Spurring of a spurred socket

[Welsh_sparky_21]

Is spurring off a sockets that’s already been spurred off a major no no?? It’s for a socket behind a wall mounted tv so not gony be a major load on the cable

 

[ipf]

Probably because it is quite common for DIY changes from a single socket to a double. Then you end up with 4 * 13A outlet points on the spur.

While spurs are allowed, and occasionally make a lot of sense, I personally would like to see them banned! Actually, if they just stipulated only 2 cables per connection point then rings would be simple rings, radials would be linear radials, and testing a whole lot easier!

We’d probably get hidden joint boxes all over the place making it even more difficult to find problems. The same as multi cables in CB’s, lucky to sort it out in the next 50 years. Let’s face it, we landed on the moon in the sixties ....then, most people would’ve expected at least a Mars landing by now. Look at the technology upgrades....electric cars, wireless control AND maintenance free joint boxes, EVEN.

 

[Lucien Nunes]

Not dangerous but not compliant and therefore should not be installed. The S in BS 7671 stands for 'standard', i.e. if we adhere to its provisions then we all know where we are with each other's installations. BS1363 plugs are not the only safe plugs, but we've standardised on them. The compliant cable configurations for final circuits are not the only safe configurations, but we've standardised on those too.

Only to those who behave like lemmings and are unable to actually apply some logic to whatever they are doing.

If we can recognise that the double-spur in this case is entirely safe for all practical purposes, but for the sake of standardisation and hence convenience in documenting compliance we recommend a configuration that is inherently recognised as compliant, we are not behaving like lemmings. We are expressing a preference for an installation that is easy for those who come after us to document as compliant. That is reasonable in this case where achieving compliance is a negligible burden. If compliance had been difficult or costly to achieve, the outlook might be different.

As for not dangerous, I don't know what people think will happen if you run 32A through 2.5 T+E buried in plaster. One day I will rig up my demo with the entire house running on one 2.5 and you will see that it works.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Not dangerous but not compliant and therefore should not be installed.

Referring to the case of a single socket spurred from a ring final, with another single socket spurred from it. Which regulation does it not comply with?

I know it doesn't fit the design guide for rings in App 15 (and I wouldn't install this way), but I am interested to know which reg it breaks

 

[Lucien Nunes]

It was explicit in 433.1.5 as I recall, but perhaps not in 433.1.103 otherwise I guess you would not be asking the question - perhaps you could confirm to save me digging the book out. If so (i.e. a double-spur is not precluded by strictly normative requirements) then what I wrote is misleading. In any case I should have phrased it differently otherwise it doesn't support the subsequent argument. I should rather have said: "Not explicitly defined as compliant".

 

[Pretty Mouth]

It was explicit in 433.1.5 as I recall, but perhaps not in 433.1.103 otherwise I guess you would not be asking the question - perhaps you could confirm to save me digging the book out. If so (i.e. a double-spur is not precluded by strictly normative requirements) then what I wrote is misleading. In any case I should have phrased it differently otherwise it doesn't support the subsequent argument. I should rather have said: "Not explicitly defined as compliant".

It's in the design guide of appendix 15, but not in 433.1.204.

Unfused spur
An unfused spur should feed one single or one twin socket outlet only.

I wonder why they moved all this over to app. 15? Had they left it as actual regulation there would be no doubt.