switched socket ring?

[unclebob1]

Good Morning All,

Is anyone aware of UK three pin sockets that can be switched on a separate ring?

I'm looking to do something similar to what hotel rooms have- you remove a key card and SOME sockets/Lights turn off, but some are left on.

Ideally, I'd want to have one ring with switchable socket face, so that i can change which sockets stay on and turn off as and when without re-wiring them.

So maybe a dip switch in the back which can be used. It will be used as part of a refurbish so happy to run wiring differently/additional cabling if required.

Did a search but either I'm using the wrong key words or its not there for me to find!

Any ideas? or can someone point me in the right direction?
For info (not that it should make a difference but some people are a bit funny about giving out info to non trade people - I'm C&G level 2 trained, but not part p registered - though am competent and will be doing it to my own property!)

 

[bernardgreen]

They are not special sockets, they are just ordinary sockets but wired on a ring or radial unique to the room which is controlled by the card.

From my limited experience each room has its own mini CU with an MCB for lights and an MCB for sockets. The card operates a contactor ( or solid state switch ) in the feed to the mini CU.

Then there are sockets which are not controlled by the card for items such as the mini bar which have to have power even when the card is removed. These made be fed from an MCB in the mini CU but one that is before the card controlled switch. Or they may be on a ring serving several rooms.

 

[stem]

Hotels have separate circuits, the keycard switch near the door switches a solenoid operated contactor that does the switching. This is because the Keycard switch is small and has the few milliamp capacity enough to operate the contactor. This the contactor has several isolated contacts that can switch separate circuits lights, power, A/C etc. Other sockets are wired separately to be permanently on. Mini bar, clock radio etc.,

Ideally, I'd want to have one ring with switchable socket face, so that i can change which sockets stay on and turn off as and when without re-wiring them.

I don't think this is possible. [If I understand what you want to do correctly, to me it's like having one car and wanting to travel to Scotland and Cornwall at the same time!] One ring is either on or off. You need two separate circuits. Even if the socket has a switch (a dip switch is for tiny currents as found in electronic circuits not potentially 13A) it would still need to switch between a supply that is permanently on and one that is switched.

The only solution I can think of without making wiring modifications is for you to use sockets that are RF controlled. If you don't want to use the plug in type, there are sockets that look like erm.... sockets. Use them as replacements for the sockets you wish to switch. But you would physically have to swap them around when you wanted to change them from switched to non switched. An example can be found here. RF Socket

 

[unclebob1]

I was aware hotel rooms use seperate rings, was hoping that i could do the switching locally rather then on a seperate cu. I guess the alternative is to run 4 core and swap the two live feeds between the CU's as required?

Eg if using it as a switched source, the live is connected to the wire from the mini cu, and if using it as a permanent live, then wired to the wire coming from the main cu.

 

[unclebob1]

Thanks Stem,
Think the RF ones may be the way forward for my use, I can see plenty of these that you can plug into the standard socket, but not many as a direct face replacement! Still, i guess that's the way forward for me, or to run an extra live core to each socket as a switched source and perm live source.

 

[JohnW2]

I was awake hotel rooms use seperate rings, was hoping that i could do the switching locally rather then on a seperate cu. I guess the alternative is to run 4 core and swap the two live feeds between the CU's as required? Eg if using it as a switched source, the live is connected to the wire from the mini cu, and if using it as a permanent live, then wired to the wire coming from the main cu.

I don't think you would find any 3-core T&E cable (and you certainly wouldn't find 4-core T&E) man enough, unless you seriously restricted the total current available for the socket circuits - and using 3-core would mean a common neiutral for both circuits, which would raise all sorts of issues.

I'm sure that many other people are as intrigued as I am to have some insight into why on earth you want not only this 'dual socket' arrangement but why you seem to actually want to be able to easily modify which socket is on which circuit. Is there anything you can tell us about your reasons/ideas?

Kind Regards, John

 

[unclebob1]

Its more energy saving then anything else...

Looking to refurb my house over the next year, and i was looking to install a similar setup in terms of power to turn off "standby" devices, but there are other things that i would rather leave on all the time - such as Sky, cordless telephone, bb router etc.

In terms of being interchangeable - if devices change in the future, layout changes etc, i didn't want to have to change wiring or find i don't have enough of one type and too many of the other etc.

To be honest i think the LightwaveRF seems ideal for my use! I'll be emailing for more info but based on description on its website, seems to be suitable for my needs!

 

[dhutch]

I dont know how it would work in terms of what you are/arnt allowed to do, but if i was doing it of the top of my head, i would wire the sockets radially back to a array of dpdt switchs, which would allow you to toggle each socket between the two circuits, one of 'hard power' (lighting and rigging term) , and one from the switched feed (or even, a dimmer pack!). DMX control anyone?


Daniel

 

[JohnW2]

Its more energy saving then anything else... Looking to refurb my house over the next year, and i was looking to install a similar setup in terms of power to turn off "standby" devices, but there are other things that i would rather leave on all the time - such as Sky, cordless telephone, bb router etc.

Nothing wrong with having two separate circuits like that, with one 'switchable'. In fact, I have variants (more than two circuits) of that very arrangement in both my office and workshop.

In terms of being interchangeable - if devices change in the future, layout changes etc, i didn't want to have to change wiring or find i don't have enough of one type and too many of the other etc.

Fair enough - but there's a limit to how far one can reasonably go in trying to make provisions for an unknown future. Having plenty of sockets of both 'types' would obviously be a start. Also routing cables (and allowing slack) in a manner such as to facilitate any future modifications.

To be honest i think the LightwaveRF seems ideal for my use! I'll be emailing for more info but based on description on its website, seems to be suitable for my needs!

That sounds like a very expensive option to me - maybe expensive enough to cancel any 'energy savings'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[unclebob1]

In terms of cost yep, it is a big jump, esp if looking at more then one room.

Will have to do a bit more head scratching with this one i guess, cheapest and cleanest method would probably be two rings - one switched and one permanent i guess!

Or hope that a cheaper/more affordable version of the lightwaveRF comes into existence!

I was hoping that something using dip switches to flick over a relay of some sort etc would be available but guess there's a lot more involved behind then I'm seeing in my mind!

Cheers for the help/info people!

 

[JohnW2]

In terms of cost yep, it is a big jump, esp if looking at more then one room.

Indeed, and almost certainly resulting in cost increases, rather than cost savings, over any reasonable period of time.

Will have to do a bit more head scratching with this one i guess, cheapest and cleanest method would probably be two rings - one switched and one permanent i guess!

Yep, that's the simplest and most obvious - and, as I said, with a bit of forethought you could go a long way to making any future chages fairly easy, should you ever require them.

Or hope that a cheaper/more affordable version of the lightwaveRF comes into existence!

I wouldn't advise you to hold your breath!

I was hoping that something using dip switches to flick over a relay of some sort etc would be available but guess there's a lot more involved behind then I'm seeing in my mind!

What you're suggesting would be theoretically do-able - but very complicated (hence many things to go wrong) and, again, expensive - and IMO, way OTT as a means of avoiding the possible need for wiring modifications, maybe many years into the future!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Chri5]

Could you not wire a 4mm radial circuit to say an 8 way grid box, then have 8 dp 20 amp switches and run 8 feeds to 8 sockets and simply switch on off at the grid.

Grid plates come in all sizes 2 port to 24+

If you happy with a 20 amp circuit, do the same thing in 2.5mm ?

 

[unclebob1]

Would this not become a bit unmanageable when looking at a whole house? Would be doable for a single room...

 

[JohnW2]

Could you not wire a 4mm radial circuit to say an 8 way grid box, then have 8 dp 20 amp switches and run 8 feeds to 8 sockets and simply switch on off at the grid. Grid plates come in all sizes 2 port to 24+ If you happy with a 20 amp circuit, do the same thing in 2.5mm ?

That's obviously a theoretical solution (better with dhutch's idea of DPDT switches), and would make sense if one wanted to make changes on a daily, or even weekly, basis. However, as I understand it, the only reason the OP wants 'flexibility' (rather than just two separate rings) is in case he wants to change some sockets from one ring to the other at some point in the distant future (and maybe never). As I've said, all the cost and effort of those switches and extra cable just doesn't seem justified for a possible 'once in a blue moon' operation of one or two of those switches.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Would this not become a bit unmanageable when looking at a whole house? Would be doable for a single room...

If you run separate cables from every socket back to a common location (either one common location for the whole house, or a separate 'common locations' for each room), you would obviously then have a very high degree of flexibility - but I just don't see that the effort and cost would be justified.

Kind Regards, John.