Socket for tumble Dryer

Wish it was that easy, there is nothing wrong to take a spur from a spur if the first spur is protected with an overload to stop over current, it all comes down to an unfortunate selection of words to identify the type of ring circuit used in domestic installations, calling it a ring final, means since it is the final circuit, you can in the English language have a new radial circuit taken from it. Because of the word final, or we would have a final final circuit not allowed in English language like saying very last, or the very end. Looking at the English not electrical here.

But we do have new radial circuits coming from a ring final, so what we have done is change the name and call it a fused spur, which is a new circuit of course, but not considered to be a new circuit, and one does not need to notify as being a new circuit.

Pictures may help this shows what we can do, the problem with the ring final is high loads near the origin, loads near the centre will be distributed down both legs, but near the origin over 20 amp can go down one leg. So appendix 15 says "The load current in any part of the circuit should be unlikely to exceed for long periods the current-carrying capacity of the cable (Regulation 433.1.5 refers). This can generally be achieved by:
(i) locating socket-outlets to provide reasonable sharing of the load around the ring
(ii) not supplying immersion heaters, comprehensive electric space heating or loads of a similar profile from the ring circuit
(iii) connecting cookers, ovens and hobs with a rated power exceeding 2 kW on their own dedicated radial circuit
(iv) taking account of the total floor area being served. (Historically, limit of 100 m² has been adopted.)"

The connecting of items with a rated power exceeding 2 kW on their own dedicated radial circuit is some thing talked about a lot, clearly an immersion heater which runs for hours yes, it does say long periods, but in the main a washing machine (not washer/dryer) runs the heaters for a short time. The problem is the tumble dryer, mine runs for 2.5 hours some days, but is under 2 kW so no problem, so with an heat pump type not a problem, it is the non heat pump type.

It does seem daft that we can have a 13 amp socket and be told we should not use it for a 13 amp load, but when the ring final was invented we did not have tumble dryers. And when we used the washing machine we would drag it to centre of floor to use it, so we could not have a dish washer, washing machine, tumble dryer, and oven all being used at the same time.

And yes I have the washing machine and tumble dryer in my utility room, not in either of my kitchens, but many homes are not as big as mine. And since my kitchen is opposite end of house to consumer unit, no problem anyway they are near centre of the ring final.

 

That diagram which you have shown before does not show all we can do as it does not show two spurs taken from the same point which we can do.

As you say when the ring final was invented we did not have tumble dryers but we did have 3 bar (3kW) electric fires and they were used.

 

I'll put me tin hat on 'cos you ain't gonna like this.

It doesn't show it 'cos you ain't supposed to do it.

HEADS DOWN, INCOMING!!!!!!

 

There is no reg saying it cannot be done. There is no more danger doing it than having 2 spurs or two sockets 25 mm apart.

 

There are many things the regs don't specifically prohibit, but it doesn't mean that it's correct or good practice.

 

If you a running to 2 or more spurs from one point then it is just as easy to add the extra cables and joint boxes and extend the ring around them.

I wouldn't run more than 1 from a point, in fact would try and avoid spurs at all. As far as I'm concerned it shouldn't be done and is bad practice.

If you wish to do it carry on but make sure your horse is well secured and has plenty of hay while you are in the customers property.

 

It really does pain me to say this, but I believe @Wellwisher is correct.

I changed my mind when this came up some time ago. Because I had never done it (multiple spurs from 1 point of connection) and all the decent sparks I worked with didn't do this, my gut feeling was it's wrong. Then I thought about it. As long as each spur only feeds one accessory and the connection point is sound (5 way 32amp Wago, for example) I really cannot see what's wrong.

I even called Technical at NICEIC (I know. I'm pathetic..) and their only concern was the connection point. If that was good, so they told me, then there is nothing wrong with it.

Probably because I've never done it, I wouldn't start now. But where is the problem?

 

Possibly with Wagos and the like it would be fine. But when I was learning Wagos didn't exist so we just didn't do it. Like you, the sparks I worked and trained with didn't either.

Retired now so don't really care, but in my eyes it's wrong and I would advise against it. Like I said, if you're gonna run one cable you might as well run two. It also means at a later date if you want to add to it again that you aren't face with a headache of having to work out how to get an FCU in etc.

 

Would it be ok to take say 9 sockets from 1 point? Where do you stop.

 

That's the beauty of doing the properly. You haven't started so don't need to stop.

It's the difference between being grate and great like me

 

Grate

 

That socket has only one cable, so a spur off the ring. You cannot spur off that unless it comes from the load side of a fused connection unit.

 

And
a) You cant't wire twin and earth into a plug like that.
b) the ciruit isn't RCD protected so will need the MCB swapping for an RCBO.

It also looks like you are on a TT system, so I would suggest that you get an earth fault loop test carried out to ensure your earthing is up to scratch and that your rod hasn't rotted away as happens frequently.

 

Why does it pain you? I am very careful to make sure I only post correct information.

 

Ha ha ha. Ask them to move that into the joke thread.

 

That consumer unit lacks the required 30 mA RCD protection for several circuits, including the kitchen sockets, the RCD protection needs upgrading with some MCBs replaced with 30 mA RCBOs.

The existing circuit is unfit for purpose.

 

Presumably you mean unwound as in ‘still wound up’ …. even then, it’s never a C2 for me.

 

I agree with a lot of what you said, but not this bit. I take the view that I’m there to assess the electrical system, fixed wiring etc. If an extension cable is a trip hazard, then I may well make a note but can’t ever see me coding it. If it’s unplugged, then it’s just part of the furniture. You could get to the ridiculous point whereby you’re coding a hairdryer because you believe it might be a trip hazard assuming the householder plugs it in to a particular socket and then stands in front of a nearby mirror and creates a trip hazard by doing so (like my wife does).

Each to their own.