Hi all,

I have a room with two ceiling lights switched on one switch. Is it
difficult to convert this to a double switch? Logically, how do I
modify the wiring?

Antony

antgel wrote:
Hi all,

I have a room with two ceiling lights switched on one switch. Is it
difficult to convert this to a double switch? Logically, how do I
modify the wiring?

Antony

google 2 way switch to find a pic of the citcuit, then youl see
Or Maybe Ive misunderstood

NT

wrote:
antgel wrote:

I have a room with two ceiling lights switched on one switch. Is it
difficult to convert this to a double switch? Logically, how do I
modify the wiring?

google 2 way switch to find a pic of the citcuit, then youl see
Or Maybe Ive misunderstood

I think so - the OP's referring to a two-gang switch I think! (or maybe
*I've* misunderstood!?)

Antgel: a two-way switch is one which lets you control a light from two
locations, typically on the landing (ie up and downstairs); a two-gang
switch is a faceplate which has two switches on it (the switches could
be one-way or two-way!)

To convert to a one-gang to a two-gang switch isn't entirely
straightforward I'm afraid; basically you'll need to replicate the
cables going to the original switch. Imagine if you wanted to do the
same job, but installing another one-gang switch a couple of feet away:
that would be exactly the same level of work required.

So without going into all the details, assuming you have conventional
wiring, the main requirement will be for a second cable to be wired into
the switch, up the wall and into the ceiling space above the light
fitting. Do you need more info, or is that enough for you to know it's
not going to happen?!!

David

Indeed I am referring to a two-gang switch. And it could very well
happen. I'm in the process of hacking my ceiling to install projector
cables anyway.

So you're saying that I need to run two new cables, one from the switch
to each of the two lights?

"antgel" wrote in message
oups.com...
Indeed I am referring to a two-gang switch. And it could very well
happen. I'm in the process of hacking my ceiling to install projector
cables anyway.

So you're saying that I need to run two new cables, one from the switch
to each of the two lights?

What cables are in the switch already?
If there is just a single cable (Containing a black or blue, red or brown
and bare wire) you will need to run another one of these from the switch
into the ceiling.

Can you get access to the light fittings from above?

Sparks...

Sparks wrote:
"antgel" wrote in message
oups.com...

Indeed I am referring to a two-gang switch. And it could very well
happen. I'm in the process of hacking my ceiling to install projector
cables anyway.

So you're saying that I need to run two new cables, one from the switch
to each of the two lights?


What cables are in the switch already?
If there is just a single cable (Containing a black or blue, red or brown
and bare wire) you will need to run another one of these from the switch
into the ceiling.

Can you get access to the light fittings from above?

Also, what sort of fittings are there presently - ceiling roses or
something different? If you've got ceiling roses, how many cables are
wired in to each one? I'd expect one to have several (call this light
"A") and one to have just one cable (light "B") because B will simply be
piggy-backed on to light A, so that it goes on and off at the same time
as A.

You need to get a cable to run from light "B" all the way down to the
switch; and finally the 'piggy-back' cable connecting to light "A" needs
to be wired differently in order to energise light "B" continuously
rather than just when light "A" is switched on.

If you don't have roses, how many cables come through the ceiling - just
one for each fitting? If so, the connections will presumably be in
junction boxes above the ceiling, instead, and it's not so immediately
obvious which light is A and which is B.

David

"antgel" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi all,

I have a room with two ceiling lights switched on one switch. Is it
difficult to convert this to a double switch? Logically, how do I
modify the wiring?



This group really is showing up the rational behind Part P in the last
few days... :~(

We all had to start somewhere. The fact that I'm asking shows that I
want to do it properly. I assume you were born with an encyclopaedic
knowledge of electrics.

In article .com
, antgel writes
We all had to start somewhere. The fact that I'm asking shows that I
want to do it properly. I assume you were born with an encyclopaedic
knowledge of electrics.

Indeed you do, don't take it personally, a quick google on that poster's id
shows a tendency towards arrogance over helpfulness in posts to this
group; killfiled by me long ago.
--
fred

On Sun, 08 May 2005 07:29:20 -0700, antgel wrote:

We all had to start somewhere. The fact that I'm asking shows that I
want to do it properly. I assume you were born with an encyclopaedic
knowledge of electrics.

I bet he did his first house rewire when he was 2....

Dave

"dave stanton" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 08 May 2005 07:29:20 -0700, antgel wrote:

We all had to start somewhere. The fact that I'm asking shows
that I
want to do it properly. I assume you were born with an
encyclopaedic
knowledge of electrics.

I bet he did his first house rewire when he was 2....


Five actually, I could get my hands were my father couldn't get his
own.....

But I don't call my self an expert by any means, although I've done
quite a bit of both domestic and 'industrial' [1] 3ph wiring - the one
thing I always do if I don't understand things is ask first before I
risk making mistakes that could prove fatal to others.

20 odd tears ago in a voluntary organisation.

:::Jerry:::: wrote:
...ask first before I
risk making mistakes that could prove fatal to others.

That's very considerate. I'd encourage you to ask before making mistakes
which could prove fatal to yourself too.

20 odd tears ago in a voluntary organisation.

:-)

Owain

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

This group really is showing up the rational behind Part P in the last
few days... :~(

How do you figure that?

I would say the *group* is providing the correct answers to this
question everytime someone asks it.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

This group really is showing up the rational behind Part P in the
last
few days... :~(

How do you figure that?

I would say the *group* is providing the correct answers to this
question everytime someone asks it.


Oh yes I agree, but sometimes those question and answers are coming
*after* work has started, when the person doing the work obviously
doesn't have a clue to start the job - no problem with people asking
how to do the job, I just wish that they would ask first and be
realistic about their abilities...

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

This group really is showing up the rational behind Part P in the last
few days... :~(

How do you figure that?

I would say the *group* is providing the correct answers to this
question everytime someone asks it.



Oh yes I agree, but sometimes those question and answers are coming
*after* work has started, when the person doing the work obviously
doesn't have a clue to start the job - no problem with people asking
how to do the job, I just wish that they would ask first and be
realistic about their abilities...

Perhaps you missed part of the thrust of my question, i.e. since what
the OP is doing is outside the scope of part P anyway (i.e. a minor
work) how is it supposed to help? Part P makes the law into an ass
whichever way you look at it.

You do raise an intersting question however: How are we to be
"realistic" about our abilities without knowing where the limits of
those lay? How do we test where those are without actually attempting to
do something and reaching them? Surely reaching the limits of ones
abilities is not a significant event in itself, what we do next however
is significant (e.g. seek help, give up, press on regardless). In an
ideal world we could research every step of a job from start to finish
before starting, but the real world has a habit of not being so
deterministic.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
news:427e63ba$0$2388$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-

Oh yes I agree, but sometimes those question and answers are coming
*after* work has started, when the person doing the work obviously
doesn't have a clue to start the job - no problem with people asking
how to do the job, I just wish that they would ask first and be
realistic about their abilities...

Perhaps you missed part of the thrust of my question, i.e. since what the
OP is doing is outside the scope of part P anyway (i.e. a minor work) how
is it supposed to help? Part P makes the law into an ass whichever way you
look at it.

Enough already with the "past his abilities" stuff! ;P

I'm not entirely clueless and do understand basic safety with electricity.
I also know a fair bit about electricity at a slightly lower level from an
engineering degree many years ago. From that, I know I'm not likely to set
the neighbourhood alight by connecting a cable in a lighting circuit to see
what happens. I'm also not dumb enough to leave something in place if I
don't think it's right. Thus my original post.

The only reason I've run into difficulties here is because of impractical
house design and the impossibility of doing something right without
destroying my kitchen



a

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

This group really is showing up the rational behind Part P in the
last
few days... :~(

How do you figure that?

I would say the *group* is providing the correct answers to this
question everytime someone asks it.



Oh yes I agree, but sometimes those question and answers are
coming
*after* work has started, when the person doing the work obviously
doesn't have a clue to start the job - no problem with people
asking
how to do the job, I just wish that they would ask first and be
realistic about their abilities...

Perhaps you missed part of the thrust of my question, i.e. since
what
the OP is doing is outside the scope of part P anyway (i.e. a minor
work) how is it supposed to help? Part P makes the law into an ass
whichever way you look at it.

Isn't this work in a kitchen area and thus comes under Part P ?


You do raise an intersting question however: How are we to be
"realistic" about our abilities without knowing where the limits of
those lay? How do we test where those are without actually
attempting to
do something and reaching them? Surely reaching the limits of ones
abilities is not a significant event in itself, what we do next
however
is significant (e.g. seek help, give up, press on regardless). In an
ideal world we could research every step of a job from start to
finish
before starting, but the real world has a habit of not being so
deterministic.


There does seem to be some confusion about basic feeds, switched feeds
and (neutral) returns though, if someone can't get to grips with what
needs to be present already were they wish to extend the circuit from
that to me suggests that they need to learn considerably more before
they start altering existing wiring.