Hi All,

In our kitchen we have the following.....

Double socket on ring above worktop to left of sink
Spur off this socket to below worktop to run dish washer.

Double socket on ring to right of sink.
Spur of this socket to below worktop to run washing machine.

I THINK the ring section between the two double sockets is just a continuous length of T&E.

So to my questions......

Would there be any merit in running a piece of T&E between the two spurs?

If so, is this topology allowed in the regs?


If not, is there any merit in running a piece of T&E between the spurs AND removing the existing T&E section between the double sockets, thus diverting the ring?

TIA

Chris

On 07/11/2018 11:28, wrote:

Hi All,

In our kitchen we have the following.....

Double socket on ring above worktop to left of sink Spur off this
socket to below worktop to run dish washer.

Double socket on ring to right of sink. Spur of this socket to below
worktop to run washing machine.

I THINK the ring section between the two double sockets is just a
continuous length of T&E.

So to my questions......

Would there be any merit in running a piece of T&E between the two
spurs?

In the current setup there would be no advantage in doing this.

If however it was later changed to allow the below counter sockets to be
remotely switched, then it would actually be dangerous to do so.

If so, is this topology allowed in the regs?

Its considered poor practice to have "loops" in a ring circuit. It
confers no benefit, and also makes proper testing of the circuit more
difficult.

If not, is there any merit in running a piece of T&E between the
spurs AND removing the existing T&E section between the double
sockets, thus diverting the ring?

Yup you could do that, although it would be change for changes sake.

I think my preferred option would be to add a couple of DP switches next
to the sockets above the worktop, and feed the below counter sockets
from those. That way you have a means of isolating the appliance without
needing to pull them out to get at its socket. (depending on where those
sockets are obviously)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Hi John,

Thanks for that, I will avoid loops. There are actually isolating switches (in the €œsink unit€� rather than above worktop).

Cheers

Chris

On 07/11/2018 13:30, wrote:
Hi John,

Thanks for that, I will avoid loops. There are actually isolating switches (in the €œsink unit€� rather than above worktop).

Basically you just need to make sure that if you switch something off in
one place, it can't be made live by by any other means.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 07/11/2018 12:59, John Rumm wrote:
On 07/11/2018 11:28, wrote:

Hi All,

In our kitchen we have the following.....

Double socket on ring above worktop to left of sink Spur off this
socket to below worktop to run dish washer.

Double socket on ring to right of sink. Spur of this socket to below
worktop to run washing machine.

I THINK the ring section between the two double sockets is just a
continuous length of T&E.

So to my questions......

Would there be any merit in running a piece of T&E between the two
spurs?

In the current setup there would be no advantage in doing this.

If however it was later changed to allow the below counter sockets to be
remotely switched, then it would actually be dangerous to do so.

If so, is this topology allowed in the regs?

Its considered poor practice to have "loops" in a ring circuit. It
confers no benefit, and also makes proper testing of the circuit more
difficult.

If not, is there any merit in running a piece of T&E between the
spurs AND removing the existing T&E section between the double
sockets, thus diverting the ring?

Yup you could do that, although it would be change for changes sake.

I think my preferred option would be to add a couple of DP switches next
to the sockets above the worktop, and feed the below counter sockets
from those. That way you have a means of isolating the appliance without
needing to pull them out to get at its socket. (depending on where those
sockets are obviously)



My Kitchen was designed this way. Above counter switch to below counter
socket for fridge, freezer, etc.

I suppose it is slightly useful when defrosting but less useful when the
freezer is unintentionally switched off, which has happened on multiple
occasions. On balance I would prefer not to have the switches. If they
are H&S deemed necessary I would prefer to have them somewhere slightly
less accessible.

On 07/11/2018 18:19, Paul Welsh wrote:
On 07/11/2018 12:59, John Rumm wrote:

I think my preferred option would be to add a couple of DP switches
next to the sockets above the worktop, and feed the below counter
sockets from those. That way you have a means of isolating the
appliance without needing to pull them out to get at its socket.
(depending on where those sockets are obviously)



My Kitchen was designed this way. Above counter switch to below counter
socket for fridge, freezer, etc.

I suppose it is slightly useful when defrosting but less useful when the
freezer is unintentionally switched off, which has happened on multiple
occasions. On balance I would prefer not to have the switches. If they
are H&S deemed necessary I would prefer to have them somewhere slightly
less accessible.

There is no requirement that they are remotely switched switched, but it
is handy when your tumble drier catches fire etc. Using switches that
have neon indicators and are clearly labelled also helps. (as does
spacing them away from adjacent sockets a bit)



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 07/11/2018 18:19, Paul Welsh wrote:
On 07/11/2018 12:59, John Rumm wrote:
On 07/11/2018 11:28, wrote:

Hi All,

In our kitchen we have the following.....

Double socket on ring above worktop to left of sink Spur off this
socket to below worktop to run dish washer.

Double socket on ring to right of sink. Spur of this socket to below
worktop to run washing machine.

I THINK the ring section between the two double sockets is just a
continuous length of T&E.

So to my questions......

Would there be any merit in running a piece of T&E between the two
spurs?

In the current setup there would be no advantage in doing this.

If however it was later changed to allow the below counter sockets to be
remotely switched, then it would actually be dangerous to do so.

If so, is this topology allowed in the regs?

Its considered poor practice to have "loops" in a ring circuit. It
confers no benefit, and also makes proper testing of the circuit more
difficult.

If not, is there any merit in running a piece of T&E between the
spurs AND removing the existing T&E section between the double
sockets, thus diverting the ring?

Yup you could do that, although it would be change for changes sake.

I think my preferred option would be to add a couple of DP switches
next to the sockets above the worktop, and feed the below counter
sockets from those. That way you have a means of isolating the
appliance without needing to pull them out to get at its socket.
(depending on where those sockets are obviously)



My Kitchen was designed this way. Above counter switch to below counter
socket for fridge, freezer, etc.

I suppose it is slightly useful when defrosting but less useful when the
freezer is unintentionally switched off, which has happened on multiple
occasions. On balance I would prefer not to have the switches. If they
are H&S deemed necessary I would prefer to have them somewhere slightly
less accessible.

They are not H&S necessary. Having switches above the worktop is just
one of those thing that amateurs and architects dream up as they are
unable to read and understand the regs.

--
Adam

On 07/11/2018 18:19, Paul Welsh wrote:
On 07/11/2018 12:59, John Rumm wrote:
On 07/11/2018 11:28, wrote:

Hi All,

In our kitchen we have the following.....

Double socket on ring above worktop to left of sink Spur off this
socket to below worktop to run dish washer.

Double socket on ring to right of sink. Spur of this socket to below
worktop to run washing machine.

I THINK the ring section between the two double sockets is just a
continuous length of T&E.

So to my questions......

Would there be any merit in running a piece of T&E between the two
spurs?

In the current setup there would be no advantage in doing this.

If however it was later changed to allow the below counter sockets to be
remotely switched, then it would actually be dangerous to do so.

If so, is this topology allowed in the regs?

Its considered poor practice to have "loops" in a ring circuit. It
confers no benefit, and also makes proper testing of the circuit more
difficult.

If not, is there any merit in running a piece of T&E between the
spurs AND removing the existing T&E section between the double
sockets, thus diverting the ring?

Yup you could do that, although it would be change for changes sake.

I think my preferred option would be to add a couple of DP switches
next to the sockets above the worktop, and feed the below counter
sockets from those. That way you have a means of isolating the
appliance without needing to pull them out to get at its socket.
(depending on where those sockets are obviously)



My Kitchen was designed this way. Above counter switch to below counter
socket for fridge, freezer, etc.

I suppose it is slightly useful when defrosting but less useful when the
freezer is unintentionally switched off, which has happened on multiple
occasions. On balance I would prefer not to have the switches. If they
are H&S deemed necessary I would prefer to have them somewhere slightly
less accessible.

You could fit lift-up safety covers.

SteveW

In article ,
Paul Welsh wrote:
My Kitchen was designed this way. Above counter switch to below counter
socket for fridge, freezer, etc.

I suppose it is slightly useful when defrosting but less useful when the
freezer is unintentionally switched off, which has happened on multiple
occasions. On balance I would prefer not to have the switches. If they
are H&S deemed necessary I would prefer to have them somewhere slightly
less accessible.

True. Never did understand why some do this. If the idea is to be able to
switch off an appliance easily in event of say a fire, you might as well
just switch off at the CU.

--
*Frankly, scallop, I don't give a clam

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Paul Welsh wrote:
My Kitchen was designed this way. Above counter switch to below counter
socket for fridge, freezer, etc.

I suppose it is slightly useful when defrosting but less useful when the
freezer is unintentionally switched off, which has happened on multiple
occasions. On balance I would prefer not to have the switches. If they
are H&S deemed necessary I would prefer to have them somewhere slightly
less accessible.

True. Never did understand why some do this. If the idea is to be able to
switch off an appliance easily in event of say a fire, you might as well
just switch off at the CU.

Trouble with doing it in the CU is that it isnt easy to know
which one to switch off and not a great idea to switch
everything off if you want to do something about the
fire before the house burns down, particularly at night.