Fused spur off ring main regulations

[Wilson12]

hello I've seen the page at the back of the regs book but nothing explains can you -
Have a spured socket off the ring using one cable and then put a fused spur after the spur and then feed additional sockets after the spir

 

[Octopus]

And the question is?

 

[Pete999]

hello I've seen the page at the back of the regs book but nothing explains can you -
Have a spured socket off the ring using one cable and then put a fused spur after the spur and then feed additional sockets after the spir

I take it Wilson that you are referring to Appendix 14 of BS7671, the diagram shows all scenarios for a RFC and indeed the requirements for installing spurs from the RFC.
Your question would be a no you can't spur a socket using a single cable, and then add a fused spur to supply more sockets. What you could do however is swap the Spurred socket for a fused spur and then add as many sockets as you like, what you are suggesting amounts to 2 spurs from the same point. Hope this helps.

 

[The Ghost]

Can you draw what you are asking. But it sounds like no, if I understand you correctly. Although saying that it hasn't stopped many others from doing so from what I see when attending various sites.
Aha manitas de plata has beat me to it.

 

[Taylortwocities]

There is nothing to stop you having two spurs from the socket on the ring.
One spur to the additional socket, one spur to the FCU/

There is a physical problem of cramming 4 x 2.5 conductors into the back of the socket.

If I was you, I would do as Pete says above

What you could do however is swap the Spurred socket for a fused spur and then add as many sockets as you like,

 

[Andy78]

hello I've seen the page at the back of the regs book but nothing explains can you -
Have a spured socket off the ring using one cable and then put a fused spur after the spur and then feed additional sockets after the spir

If I read correctly then no you can't do what you suggest. Think about the maximum potential load on the first section of cable spurred from the ring.

 

[Pete999]

There is nothing to stop you having two spurs from the socket on the ring.
One spur to the additional socket, one spur to the FCU/

There is a physical problem of cramming 4 x 2.5 conductors into the back of the socket.

If I was you, I would do as Pete says above

TTC I think the OP was wanting to spur off of a socket to another socket using a single 2.5, and then from that spurred socket to another fused spur to feed some more sockets

 

[Taylortwocities]

Ahh ok. Spur to FCU then on to additional sockets.

 

[Pete999]

Ahh ok. Spur to FCU then on to additional sockets.

Original socket to new spurred socket to FCU to feed more sockets. I'm getting a headache now. What you said above is how it should be done, now where are the headache pills?

 

[Andy78]

Ahh ok. Spur to FCU then on to additional sockets.

Like this I believe.

 

[Pete999]

Like this I believe.


View attachment 38765

Correcta munda, mon ami, zat is what I believe Monsewer OP meant.

 

[Taylortwocities]

Which he cannot do. as the FCU would be a spur from a spur.

The FCU must be before the first double socket.

 

[Taylortwocities]

COMME CA

 

[MisterE]

and you are never 39 and a quarter

 

[Andy78]

and you are never 39 and a quarter

You're right. I'm not quite up to the quarter. More like 39 1/8

 

[Risteard]

There is nothing to stop you having two spurs from the socket on the ring.

Many would not agree that this is acceptable, as you are not supposed to concentrate loads at one point on the ring. Indeed, the informative appendix mentioned does not allow such an arrangement. However, as the appendix is informative it does not actually form part of the Wiring Regulations.

 

[Pete999]

Many would not agree that this is acceptable, as you are not supposed to concentrate loads at one point on the ring. Indeed, the informative appendix mentioned does not allow such an arrangement. However, as the appendix is informative it does not actually form part of the Wiring Regulations.

Whilst I agree with Risteard that Appendix 14 is an informative Appendix, saying that it doesn't form part of BS 7671 "The Regulations" When you actually read APP14 it does quote several Regulation Number414.4
and there are references to several chapters, and I quote 433.1.204 which need to be referenced in conjunction with Appendix 14, so I'm sorry to disagree Risteard, but I find it hard to agree with your statement, no disrespect intended.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It's informative, it's not the Regulations.
Yes it may be in a book called 'Requirements for Electrical Installation', but that doesn't mean anything.
All it does, is inform you certain methods for complying with the Regulations (well not actually the Regulations, cos these are requirements, not Regulations).
So just to clarify, although appendix 15 is in the book we call the 'Regulations', it's not actually in the 'Regulations'.
It's part of the book which we call the 'Regulations', but it's not part of the 'Regulations'.
Hope that clears everything up.

 

[Andy78]

It's informative, it's not the Regulations.
Yes it may be in a book called 'Requirements for Electrical Installation', but that doesn't mean anything.
All it does, is inform you certain methods for complying with the Regulations (well not actually the Regulations, cos these are requirements, not Regulations).
So just to clarify, although appendix 15 is in the book we call the 'Regulations', it's not actually in the 'Regulations'.
It's part of the book which we call the 'Regulations', but it's not part of the 'Regulations'.
Hope that clears everything up.

The book called "IET wiring regulations" ?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Depends whether you look at the front, or on the spine.
Anyway, that's beside the point.
Just because something is in a book called the 'Wiring Regulations,' doesn't mean it's part of the Regulations.
Ok?