Is there any problem with using one of these as the isolation switch next to a cooker (30A supply)?
Well that is your classical "cooker point", whereas there are other possible applications for the plain switch, so perhaps they hang back from calling it a cooker switch.
in a double box would offer a bit more room for cables.
Not as unappealing as one of these old MK ones though
Hi;
The problem is one of safety.
Can you get two sets of 6m cable into this switch.
I would NOT want 6m T&E in a Single box, deep or otherwise. I assume you would take the output down to an outlet that converts bureid to surface cabling!
Who are you going to get to inspect and test this work?
Is it a new circuit? If so, who is going to inspect and test to give you your Part P certificate.
If it was me (and I am diong my 2391) I would be very suspicious of seeing such a design.
Read the regs (BS7671) or/and its User Guide Notes, Better read the yellow Testing and Inspection guide note 3 from IEE.
Do yourself a favour - stick to the standards - The correct device for the job in hand.
Regards Ian
or not...
Yes, it has two sets of contacts that will take at least 10mm^2
True, it is hard work, but much less hard work that two sets of 10mm^2 in a single box, and that is routinely done on shower installs (working overhead as well!)
Personally I would prefer using a double box switch for this, like:
Personally I would. I like the MK ones:
If I were doing it, then I would test it. If it were a part P job, then the BCO would be free to arrange an inspection of his own should he wish (as long as it is at his own expense!)
Test as above. The BCO (or his subcontractor) would provide the paperwork.
Sorry, but are we talking at crossed purposes here?
As far as I can see, the OP was proposing to use a 45A switch designed for cookers and similar sized loads, for switching a cooker. He made no mention of any other aspects of the design, and hence it is not really possible to comment on those. There is no requirement to use a cooker switch with integral socket (and in fact there are disadvantages to doing so). One should label the switch with its function, and (at least in the case of the MK one), lables are provided with the switch for each of the typical applications (and yes one does say cooker!)
Yes... and?
Yes good advice, I would not suggest any different.
On 6 Jun 2006 14:45:12 -0700 someone who may be "Martin Pentreath" wrote this:-
Even better use the version that fits onto a double box like
Ones with socket outlets are historic bodges, from the days when socket outlets were rare. They are generally best avoided. General socket outlets are best provided on other circuits.
Indeed. The socket outlet ideally should be RCD protected, and the cooker not RCD protected. You can't do this with a combined unit.
because it would also be useful for a shower.
They don't. They also have the disadvantage of requiring diversity to be considered on the cooker circuit. They might have been useful 40 years ago when houses had about one socket per room, but these days I would regard them as deprecated.
Christian.
They also encorage you to use a plug in appliance (possibly a kettle) near the cooker - as leads get shorter this is not to be recommended.
Can you elaborate on why the cooker should not be RCD protected?
I am pretty sure our electrician has wired the Cooker circuit to the RCD, as the only thing not on the RCD side is the lights. Is this wrong?
Thanks
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember snipped-for-privacy@pipemedia.co.uk saying something like:
This sounds familiar... Istr a lot of this kind of thing coming from Corgis.
I think we're going to see more of this.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Bob Mannix" saying something like:
For just that reason Irish regs forbid those dreadful things, and have done for years.
Yes, I suspect it's likely that the coming of the 17th edition (2008) will finish off the old-style CCU for good, since RCD protection will be required for "all" socket-outlets (FSVO "all" - but don't ask, I don't know).
Because of the risk of nuisance tripping from harmless leakage current which can sometimes occur in the type of heating element used in cookers.
It's certainly a sign that your electrician might not be up-to-date - unless you're on a TT-earthed supply it's counter to the IEE's (sorry, IET's) advice on good practice - which is that the RCD side of your consumer unit should only feed the socket circuits.
In a TT system everything must be RCD-protected, but cookers, lights etc. should be on a separate 100 mA (or higher) RCD (or RCBO).
A combination of reasons...
Protecting a cooker is not mandatory[1]. This is due to the fact that a cooker presents a very low electrocution risk. Cookers also have a habit of being high "leakage" devices (due to the nature of their heating elements), so if you put one on a RCD shared with other circuits, it can use up a noticeable proportion of the leakage limit of the RCD. This, when combined with the normal leakage from other circuits, can result nuisance tripping.
It is not wrong as such, but could be considered sub optimal.
[1] Currently you only require protection for sockets that have a likelihood of feeding appliances being used outside (although as Andy W notes this may change to include all sockets).
Umm - this may be a bit pedantic, but if the RCD were incorporated into the outlet, wouldn't this meet the requirement? That said, I don't think such a combined outlet is available (on the UK market at least), but if it were, wouldn't this meet the possible forthcoming requirement for all outlets to be RCD protected just as well?
That said, I agree with other posters that the combined outlet is not ideal. I have one myself, and a guest in the house managed to melt the insulation of the lead to the kettle as it draped over one of the hob's hotplates. There is no RCD protection at the consumer unit either. The problem is, there are no other sockets on that wall of the kitchen [1]. It would benefit from rewiring, which means retiling, which means (in this case) replacing the worktop and cupboards, which means (in this case) replacing the floortiles - and I'm not currently flush with sufficient cash to redo the entire kitchen for a 'simple' rewiring job. I would dearly love to re-educate the bodger who designed and built the kitchen I currently live with.
Sid
[1] In fact there is one, and one outlet only in the kitchen above the worktop, apart from the combined cooker/outlet above the hob.
Yes.
Indeed.
I would expect so, but I can't see anyone bothering to expensively design a device that has such drawbacks.
Indeed. The correct solution is to design the kitchen installation properly, with the correct number of sockets on the correct circuits with no combined socket/switch abominations.
Christian.
Thanks for the info. I think it's actually just a 13A socket for the oven, one for the (gas) hob, and possibly sockets for the cooker hood extractor and combi. It's a PME earthed system, the electrician is actually training on the job - he will have the work inspected to form part of his qualification (to allow him to wire the consumer unit I think) so I'll mention it to him.
That's interesting I thought they were compulsory. It's a first and second floor flat so not much chance of anything plugged in being outside, but sounds like a good idea to have them anyway.
Yes. I would always protect any general purpose socket whether require to or not. I prefer not to protect sockets specifically located for fixed appliances, like fridges, freezers, washing machines etc. I know you should really use FCUs for these, but then they are a pain in the arse when it comes to maintenance.
Christian.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.