"Michael Brewer" wrote
| Just a quick follow-up on the form of the control switch used for
| each feed off the radial. Are there any regs about this concerning
| what the switch implies about the underlying electrics? In other
| words, is it against the regs to use (if you were stupid) a cooker-
| type switch when the supply to that is actually off a standard
| ring circuit?

That would be a switched unfused spur and could only be used for supplying
one FCU or one single or twin 13A socket, which would be within the
regulations. (And a twin 13A socket is not assumed to take 26A. The ring
final circuit is designed for general domestic use for a variety of
equipment where diversity will apply. It is the designer of the
installation's responsibility to not use a ring final circuit where it is
inappropriate, eg fixed heavy loads.)

If you're talking about using a cooker control unit to supply a cooker, but
off the ring final circuit, then of course it's against regs.

| If the switch also had a three-pin plug outlet then someone might
| assume they are safe to power their hefty cooker or hairdryer off that.

But that would be limited to 13A by the plug fuse.

| My reason for asking is to determine whether the control switches for
| both feeds off my cooker radial can/should be cooker-type switches, to
| indicate that both are fed from a cooker radial, or would this imply
| that both have dedicated radials behind them? Or does it not matter?

Provided that the circuits are clearly labelled at the CU it should be
obvious that the two outlets share a circuit. The switches should be clearly
labelled so it's obvious (especially to Aunt Mabel) which controls what.
Some switches come with a set of stickers (cooker, hob, oven, water heater,
etc) rather than just being engraved cooker.

Owain