2 spurs from a Junction Box....worried?

[Kamikaze]

Thanks for the replies. It’s surprising do see so many differing views and opinions / interpretations of the regs from you experienced folks....says a lot in itself.

I have read the responses and conclude that it’s questionable if it’s regulations or not. Is it likely common in most older houses.....I reckon so, and a lot worse things out there.

Mathematically, it is possible to overload, is it likely....no.....I am very aware of it now, and we will be sensible about what we plug in and leave on.

I have a lot of trust in my father in law, we both did this, and I’m not an idiot either, we took care, and did a really good job, all be it, not the way I would have done it had I more time.

The irony of this, I had an electrician come out, and he wanted to run the new cables and 2 new doubles off the single socket on the ring, and through the joists alongside the central heating pipes.......yeah, you read that right.

The second irony, is my father in law, just had a new conservatory installed and they run 4 spur to spursnot on ring.....yep, you read that right too.

So I’m putting this into context, accepting I’m not an electrician, but have a new appreciation and learning to my bow......life is about learning......

My concern was not regs, but around safety, and they was a key point raised in the thread about ensuring the new installion works with the circuit breaker\trip switch........which I will get a proper sparky to check next room I do.

Downgrade the RCBO to 20A and that will be the end of that argument.

 

[johnduffell]

you're not supposed to have more unfused spurs than points on a ring, but you can connect them all to one point if you like if it doesn't cause any other issue. Although even the former "rule" doesn't preclude other safe designs such as a ring round above the ceiling with junction boxes dropping down to each socket.
You are supposed to have consideration of the balance of a ring, but if you sit down and work it out you can take the full 32A along all but the closest part of the ring to the CU for it to overload the cable. And in that case you would try to spur from the CU anyway.

 

[Pete999]

In all honesty I've been in the trade 40 odd years and I cannot remember a single fault that I could attribute to uneven distribution of load on a ring. This whole thread is about making a mountain out of a molehill because it's a DIYer.

Not at all Wirepuller, nothing at all to do with it being from a DIY er

 

[Pete999]

In all honesty I've been in the trade 40 odd years and I cannot remember a single fault that I could attribute to uneven distribution of load on a ring. This whole thread is about making a mountain out of a molehill because it's a DIYer.

Not at all Wirepuller, nothing at all to do with it being from a DIY er

you're not supposed to have more unfused spurs than points on a ring, but you can connect them all to one point if you like if it doesn't cause any other issue. Although even the former "rule" doesn't preclude other safe designs such as a ring round above the ceiling with junction boxes dropping down to each socket.
You are supposed to have consideration of the balance of a ring, but if you sit down and work it out you can take the full 32A along all but the closest part of the ring to the CU for it to overload the cable. And in that case you would try to spur from the CU anyway.

So as far as you are concerned say you have 10 sockets as a ring, you can take 10 infused Spurs from the same point on a RFC? is that correct?

 

[Toneyz]

If the OP installs another j.b. on the ring next to the other one and has one unswitched spur per j.b. as appendix 15 would that be acceptable?
To the OP where on the ring is this j.b.?

 

[johnduffell]

So as far as you are concerned say you have 10 sockets as a ring, you can take 10 infused Spurs from the same point on a RFC? is that correct?

Yes, as long as you could find a suitable junction box. Furthermore, assuming the short leg was clipped direct the point could be as close to the CU as 1/6 of the way round the ring.
Of course you would have to meet disconnection times and volt drops too.
It would be very weird and there wouldn't be much justification to do it on purpose.

 

[Octopus]

Downgrade the RCBO to 20A and that will be the end of that argument.

I think you missed the point being debated

 

[johnduffell]

Just to clarify my previous post, I misremembered the actual wording. The regs don't require you to balance the ring at all, it only requires you design the circuit to be unlikely to exceed the capacity of the cable for long periods. And just to inflame things further, you could even run a 4mm or greater unfused spur and that would be fine.

 

[Toneyz]

I have no issue with the j.b. cable current rating etc it would be more the load put on one side of the R.F.C. but saying that it is no worse than an appliance grid switch not being close as possible to the middle.

 

[Toneyz]

Just to clarify my previous post, I misremembered the actual wording. The regs don't require you to balance the ring at all, it only requires you design the circuit to be unlikely to exceed the capacity of the cable for long periods. And just to inflame things further, you could even run a 4mm or greater unfused spur and that would be fine.

The 2.5 is ok as even if two 13A loads were plugged in the rating of the cable exceeds 26A. Those who are using Appendix 15 as their argument should that the whole of the page in consideration not just the picture of the ring final circuit.

 

[Pete999]

If the OP installs another j.b. on the ring next to the other one and has one unswitched spur per j.b. as appendix 15 would that be acceptable?
To the OP where on the ring is this j.b.?

If the OP put another job next to th one he has already,removed the cable between the twoj jobs, essentially having two ends of the RFC one in each job he could have extended the RFC to his hearts content by taking a 2.5 from each job and as I said extend RFC

 

[johnduffell]

Those who are using Appendix 15 as their argument should that the whole of the page in consideration not just the picture of the ring final circuit.

Yes indeed, in fact Appendix 15 is simply just suggested ways of meeting the requirements of the actual reg in 433.1. As long as you keep to the regs, you can design whatever circuit you like, however bizarre it is.

To go back to the OP, their circuit would be fine, unless they have a chance of running high power equipment off the sockets AND the spur point is relatively close to the origin of the circuit.

 

[Spoon]

Indeed, all that is happening here is some members are determined to shoot a DIYer down in flames, come what may.

This whole thread is about making a mountain out of a molehill because it's a DIYer.

Not sure where you are getting this from. Everyone has their own opinion I suppose.
This discussion is about the interpretation of the regs. The OP being a DIYer is irrelevant.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I’ve given you a dumb, because your comment is very dumb

That's fine if it's your opinion, but given the post also got 5 agrees and 2 likes it seems I'm not the only dumb one!

 

[Pete999]

Someones asked for a regulation number can't recall who it was think it was SC.
Thinking about it, the reg number and Appendix 15, I believe that that Regulation is 433.1.204 with Appendix 15 and in particular Fig 15A, I think Fig 15A is there to help people with the complexities of Reg 433.1.204 starting at Reg 433.1, that's my take anyway, for what it's worth, not sure I really care anymore. What the OP dis in my opinion was wrong, not something I would do.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Not sure where you are getting this from. Everyone has their own opinion I suppose.
This discussion is about the interpretation of the regs. The OP being a DIYer is irrelevant.

I said it because I am 100% certain that if one of the respected elite on here said they had done this (which is not impossible under some circumstances, see #52) Pete and all would not have questioned it.

 

[Pete999]

I said it because I am 100% certain that if one of the respected elite on here said they had done this (which is not impossible under some circumstances) Pete and all would not have questioned it.

Wirepuller, there are no "elite members" on this forum, there are however some respected and older members who have been here a long time, you yourself are one of those people, being a member since 2009 I believe.

 

[Wilko]

... I am 100% certain that if one of the respected elite on here said they had done this (which is not impossible under some circumstances) Pete and all would not have questioned it.

Hi Wirey, although you are yourself part of the respected elite I will be brave and disagree with you .

 

[Pete999]

you're not supposed to have more unfused spurs than points on a ring, but you can connect them all to one point if you like if it doesn't cause any other issue. Although even the former "rule" doesn't preclude other safe designs such as a ring round above the ceiling with junction boxes dropping down to each socket.
You are supposed to have consideration of the balance of a ring, but if you sit down and work it out you can take the full 32A along all but the closest part of the ring to the CU for it to overload the cable. And in that case you would try to spur from the CU anyway.

I don't think the "rule" you talk of, doesn't preclude what you are saying, nothing wrong with running a ring around the top floor of a house and spurring down to sockets downstairs, except of course in areas of high usage, the Kitchen springs to mind. As for you're point where you say about as many "unfused spurs" all taken from one point on the RFC, I believe the only way to achieve this would be, by spurring off to a FUSED connection unit and running your extra sockets from this FCU.

 

[markc123]

I’ve read the first 3 pages of this thread only.

And I am absolutely baffled that nobody has called the OP out for being out of his depth.

I’m all for DIY ... if I wasn’t I’d be a hypocrite as I change car tyres on my vehicles. But DIY is absolutley not splitting rings and wiring fresh whether it be radials or extensions.

DIY is changing light fittings socket faceplates ect.

This. Is. Wrong.

Funny how the Client will pay for decorators to come in to make it look nice but won’t pay for proper electricians to get there actual safety right. All wrong.

Sorry OP this is aimed at everyone in your posistion not just you.