- Reaction score
- 13,478
The idea of two spurs from adjacent points merging into one was first described by Pete999 in #26, reiterated as a specific argument by SJD in #44 and hammered home by Devonchris in #108.
Now try this one:
Suppose the junction box is actually a socket outlet in the RFC. You can run one unfused spur from this to feed one point., no doubt about that.
Now, instead of the socket outlet in the ring being in the physical position it is, you 'relocate' the faceplate to a different position using a piece of 2.5mm² cable, leaving the connections where they are. We already know that this type of cable is acceptable to feed one point. We already know that the loading on the RFC from the point of connection is acceptable. Electrically, nothing has changed. So, provided the junction box is adequate for the purpose, the OP's situation is electrically just as safe as a single spur to a socket outlet run from another socket outlet.
Making all new socket outlets part of a fused spur is obviously compliant, but may be materially less safe. The total load that can now be connected is limited to 13A, and if Pete's proposed 2 x 2kW heaters were connected, one to each of the new socket outlets, a prolonged low overload would occur before the fuse failed. During that time, the FCU would be operated beyond its continuous rating, whereas with the double unfused spur nothing would be overloaded in this way.
So IMHO the simple answer of making the addition a fused spur apparently improves compliance while making it less safe. Personally, I think the OP's solution is fine. I agree with SC that it is not in breach of any regs. Connecting a large number of spurs to one point would be unacceptable because too great a fraction of the circuit's total load would be likely to become concentrated at that point. But as I showed above, there is no such redistribution of load at all, when two unfused spurs each serving one point are taken from one junction that is not itself an outlet.
Now try this one:
Suppose the junction box is actually a socket outlet in the RFC. You can run one unfused spur from this to feed one point., no doubt about that.
Now, instead of the socket outlet in the ring being in the physical position it is, you 'relocate' the faceplate to a different position using a piece of 2.5mm² cable, leaving the connections where they are. We already know that this type of cable is acceptable to feed one point. We already know that the loading on the RFC from the point of connection is acceptable. Electrically, nothing has changed. So, provided the junction box is adequate for the purpose, the OP's situation is electrically just as safe as a single spur to a socket outlet run from another socket outlet.
Making all new socket outlets part of a fused spur is obviously compliant, but may be materially less safe. The total load that can now be connected is limited to 13A, and if Pete's proposed 2 x 2kW heaters were connected, one to each of the new socket outlets, a prolonged low overload would occur before the fuse failed. During that time, the FCU would be operated beyond its continuous rating, whereas with the double unfused spur nothing would be overloaded in this way.
So IMHO the simple answer of making the addition a fused spur apparently improves compliance while making it less safe. Personally, I think the OP's solution is fine. I agree with SC that it is not in breach of any regs. Connecting a large number of spurs to one point would be unacceptable because too great a fraction of the circuit's total load would be likely to become concentrated at that point. But as I showed above, there is no such redistribution of load at all, when two unfused spurs each serving one point are taken from one junction that is not itself an outlet.
