Which fuse rating to use in a plug

[Deleted member 142255]

Quite so. It's that bit of 134.1 that Harry quoted (about 'minimising inconvenience') that results in most of the debate and differences of opinion - since one man's 'serious inconvenience' is another man's 'trivial annoyance, once in a blue moon'.

Really?

Think you need to check your facts!

Edit: and it wasn't Harry.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

What about us oldies - do I take it that we can use 'maximum permitted wattage'?!

If you have a Full licence, then yes..

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I don't feel inhibited at all. But you got quite upset about our conversation which may have been in the wrong section. Yours is completely off topic and has nothing to do with the OP's question.

The OP's question was answered, though.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

As I've said, in many senses it's fair enough to go as far as one wants in the direction of "one circuit for every hard-wired load and one circuit for every socket - although, if one wants to avoid 'getting too silly', one needs to decide 'where to . Then draw the line' ... BUT, as above, it still remains my view that there are some things which I personally feel are best not the only one thing on a dedicated circuit.

I have a total of around 30 individual circuits here, with 10 of them for outside the house, with a CU in the garage - also used as switches. I have three lighting circuits for my garage and workshop, so I can just turn on the section where I am working, two socket circuits, so I can conveniently turn everything off, except for certain sockets which need to be on, for chargers, electric door, and similar. That way, when I exit, I can just flip the 'general sockets' breaker off, and know I've not left my soldering iron/hot melt glue gun, or etc. Then there are other circuits for hut, summerhouse and etc..

 

[JohnW2]

Really? Think you need to check your facts!

Good grief - you love arguing, and trying to find fault with anything I write, don't you? !!

I don't need to 'check my facts'

Edit: and it wasn't Harry.

Yes it was. In post #50 he wrote ...

.... 314.1 (iii) such as a lighting circuit.
Just an example, there are many others which could be listed..
(i)..minimise inconvenience.
It's very inconvenient, if your fridge, or freezer circuit develops a fault, when that circuit is a shared one which includes much of the house. For the normal householder, it becomes a very real problem, if the circuit will not reset, and they have to wait a week to get an electrician to attend, and just hope they have the skills to find the issue.

The bit of 134.1.1 which you go on to quote says absolutely nothing about 'minimising inconvenience' but, if you read my post properly, will see is what I was talking about, and what Harry's quote from 314.1 was all about.

If you intend to continue trying to find fault with everything I write, please at least try to get your facts right first. Thanks.

 

[plugwash]

It's quite clear to me.

View attachment 372419

The questions it leaves open are.

1. As others are already discussing how far does one need to go in "minimising inconvenience". If we interpret "minimising" as "reducing to an absoloute minimum" we would need seperate circuits for every item of equipment. Clearly that would be absurd, so either every installation in the UK is non-compliant or we need to take a less extreme interpretation of minimsing.
2. Do we need to take account of the factors in that regulation when designing RCD protection. On the one hand "circuits" are defined in terms of overcurrent protection. On the other hand, my experiance is that RCD trips are similarly if not more common than overcurrent trips, so splitting stuff up for overcurrent purposes but putting it on the same RCD seems kinda pointless if your goal is "minimising inconviniane".

Personally I find it hard to belive that the installation of split load CUs is compliant but the fact is that huge numbers of them are installed all the time by sparkies who are registered with industry schemes. So either the schemes are failing to police their members or they consider the use of such CUs to be acceptable practice.

 

[JohnW2]

I have a total of around 30 individual circuits here, with 10 of them for outside the house, with a CU in the garage - also used as switches. I have three lighting circuits for my garage and workshop, so I can just turn on the section where I am working, two socket circuits, so I can conveniently turn everything off, except for certain sockets which need to be on, for chargers, electric door, and similar. That way, when I exit, I can just flip the 'general sockets' breaker off, and know I've not left my soldering iron/hot melt glue gun, or etc. Then there are other circuits for hut, summerhouse and etc..

Not dissimilar from my house, then. As I said, I'm a great believer in spreading things out over lots of circuits = buty it's a very big house so I have somewhat more circuits that you. Yesterday I guessed at about 45 but, on reflection, I think it's probably a fair few more than that (and I can't be bothered to count ). For a start, there are some 11 lighting circuits - two for each of three floors, 2 for the cellar/workshop, one for the garage and two for outside lights.

However, as I've recently written, although I like spreading things over many circuits, that doesn't alter the fact that, in contrast with you, there are a few things that I personally prefer not to be 'alone' on a dedicated circuit - but, as I also said, "vive la difference".

 

[Deleted member 142255]

The questions it leaves open are.

1. As others are already discussing how far does one need to go in "minimising inconvenience". If we interpret "minimising" as "reducing to an absoloute minimum" we would need seperate circuits for every item of equipment. Clearly that would be absurd, so either every installation in the UK is non-compliant or we need to take a less extreme interpretation of minimsing.
2. Do we need to take account of the factors in that regulation when designing RCD protection. On the one hand "circuits" are defined in terms of overcurrent protection. On the other hand, my experiance is that RCD trips are similarly if not more common than overcurrent trips, so splitting stuff up for overcurrent purposes but putting it on the same RCD seems kinda pointless if your goal is "minimising inconviniane".

Personally I find it hard to belive that the installation of split load CUs is compliant but the fact is that huge numbers of them are installed all the time by sparkies who are registered with industry schemes. So either the schemes are failing to police their members or they consider the use of such CUs to be acceptable practice.

Yes, I agree split load boards are now no longer fully compliant. They want all boards fitted with RCBO's and SPD's. They are also pushing us to AFDD installation which will become a definite requirement soon rather than a recommendation.

 

[JohnW2]

1. As others are already discussing how far does one need to go in "minimising inconvenience".

As I've said, you will probably get as many answers to that question as people you ask, because 'inconvenience' is in the eye of the beholder, and will there varying considerably between individuals

If we interpret "minimising" as "reducing to an absoloute minimum" we would need seperate circuits for every item of equipment. Clearly that would be absurd, so either every installation in the UK is non-compliant or we need to take a less extreme interpretation of minimsing.

As you imply, it can't be intended to mean that, even though that is probably what a dictionary would say. The 'absolute minimum' inconvenience due to things not being on separate circuits would be zero (if every load and every socket outlet was on a separate circuit) so the word would then be 'eliminate', not 'minimise' - and, as you say, what would be necessary to 'eliminate' would be just plain silly.

2. Do we need to take account of the factors in that regulation when designing RCD protection. On the one hand "circuits" are defined in terms of overcurrent protection. On the other hand, my experiance is that RCD trips are similarly if not more common than overcurrent trips, so splitting stuff up for overcurrent purposes but putting it on the same RCD seems kinda pointless if your goal is "minimising inconviniane".

I think that's what people always do, isn't it? There have been countless discussions and debates about spreading circuits across RCDs, but never that I can recall about spreading them across MCBs (which, in general, we do anyway?

Personally I find it hard to belive that the installation of split load CUs is compliant but the fact is that huge numbers of them are installed all the time by sparkies who are registered with industry schemes. So either the schemes are failing to police their members or they consider the use of such CUs to be acceptable practice.

As above, I don't think you'll ever find a black-and-white answer as to what is, and what is not, 'complaint' in this respect, because the regs are too vague and interpretations and views so varied. I think that some common sense has to prevail. As you say, there are not only millions of dual-RCD (or 'worse') CUs in service out there, but qualified electricians who are members of schemes continue to install them. I say "or worse" because, for example, the house I am sitting in as I type this (which is not 'my home') has a CU with a single RCD protecting all circuits!

 

[Deleted member 142255]

Good grief - you love arguing, and trying to find fault with anything I write, don't you? !!

Not at all.

Yes it was. In post #50 he wrote ...

The bit of 134.1.1 which you go on to quote says absolutely nothing about 'minimising inconvenience' but, if you read my post properly, will see is what I was talking about, and what Harry's quote from 314.1 was all about.

If you intend to continue trying to find fault with everything I write, please at least try to get your facts right first. Thanks.

It was 314, not 134 and as you like things to be correct I pointed out that fact. But it was actually post #42 and again in #48 where I quoted the regulation.

134 was what YOU posted. I was just pointing out that 134 has nowt to do with it and you were wrong.

 

[JohnW2]

It was 314, not 134 and as you like things to be correct I pointed out that fact.

Good grief, again - you don't give up, do you? It's a long way away, but perhaps I should buy you a tooth comb for Christmas.

Yes, it was a typo on my part (I suppose you never do typos?). However, it was surely very clear that I was talking about 'minimising inconvenience', and that that was what 314.1(i) is about, and that is what Harry had quoted in his message that I replied to.

I think I've probably had enough of replying to (or maybe even reading) your posts.

 

[Deleted member 142255]

Good grief, again - you don't give up, do you? It's a long way away, but perhaps I should buy you a tooth comb for Christmas.

Oh dear. Just because you haven't had the last word. Pot and kettle come to mind.

Yes, it was a typo on my part (I suppose you never do typos?). However, it was surely very clear that I was talking about 'minimising inconvenience', and that that was what 314.1(i) is about, and that is what Harry had quoted in his message that I replied to.

Yes, I do make typo's and admitted one to you a day or so back. 314 came from my posts although you seem not to want to acknowledge that.

I think I've probably had enough of replying to (or maybe even reading) your posts.

Only just starting. Got a long way to go to catch you up.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Personally I find it hard to belive that the installation of split load CUs is compliant but the fact is that huge numbers of them are installed all the time by sparkies who are registered with industry schemes. So either the schemes are failing to police their members or they consider the use of such CUs to be acceptable practice.

I'm not sure I agree with that - I fitted one here, as an inexpensive upgrade to what I had, which was - apart from one protecting outdoor circuits, none at all. RCD's like seatbelts, you use them, but hope to never, ever need to make any use of them. If one RCD now should trip, it will take out half the house, but that's no biggie for me to resolve. I would never recommend an ordinary house-owner upgrades to a dual board, because of their then issues finding someone able to resolve the cause of the RCD trip.

 

[JohnW2]

If you have a Full licence, then yes..

I don't think that there was anything other than "a Full Licence" when I got mine. I think that the G8's came a few years later, requiring only the RAE (but not Morse test) but restricted, if I recall, to just 'VHF bands' (it may even have been 'only 2m'?) - but maybe my memory has got that all wrong

 

[ericmark]

I think it changed (at least for most bands) from power input to ERP (but still in Watts) an awfully long time ago, didn't it? I don't suppose you are as 'out of touch' as I am - I'm not far off 60 years of RSGB membership The available bands are, of course, now very different from (and more numerous than) what we were brought up on!

I started as a VP8, then went to GW7, and for a time VR2, so I have to look it up, as the VP8 had a larger 2-meter band, and VR2 no 70 cm band, even when it was the same RAE exam, not Falklands (VP8) that was a personal interview with the post master general.

I left RSGB and was a founder member of UKRS, once the RSGB agreed no requirement for morse, the whole point of UKRS evaporated, so it disbanded, but I never got around to re-joining RSGB.