Removing a double socket

[bettz1]

Why are you so worried about these sockets?

There was nothing wrong before you started changing things - now you’ve changed something that had a tiny chance of causing any issue into something definitely dangerous.

If you’re going to post asking for advice, then at least follow it and put everything back as it was - or better get an electrician in to sort it out.

I'm listening calm down that's the reason I posted as I was unsure.

I got told to remove the plug near to the hob as it could be dangerous which had me worried,plus I knew what the previous owners handywork was like

What I don't understand is as he's added that plug socket in before surely there wouldn't have been the extra 3 cables going into the new socket

 

[EFLImpudence]

A friend who's Mrs job is building regulations said that a socket should be 300mm away from a sink and hob.

It is a recommendation, not a regulation, to prevent stupid people burning their hands.
You can put her right so she might stop misleading people.

Also none of our neighbours have a socket which has been added in the downstairs toilet above the fusebox??

So? Consider yourself lucky.

And we've also got 1 socket in the build in wardrobe that the previous owner has added himself

So?

Which is piggybacked off a socket in the boiler cupboard ??

So? It has to be connected somewhere.

 

[bernardgreen]

Using a 30 amp terminal block connect the cables together. Put an Earth lead to the back box Earth terminal. Cover with a plain cover plate.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Also if you are going to listen to Mrs Busybody, then you will have to remove the next socket as well. (300mm). She is causing you a lot of aggravation for someone without a firm grasp of her facts.

 

[Echo the husky]

I've just noticed my kitchen is the same, cooker switch/socket within 5mm from the edge of the hob. It really isn't a problem.

 

[bettz1]

All back to normal guess I should just leave it well alone

Thanks all

 

[Echo the husky]

Good vacuums those Dysons, just serviced one here. Incredible power for such a small size.

 

[ericmark]

Glad you have put it back as it was.

I will try to explain the British ring final.

During world war 2 it was realised after the war there would need to be a massive rebuilding project to replace the bombed houses and there was a copper shortage so a new system was invented, up to then we had 15 amp round pin sockets each supplied from its own fuse, but by putting the fuse in the plug a number of sockets can share the same fuse in the fuse box which could now be a lot larger, however on a long run the voltage would drop, and with say a 20 amp fuse using a number of sockets at the same time, the main fuse in fuse box may rupture.

So instead this final circuit went around in a ring so power could be drawn through two cables, so instead of 20 amp they could use a 30 amp fuse in the fuse box, this used a lot less cable than previous methods, and reduced volt drop, there were some draw backs like need for testing every 10 years or change of occupant as things will still work even when the ring is broken, and one must ensure line and neutral are never swapped, but in the main it is still the best system in the world.

As well as the installation the fitting a fuse in the plug allows smaller cable to be used for low power equipment by simply swapping to a smaller fuse.

 

[JohnW2]

So instead this final circuit went around in a ring so power could be drawn through two cables, so instead of 20 amp they could use a 30 amp fuse in the fuse box, this used a lot less cable than previous methods ....

The saving of length of cable (in comparison with two radials) is usually minimal - with the most common arrangements, the only saving will be the small length of cable between the two sockets furthermost from the CU/fuse box.

However, as I think you're saying, what the ring did allow was for a smaller CSA cable to be used (hence less copper) without having to limit the current in each circuit to 15A or 20A.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Wasn't it more of a way of increasing the amperage (number of sockets) on existing circuits without altering that circuit - other than extending it - nor increasing the number of ways in the fuse box.

After all, another circuit would have had the same benefit.

 

[JohnW2]

Wasn't it more of a way of increasing the amperage (number of sockets) on existing circuits without altering that circuit - other than extending it - nor increasing the number of ways in the fuse box. After all, another circuit would have had the same benefit.

That would make some sense but my understanding (perhaps wrong) was the same as eric's - that it arose primarily because of the massive rebuilding projects after the war - hence primarily new builds with new electrical installations.

Kind Regards, John

 

[flameport]

The real reasons and considerations for rings, as described in Post War Building Studies, 1944.

The comparison with saving of copper was with previous (1930s) wiring practice, which typically was a number of individual circuits to single outlets of various ratings and types.
Replacing multiple individual circuits with a single ring did have significant savings in copper, as did having a single standard outlet type (compared to the previous incompatible 2 and 3 pin sockets of various ratings)
Also note that the intent for smaller dwellings was for one ring covering the entire house, which was the main idea of the savings in copper.

 

[JohnW2]

The real reasons and considerations for rings, as described in Post War Building Studies, 1944. ... The comparison with saving of copper was with previous (1930s) wiring practice, which typically was a number of individual circuits to single outlets of various ratings and types.

Thanks.

Does the wording of that imply that, not too long before that, DP fusing was actually 'required'?

Kind Regards, John