practical issue, due to the fact that terminals in roses are small and that there are usually only two 'holes' in the block for the switched live. For the first of the OP's three roses, there will be a need to put three conductors into thye switched-live block, so some effort/care may need to be taken to get two conductors satisfactorily into one of the holes. The same issue arises with the 2nd (but not third) rose - but in this case one could, if one wanted, use the terminal block intended for the permanent live ('loop'), which will usually have at least 3 'holes'.

For the electricians: I suppose there would be some merit in connecting the three roses using 3C+E (including a permanent live), so as to facilite subsequent 'looping' to further lights from any of the three roses.

Kind Regards, John

 

[riveralt]

For the first of the OP's three roses, there will be a need to put three conductors into thye switched-live block, so some effort/care may need to be taken to get two conductors satisfactorily into one of the holes. The same issue arises with the 2nd (but not third) rose -

You are kidding aren't you?

For the electricians: I suppose there would be some merit in connecting the three roses using 3C+E (including a permanent live), so as to facilite subsequent 'looping' to further lights from any of the three roses.

Why on earth would you do that for this installation where the OP has said that the three ceiling roses were 'clustered' together.

 

[JohnW2]

You are kidding aren't you?

Nope. Maybe you haven't, but I've come across ceiling roses with very low 'terminal capacity', presumably only intended for a single conductor.

For the electricians: I suppose there would be some merit in connecting the three roses using 3C+E (including a permanent live), so as to facilite subsequent 'looping' to further lights from any of the three roses.

Why on earth would you do that for this installation where the OP has said that the three ceiling roses were 'clustered' together.

So that any subsequent extension to the circuit could be achieved without having to try to cram a 5th (6th if you include the pendant flex) cable into the '1st' rose?

Kind Regards, John

 

[riveralt]

You are kidding aren't you?

Nope. Maybe you haven't, but I've come across ceiling roses with very low 'terminal capacity', presumably only intended for a single conductor.

You should change your supplier then.

So that any subsequent extension to the circuit could be achieved without having to try to cram a 5th (6th if you include the pendant flex) cable into the '1st' rose?

Why on earth would you do that?
Extend the circuit from the central loop like everyone else.

 

[JohnW2]

So that any subsequent extension to the circuit could be achieved without having to try to cram a 5th (6th if you include the pendant flex) cable into the '1st' rose?

Why on earth would you do that? Extend the circuit from the central loop like everyone else.

What do you mean by 'the central loop'? If one wanted to extend the lighting circuit to a location such that this cluster of three roses was the most obvious/convenient place to extend from, that extension would have to originate from the first of the three roses (which will probably already have 4 cables plus pendant, if it's a loop-in-at-rose system), since that's the only one of the three which would have a permanent live.

Are you saying that, even if one wanted to extend the circuit for another (separately switched) light in the same room, one should extend it from a rose in some other room ('the central loop'?), rather than from one of those which was conveniently at hand in the same room? If so, that sounds like a rather odd thing to suggest! I suppose I must be missing something.

Kind Regards, John

 

[riveralt]

I suppose I must be missing something.

Indeed you are.

 

[JohnW2]

I suppose I must be missing something.

Indeed you are.

Is it a secret, or are you going to help me to understand? You could perhaps start by explaining what you mean by 'the central loop'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[riveralt]

Is it a secret, or are you going to help me to understand? You could perhaps start by explaining what you mean by 'the central loop'

//www.diynot.com/wiki/_detail/...gif?id=electrics:lighting:single_way_lighting
See the bit in the centre marked 'loop'
This is very basic stuff here!