Wagos on Final Ring Circuits

[John-SJW]

In a ring if there is a 30A screw terminal junction box in the ring one spur can be taken off this. The j box terminals have three cables in them.

Each cable in a Wago (or an in-Sure) has it own connection slot for each wire. This makes a difference.
Wagos are mini bus bars. If a 32A four connector Wago has a 2.5mm wire in each end, then the brass 'bus bar' inside is obviously a part of the ring that full current can run through.

So, if a four connector Wago is in a junction box on a ring with the ring cables in each end, (must be in each end) then each of the centre two connectors can have a spur off, as both are off the mini bus bar in the Wago that forms a part of the ring. So two spurs off the one Wago, as both are independently off the ring.

What are the views of you guys.

 

[telectrix]

why can't the RFC wires be in the inner ports and the spur wires in the outer ports?

 

[Lucien Nunes]

It's a cheeky literal interpretation of the regs to bypass their intention. The idea is that with the ring cables in the end ports the Wago internal busbar spine forms part of the ring 'wiring' so the two inner ports are 'separate' locations in the ring, each of which is entitled to feed one spur. In fact if you allow that each piece of the busbar can form part of the ring, it doesn't matter which holes the wires are in, as Tel notes.

But it's a specious argument because the intent of the regulation is not so much about the actual connectors as the tendency for multiple spurs radiating from a point along the cable to concentrate load at that point. Two adjacent traditional round JBs would have the same effect and may be technically compliant but bad practice.

 

[John-SJW]

why can't the RFC wires be in the inner ports and the spur wires in the outer ports?

Thanks.
As I explained, the brass bar insie the Wago forms a bus bar. The ring current will run from one end to the other. Spurs off the two centre connectors are off the ring itself for sure. I gave an e.g., of a four connector, and that would not make much difference which way the wires are in the connector, but would make a difference with a five connector Wago.

With a five, if say the two ring wires were in one end, it is clear that three sockets (spurs) could be off one Wago. That is why I say having the ring cables off the end connections is important - to maintain the integrity of the ring.

 

[John-SJW]

It's a cheeky literal interpretation of the regs to bypass their intention. The idea is that with the ring cables in the end ports the Wago internal busbar spine forms part of the ring 'wiring' so the two inner ports are 'separate' locations in the ring, each of which is entitled to feed one spur. In fact if you allow that each piece of the busbar can form part of the ring, it doesn't matter which holes the wires are in, as Tel notes.

But it's a specious argument because the intent of the regulation is not so much about the actual connectors as the tendency for multiple spurs radiating from a point along the cable to concentrate load at that point. Two adjacent traditional round JBs would have the same effect and may be technically compliant but bad practice.

Thanks.
I would not call it cheeky, just looking at the construction of the Wago. Electrically having two or three sockets, or FCUs off the centre connections of the Wago is electrically sound, electrically it is safe - and it does conform to the literal interpretation. I have no idea what Wago or in-Sure's intentions were.

It is a work around for sure.

 

[telectrix]

however it's configured, there's the danger of putting too much load on a single point of the ring.

 

[John-SJW]

however it's configured, there's the danger of putting too much load on a single point of the ring.

Thanks.
I would not call that danger.
That would be more ring design and balancing with two much load on one leg. But, say one leg of a ring take 75% of the load. by the time it reach 32A (assuming a 32A mcb on the ring), the most used leg will only be drawing 24A, which is within the ~27A of the 2.5mm cable.

Having sockets off a ring in a kitchen with a number of high current drawing appliances off the ring within inches or feet of each other, could be classed bunching on a ring as most of the load is all at one location of the ring. That is an ultra common situation. This can be overcome by a balanced ring, having say leg one feed alternative sockets. There again - design.

Lucien Nunes highlighted putting two 30A J boxes next to each other on a ring with a spur off each, which is the same.

 

[Lucien Nunes]

Exactly, so my point is that one does not need to go to extreme lengths to justfy where you are connecting the spurs if you are designing appropriately. There is nothing better or worse about the Wago example vs. the two JB's example. It's just a matter of whether you want to argue over the definition of a cable and whether the innards of a Wago qualify as one. The argument has nothing to do with either electrical safety or compliance with the intended meaning of the regulations.

 

[John-SJW]

It's just a matter of whether you want to argue over the definition of a cable and whether the innards of a Wago qualify as one.

Thanks.
Looking at the innards of a Wago block the brass bus bar clearly makes up a part of the ring if using say the five connector Wago with the ring wires at each end. There is no argument on that - it just does. The brass inside is more substantial than the cable, capable of taking a heavier load.

John Ward's vid on Wagos, heavily overloading them until they melted, was clear in that the cable melted before the Wago. Even using the no-name cheapo Chinese brand.

The regs were written with screwed terminal j boxes and sockets in mind, as that is what was there. It looks like technology has overtaken the regs. BTW, in Germany they sell sockets with Wago connectors on the back, eliminating screwed connectors.

 

[Lucien Nunes]

I'm not sure if we are at cross purposes. Any terminal or junction box should be suitable for the rated current and the number of cables connected. That is a separate consideration to whether more than one spur should be fed from a single point in the ring.

The brass inside is more substantial than the cable, capable of taking a heavier load.

The relationship is not quite that simple, since the bulk resistance of the metal is not the main source of heat dissipation. That occurs chiefly at the point of contact between cable and connector, where the current density is highest. The main difference that the CSA of the structural parts of a bussed connector makes, is in the thermal resistance to ambient they provide to the points of high current density.

The regs were written with screwed terminal j boxes and sockets in mind,

When the regs were written, rings were normally wired in 7/.029. One can make a connection of lower resistance between two spurs and a through-run of 7/.029 in a 30A marshmallow, than one can between two spurs and a through-run of 2.5 in a 5-hole 222. The advantage of the Wago is that the contact resistance is consistently low across time, temperature and cable types, not that it is insignificant altogether. I am a great fan of Wagos having been using them since the 1980s, but they don't have magical powers.

 

[Pete999]

Thanks.
Looking at the innards of a Wago block the brass bus bar clearly makes up a part of the ring if using say the five connector Wago with the ring wires at each end. There is no argument on that - it just does. The brass inside is more substantial than the cable, capable of taking a heavier load.

John Ward's vid on Wagos, heavily overloading them until they melted, was clear in that the cable melted before the Wago. Even using the no-name cheapo Chinese brand.

The regs were written with screwed terminal j boxes and sockets in mind, as that is what was there. It looks like technology has overtaken the regs. BTW, in Germany they sell sockets with Wago connectors on the back, eliminating screwed connectors.

Just design the circuit/layout correctly in the first place, do away with JBs of any description MF or not, a decent circuit design beats the need for any joints, good planning beats Migraines caused by worrying if you have done it correctly in the first place, JBs are good for afterthoughts and nothing much else. Tin hat firmly on head.

 

[John-SJW]

Thanks.
In a new circuit what you wrote was the way to go. But it is the additions along the way that entail junctions, spurs, etc.

An e.g., my place. I have: w/machine, d/washer, boiler, fridge, boiler, TV amplifier & Modem, all on their own 2.5mm radial circuits with their own RCBOs. The ring circuit feeds the TV, laptop, 800w toaster and cooker hood. Minimal load. Divide and rule.

Looking at the Wagos, if I wanted to take a two spurs off say one of the kitchen sockets - out of convenience, the Wagos would do it at the rear of a 35mm deep backbox. Electrically safe? No doubt. To the regs, I would say yes. Others may disagree, that is the aim of this thread, to make awareness getting differing views. BTW, I have no intention of adding spurs.

 

[John-SJW]

The advantage of the Wago is that the contact resistance is consistently low across time, temperature and cable types,

Thanks.
I knows guys who in the 1st fix will use Wagos inside the backboxes, connecting up a ring (or radial), and even the earth terminal of a metal backbox. The backbozes are double up as j boxes. They test the ring. Any wiring problems are identified before finishing trades turn up. Putting it right afterwards may be big problems.

Then the plasterers and painters come in doing their work. They leave the Wagos in place in the backboxes. Then on the 2nd fix, on a bench they prepared the sockets, by screwing into all the socket's tails of flexible 2.5mm cable, inc' an insulated earth wire, about 4 to 6 inches long. They then just quickly put the tails into the Wagos at the back of the back boxes. The socket easily pushes back in being on flex tails. Then test again. The speed, and ease, of instalation was much quicker.

Each socket is a spur. The 2.5mm flex tails to a double socket cannot be more than 26A with 27A rated cable. So OK.

I have found many terminal screws on the back of sockets can work loose over time - expansion-contraction, vibration from people walking on wooden floors, etc. This is then a potential fire situation, with maybe arcing, adding higher resistances to the ring, which may cause one leg of the ring to take most of the load, etc.

That is where Wagos, in the scenario I just outlined, where they take the rings load, not the terminal on the rear of the sockets, with sockets being spurs, are safer. Having Wago connections on the rear of sockets, as in Germany, adds another level of safety, in eliminating another potential failure/fire risk.

I am a great fan of Wagos having been using them since the 1980s, but they don't have magical powers.

That they are not, but they add so much value in many ways. And are superb get out of jail solutions at times.

 

[loz2754]

Thanks.
I knows guys who in the 1st fix will use Wagos inside the backboxes, connecting up a ring (or radial), and even the earth terminal of a metal backbox. The backbozes are double up as j boxes. They test the ring. Any wiring problems are identified before finishing trades turn up. Putting it right afterwards may be big problems.

Then the plasterers and painters come in doing their work. They leave the Wagos in place in the backboxes. Then on the 2nd fix, on a bench they prepared the sockets, by screwing into all the socket's tails of flexible 2.5mm cable, inc' an insulated earth wire, about 4 to 6 inches long. They then just quickly put the tails into the Wagos at the back of the back boxes. The socket easily pushes back in being on flex tails. Then test again. The speed, and ease, of instalation was much quicker.

Each socket is a spur. The 2.5mm flex tails to a double socket cannot be more than 26A with 27A rated cable. So OK.

I have found many terminal screws on the back of sockets can work loose over time - expansion-contraction, vibration from people walking on wooden floors, etc. This is then a potential fire situation, with maybe arcing, adding higher resistances to the ring, which may cause one leg of the ring to take most of the load, etc.

That is where Wagos, in the scenario I just outlined, where they take the rings load, not the terminal on the rear of the sockets, with sockets being spurs, are safer. Having Wago connections on the rear of sockets, as in Germany, adds another level of safety, in eliminating another potential failure/fire risk.


That they are not, but they add so much value in many ways. And are superb get out of jail solutions at times.

I'm liking this idea. May cut down on future ring continuity problems

 

[pc1966]

If you are adding a new spur, could you not simply run 2 * 2.5mm to it and make it part of the ruin at that JB?

 

[John-SJW]

If you are adding a new spur, could you not simply run 2 * 2.5mm to it and make it part of the ruin at that JB?

That would be the best solution of course. But that is not the point of the thread. Wagos can (some cannot) have two spurs off them, which makes matters very easy in some situations.

 

[pc1966]

Two spurs from the same point is against the design rational for the ring (that you don't have a high concentration of loads at some point). Otherwise you are not sure to get good balance between the two legs and the use of, say 32A MCB for overload protection on 2.5mm is getting a little dodgy.

 

[John-SJW]

I do like Wago terminal strips.

 

[John-SJW]

Two spurs from the same point is against the design rational for the ring (that you don't have a high concentration of loads at some point). Otherwise you are not sure to get good balance between the two legs and the use of, say 32A MCB for overload protection on 2.5mm is getting a little dodgy.

For e.g, A wall mounted TV and sound bar. Take spurs off a local socket (using Wagos to maintain the ring), with two spurs off the Wago in the backbox to two single sockets, one for the TV and one for the sound bar. Depending on the shape of the back of the TV, with the mounting brackets there, a double socket may be unsuitable of one spur, with two singles the way (the case with mine). Then two 1.5mm cables off a Wago inside the local socket's backbox on the ring will be suitable. The 13A fuse protects the 1.5mm cable.

Also the load on thes two sockets is minimal.

 

[MrMan1O1]

In a ring if there is a 30A screw terminal junction box in the ring one spur can be taken off this. The j box terminals have three cables in them.

Exactly, you wouldn't take two spurs from a single point on a ring whether it be a screw terminal JB or a socket, so why think it's ok to take two spurs from one point on the ring just because the multiple connection ports on WAGO terminals make it convenient? A spur from a ring equals three cables, end of.
No matter how many connector ports a WAGO terminal has got it surely should be treated as a replacement for a screwed terminal and the cable configuration should be no different to a conventional ring circuit. No matter how long the WAGO is I don't buy into the idea that the ring terminals go in at each end and the spur from the centre....it simply doesn't matter.... it's a connector, not part of the ring in the way that a cable is. My rationale is that even if the WAGO "mini busbar" is 2 or 3cm long, all connection points on it are at the same potential, ie there's no voltage drop along it in the same way you will get over a long length of cable.
I think anyone using Wagos or similar should be careful not to compromise the design convention of a circuit just because it's easy/convenient/possible.

 

[John-SJW]

No matter how long the WAGO is I don't buy into the idea that the ring terminals go in at each end and the spur from the centre....it simply doesn't matter.... it's a connector, not part of the ring in the way that a cable is.

Thanks.
Look at a Wago, a 4 or 5 connector version. The mini bus bar in the Wago IS a part of the ring, like a cable. It just is, it is not open to opinion. This may be inside a product whose target market is making connections, but that does not dissolve the fact that the mini bus bar is a part of the ring, taking the full current of the ring when full current is drawn. And that a connection taken off the Wago is an individual connection taken off the ring. Very different to three wires touching each other taken off one brass screwed terminal.

A normal screwed j box does not operate like a Wago in current transport, especially with 4 or 5 connector Wagos.

Let's take a scenario. A 35mm deep box with socket on the front and spurs taken of the back existing via the back.
1) ring cable in to the 1st connection on a 3 connector Wago (a);
2) ring cable out on the last (3rd) connector;
3) then a wire out of the 2nd connector to the front socket (which is a spur);

4) Then another 3 connector Wago (b) inside (enough space);
5) the ring wire out of Wago (a) connector then into Wago (b) connector 1st;
6) ring cable out of last connector 3rd on Wago (b);
7) then a wire out the middle 2nd connector on Wago b) to a spur;

Two Wagos in a ring with a spur off both.
The two Wagos take the full current of the ring - it runs right through the two of them. This is all as we understand taking spurs of rings. All legal as we know it.

Inside the 35mm box there is a ring wire that may be only 2 inches long that joins the two Wagos effectively joining the mini bus bars inside the Wagos.

Having one 4 connector Wago, with the ring in the 1st and out of the 4th connectors with the socket and spur off the two middle connectors does the same thing, with less connectors, which mean less resistance, etc. And looks safer. But some may say that is illegal, even though it is better all around. I say there is nothing wrong with that being a superior solution.

 

[DPG]

Thanks.
Look at a Wago, a 4 or 5 connector version. The mini bus bar in the Wago IS a part of the ring, like a cable. It just is, it is not open to opinion. This may be inside a product whose target market is making connections, but that does not dissolve the fact that the mini bus bar is a part of the ring, taking the full current of the ring when full current is drawn. And that a connection taken off the Wago is an individual connection taken off the ring. Very different to three wires touching each other taken off one brass screwed terminal.

A normal screwed j box does not operate like a Wago in current transport, especially with 4 or 5 connector Wagos.

Let's take a scenario. A 35mm deep box with socket on the front and spurs taken of the back existing via the back.
1) ring cable in to the 1st connection on a 3 connector Wago (a);
2) ring cable out on the last (3rd) connector;
3) then a wire out of the 2nd connector to the front socket (which is a spur);

4) Then another 3 connector Wago (b) inside (enough space);
5) the ring wire out of Wago (a) connector then into Wago (b) connector 1st;
6) ring cable out of last connector 3rd on Wago (b);
7) then a wire out the middle 2nd connector on Wago b) to a spur;

Two Wagos in a ring with a spur off both.
The two Wagos take the full current of the ring - it runs right through the two of them. This is all as we understand taking spurs of rings. All legal as we know it.

Inside the 35mm box there is a ring wire that may be only 2 inches long that joins the two Wagos effectively joining the mini bus bars inside the Wagos.

Having one 4 connector Wago, with the ring in the 1st and out of the 4th connectors with the socket and spur off the two middle connectors does the same thing, with less connectors, which mean less resistance, etc. And looks safer. But some may say that is illegal, even though it is better all around. I say there is nothing wrong with that being a superior solution.

I don't really see your argument that it's ok as long as you use the outer terminals if the Wago. In reality the difference between one terminal and the next is tiny and wouldn't really make a difference.

 

[dodger421]

Thanks.
Look at a Wago, a 4 or 5 connector version. The mini bus bar in the Wago IS a part of the ring, like a cable. It just is, it is not open to opinion. This may be inside a product whose target market is making connections, but that does not dissolve the fact that the mini bus bar is a part of the ring, taking the full current of the ring when full current is drawn. And that a connection taken off the Wago is an individual connection taken off the ring. Very different to three wires touching each other taken off one brass screwed terminal.

A normal screwed j box does not operate like a Wago in current transport, especially with 4 or 5 connector Wagos.

Let's take a scenario. A 35mm deep box with socket on the front and spurs taken of the back existing via the back.
1) ring cable in to the 1st connection on a 3 connector Wago (a);
2) ring cable out on the last (3rd) connector;
3) then a wire out of the 2nd connector to the front socket (which is a spur);

4) Then another 3 connector Wago (b) inside (enough space);
5) the ring wire out of Wago (a) connector then into Wago (b) connector 1st;
6) ring cable out of last connector 3rd on Wago (b);
7) then a wire out the middle 2nd connector on Wago b) to a spur;

Two Wagos in a ring with a spur off both.
The two Wagos take the full current of the ring - it runs right through the two of them. This is all as we understand taking spurs of rings. All legal as we know it.

Inside the 35mm box there is a ring wire that may be only 2 inches long that joins the two Wagos effectively joining the mini bus bars inside the Wagos.

Having one 4 connector Wago, with the ring in the 1st and out of the 4th connectors with the socket and spur off the two middle connectors does the same thing, with less connectors, which mean less resistance, etc. And looks safer. But some may say that is illegal, even though it is better all around. I say there is nothing wrong with that being a superior solution.

That logic applies to screwed metal earth terminal blocks too, (which is effectively what a Wago is in a smaller, insulated and easier to use form). Nobody sane would argue you could take multiple spurs off one of those as long as you’ve got the ring conductors in either end (and somehow suitably insulated the block etc etc...).

As Lucien and many others have pointed out this is a very literal reading of the regs to try and bypass their intentions whilst utterly missing the point.

 

[telectrix]

either extend the ring or sort your spurs out. Yee Hah!.

 

[MrMan1O1]

For e.g, A wall mounted TV and sound bar. Take spurs off a local socket (using Wagos to maintain the ring), with two spurs off the Wago in the backbox to two single sockets, one for the TV and one for the sound bar. Depending on the shape of the back of the TV, with the mounting brackets there, a double socket may be unsuitable of one spur, with two singles the way (the case with mine). Then two 1.5mm cables off a Wago inside the local socket's backbox on the ring will be suitable. The 13A fuse protects the 1.5mm cable.

Also the load on thes two sockets is minimal.

The regs allow only one unfused spur off the ring socket not two. The unfused spur would have to be in 2.5mm cable not 1.5mm. If you are saying that you've used wagos to expand the ring then I suppose you could take one spur cable from the socket and another from the wagos (which are acting as a 3 terminal JB), but I doubt there will be room in the backbox for 3 X 3-port wagos and five 2.5mm t&e cables. The spurs must be 2.5mm the same as the ring to ensure they're protected by the CU overcurrent device (30A or 32A). You can use 1.5mm cable to supply the two single sockets in series only if you replace your ring socket with a FCU, or wire in the FCU as a spur from your ring socket. The 13A fuse (I assume you mean one in the TV plug) does not protect the 1.5mm cable supplying it; it ruptures for a fault on the load side, not supply.
I know that you are saying that the load is only minimal, but design principles should not be compromised and what you have described is outwith the wiring regulations I'm afraid.
Hope this helps.

 

[westward10]

You can spur from a ring final in 1.5 (1.0 if it is MI) providing circuit protection is not compromised.

 

[Lucien Nunes]

I'm beginning to wonder whether the OP works for Wago. We agree that Wagos are versatile, reliable and practical. The premise of this thread is that if, and only if, you use Wagos, you can argue that multiple spurs taken from one point are actually from separate points. On this we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[telectrix]

I'm beginning to wonder whether the OP works for Wago. We agree that Wagos are versatile, reliable and practical. The premise of this thread is that if, and only if, you use Wagos, you can argue that multiple spurs taken from one point are actually from separate points. On this we will have to agree to disagree.

agree. the wago, no matter which way it's connected, is still a single point on the ring.

 

[John-SJW]

agree. the wago, no matter which way it's connected, is still a single point on the ring.

That is my argument. Looking at the Wago, which has a mini bus bar inside, it is not an interpretation, it is multiple point connections from the ring, not a single point. Look, do not take my word or it. The clear connectors clearly shows the bus bar with the multiple, connections. The mini bus bar charges matter from a normal screwed connection j box. Wago types of connectors add so much more value.

BTW, I do not work for any manufacturer.

 

[DPG]

That is my argument. Looking at the Wago, which has a mini bus bar inside, it is not an interpretation, it is multiple point connections from the ring, not a single point. Look, do not take my word or it. The clear connectors clearly shows the bus bar with the multiple, connections.

BTW, I do not work for any manufacturer.

I think we all understand how a Wago is constructed, but you are making rather wild claims about the function of a cm of copper!

 

[pc1966]

That is my argument. Looking at the Wago, which has a mini bus bar inside, it is not an interpretation, it is multiple point connections from the ring, not a single point.

You are totally missing the whole point of why there are rules limiting spurs off a RFC.

Why is the RFC allowed to use 32A OCPD when the usual 2.5mm cable is 20-26A CCC limit?

Because of diversity in the type of loads and the assumption that the loading is distributed to a moderate degree over the length of the loop, so both 'legs' from the OCPD are sharing the current to a reasonable degree.

The same reason why the regs advise not to put large fixed loads on the RFC - it is not part of the overall strategy for allowing less copper to serve a much bigger area.

Running two spurs off a Wago joint (or any other joint) is NOT achieving that diversity of loading along the length of the ring. It is electrically indistinguishable from taking spurs off spurs as far as the load on either leg of the ring is concerned.

Your argument is like a lawyer looking for a loop-hole, not an engineer analysing the who and why that regulations have developed.

 

[John-SJW]

You are totally missing the whole point of why there are rules limiting spurs off a RFC.

Why is the RFC allowed to use 32A OCPD when the usual 2.5mm cable is 20-26A CCC limit?

Because of diversity in the type of loads and the assumption that the loading is distributed to a moderate degree over the length of the loop, so both 'legs' from the OCPD are sharing the current to a reasonable degree.

The same reason why the regs advise not to put large fixed loads on the RFC - it is not part of the overall strategy for allowing less copper to serve a much bigger area.

Running two spurs off a Wago joint (or any other joint) is NOT achieving that diversity of loading along the length of the ring. It is electrically indistinguishable from taking spurs off spurs as far as the load on either leg of the ring is concerned.

Your argument is like a lawyer looking for a loop-hole, not an engineer analysing the who and why that regulations have developed.

I know exactly what ring circuits are and how they work. You are mainly on about the design of the circuit, in not bunching heavy appliances on the ring. Good design would have a balanced ring - leg A to socket 1 (or FCU), then socket 3, 5, 7, etc, with leg B to socket 2, then socket 4, 6, 8, etc. So when adjacent w/machine and dryer are on, one is drawing off leg A and one leg B, balancing.

You are saying that having heavy appliances bunched off a ring, as in a kitchen is bad design. Of course it is, but legal. I have seen FCUs over worktops in twin boxes. That means the ring cable between the FCUs is inches long, then the sockets further along the worktop. When many appliances are on, w/machine, dryer, dishwasher, electric kettle, 3kW oven, toaster, etc, the ring is highly unbalanced - this is an issue. This setup is common. It is bad design. You are implying that in this situation it is no better than daisy chained spurs off a ring (daisy chained spurs are against regs). It isn't really, but your point is taken.

However, I have seen sockets all bunched off an upstairs ring, bedrooms converted to an office is common, but each one is drawing very low levels of current, via laptops, games consoles, printer, computers, etc. The ring is unbalanced, but the load is so low it is not an issue. On my ring I have a TV, computer, kitchen extract fan and a toaster. The ring is highly unbalanced when the toaster is on, but again the current draw is so low it is not an issue.

A 4 connector Wago with the ring in No.1 then out of No.4 (either ends of the Wago bus bar) with a spur off No. 2 and another off No. 3, is not daisy chaining spurs, as both are off the ring. If having spurs next to each other of course sensible design has to come in, in not having heavy current loads bunched, which of course a Wago can do. Having a Wago serving two spurs off an upstairs, lightly used, ring circuit would give no problems.

 

[DPG]

I give up.

 

[John-SJW]

?

 

[Lucien Nunes]

This is not the argument you were trying to advance earlier. You are now comparing the effects of bunched loads in different situations, and I am broadly in agreement with your analysis. Your original point, however, was that there was a fundamental difference in concept between the use of a Wago (with a specific in-line internal structure) and the use of another suitable connector of equal performance but different structure for the same purpose, namely connecting two spurs to a ring that may or may not represent a significant bunching of load.

Like DPG I am close to giving up but I would like to hear your opinion of the MK1132 junction box:

30 Amp 3 Terminal Junction Box - White | MK (1132WHI)

 

[loz2754]

This has got to be a windup!
A Wago is a connector, not a busbar.
OP is almost religiously dogmatic in stating that the Wago is indeed a mini busbar. A totally ridiculous and unsupportable argument IMHO.

 

[John-SJW]

My original point was that a Wago has a bus bar inside. This bus bar is a part of the ring when the ring cables are connect at each end. Then a number of spurs can be taken off the bus bar - is not daisy chaining spurs, as some thing it is.

The j box below would do exactly the same if wired the same way as the Wago, as can be seen a bus bar is there.



The above j box is quite different to the normal one like below, where thers is no bus and all cables are into one terminal:

 

[John-SJW]

This has got to be a windup!
A Wago is a connector, not a busbar.
OP is almost religiously dogmatic in stating that the Wago is indeed a mini busbar. A totally ridiculous and unsupportable argument IMHO.

Look at one. Do not take my word for it.

 

[John-SJW]

This is not the argument you were trying to advance earlier. You are now comparing the effects of bunched loads in different situations, and I am broadly in agreement with your analysis.

I was responding to a poster.

I have not read of any limits of sizes of bus bars - can be 1/2" or 2 foot.

 

[MrMan1O1]

I know exactly what ring circuits are and how they work. You are mainly on about the design of the circuit, in not bunching heavy appliances on the ring. Good design would have a balanced ring - leg A to socket 1 (or FCU), then socket 3, 5, 7, etc, with leg B to socket 2, then socket 4, 6, 8, etc. So when adjacent w/machine and dryer are on, one is drawing off leg A and one leg B, balancing.

You are saying that having heavy appliances bunched off a ring, as in a kitchen is bad design. Of course it is, but legal. I have seen FCUs over worktops in twin boxes. That means the ring cable between the FCUs is inches long, then the sockets further along the worktop. When many appliances are on, w/machine, dryer, dishwasher, electric kettle, 3kW oven, toaster, etc, the ring is highly unbalanced - this is an issue. This setup is common. It is bad design. You are implying that in this situation it is no better than daisy chained spurs off a ring (daisy chained spurs are against regs). It isn't really, but your point is taken.

However, I have seen sockets all bunched off an upstairs ring, bedrooms converted to an office is common, but each one is drawing very low levels of current, via laptops, games consoles, printer, computers, etc. The ring is unbalanced, but the load is so low it is not an issue. On my ring I have a TV, computer, kitchen extract fan and a toaster. The ring is highly unbalanced when the toaster is on, but again the current draw is so low it is not an issue.

A 4 connector Wago with the ring in No.1 then out of No.4 (either ends of the Wago bus bar) with a spur off No. 2 and another off No. 3, is not daisy chaining spurs, as both are off the ring. If having spurs next to each other of course sensible design has to come in, in not having heavy current loads bunched, which of course a Wago can do. Having a Wago serving two spurs off an upstairs, lightly used, ring circuit would give no problems.

You mentioned in another post that wagos can be a get of jail free card, but if you're taking two spurs off one WAGO terminal then it's you that could be going straight to jail I'm afraid.
A WAGO is not a ring conductor, It's a terminal for goodness sake.
As for balancing loads on a ring circuit....er, hello, it's a ring....the two cables coming from the CU actually act as one, and each cable will carry half the current of the total load from all the outlets.....of course the load varies along the length of the cable but all that means is the point of "balance" (searching for a better word) of current flow will change accordingly.

 

[Lucien Nunes]

the two cables coming from the CU actually act as one, and each cable will carry half the current of the total load from all the outlets

I don't think this is quite what you meant to say. Either that, or you will have to haggle with Mr Ohm and get him to change his ideas about proportionality between V and I in metallic conductors.

 

[Pete999]

I give up.

Me an all

 

[Pete999]

My original point was that a Wago has a bus bar inside. This bus bar is a part of the ring when the ring cables are connect at each end. Then a number of spurs can be taken off the bus bar - is not daisy chaining spurs, as some thing it is.

The j box below would do exactly the same if wired the same way as the Wago, as can be seen a bus bar is there.

View attachment 63817

The above j box is quite different to the normal one like below, where thers is no bus and all cables are into one terminal:

View attachment 63818

But aint MF

 

[Lucien Nunes]

The above j box is quite different to the normal one like below, where thers is no bus and all cables are into one terminal:

Quite different indeed. In one, the cables are clamped by screw pressure against a piece of brass of negligible resistance, whereas in the other, they are clamped by screw pressure against a piece of brass of negligible resistance.

Having finished work now, I'm off home. Kat is still away visiting her family so I am going to have a mixed grill. I'll fry a couple of Wagos in case I need to spur off the onion rings, although there isn't mushroom in the back box.

TTFN

 

[John-SJW]

You mentioned in another post that wagos can be a get of jail free card, but if you're taking two spurs off one WAGO terminal then it's you that could be going straight to jail I'm afraid.
A WAGO is not a ring conductor, It's a terminal for goodness sake.
As for balancing loads on a ring circuit....er, hello, it's a ring....the two cables coming from the CU actually act as one, and each cable will carry half the current of the total load from all the outlets.....of course the load varies along the length of the cable but all that means is the point of "balance" (searching for a better word) of current flow will change accordingly.

That is totally incorrect. Here is a vid on the inbalance between the legs of a ring circuit:

"A WAGO is not a ring conductor, It's a terminal for goodness sake."

Mmmm No. Manufacturers at times design products that are used for different purposes for what they were intended. An e.g. is the transistor. Bell Labs designed it to make long distance telephone calls clearer. It was used by others to replace valves in radios - to Bell's surprise.

 

[John-SJW]

But aint MF

True but that is not the point.

 

[telectrix]

Quite different indeed. In one, the cables are clamped by screw pressure against a piece of brass of negligible resistance, whereas in the other, they are clamped by screw pressure against a piece of brass of negligible resistance.

Having finished work now, I'm off home. Kat is still away visiting her family so I am going to have a mixed grill. I'll fry a couple of Wagos in case I need to spur off the onion rings, although there isn't mushroom in the back box.

TTFN

is that mixed grill a mixture of lever wagos and push-in wagos. ? bearing in mind that you need the lever type for the (flexible) onion rings.

 

[John-SJW]

Quite different indeed. In one, the cables are clamped by screw pressure against a piece of brass of negligible resistance, whereas in the other, they are clamped by screw pressure against a piece of brass of negligible resistance.

Having finished work now, I'm off home. Kat is still away visiting her family so I am going to have a mixed grill. I'll fry a couple of Wagos in case I need to spur off the onion rings, although there isn't mushroom in the back box.

TTFN

?

 

[brianmoooore]

Satin Chrome Customised Kitchen Grid Switch Panel with White Switches - 4 Gang: Amazon.co.uk: DIY & Tools

Free delivery and returns on all eligible orders. Shop Satin Chrome Customised Kitchen Grid Switch Panel with White Switches - 4 Gang.

www.amazon.co.uk

Isn't this going to end up as multiple spurs from the same point on a ring when fitted?

 

[MrMan1O1]

I don't think this is quite what you meant to say. Either that, or you will have to haggle with Mr Ohm and get him to change his ideas about proportionality between V and I in metallic conductors.

Your right of course, I think I lost the plot frustrated by the other issue. Current will flow according to the rules for parallel conductors and of course at the point of load the resistance of one path will be different to the other.
I think that's everything washed up now....oh sorry there's the mixed grill stuff ?