On 25/01/2017 17:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/01/17 15:02, John Rumm wrote:
Perhaps all harry's lights are hard wired in a radial with no switches?

OK luv, who's turn is it to go to the CU to turn off the bedside light?

Harry obviously lives alone.

Perhaps he has a bedside mirror?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 24/01/2017 18:59, Mike Humphrey wrote:
ARW wrote:
On 23/01/2017 22:32, Fredxxx wrote:

It seems you need a box with 3 bus-bars in it, earth, neutral and live
and another row of terminals to connect the individual pairs.

I've not seen one, perhaps Adam will assist where to get one?

Not quite what you asked for, but how about?

http://www.surewire.co.uk/products/l...-and-benefits/

It obviously will not work for the strapper cable which needs a 6
terminal junction box.


Yes, that's one option I've considered. Assuming that most of the cables
are redundant, as seems likely, it should be possible to fit everything
into one of those. Has anyone used them and has any experiences to pass
on?

I have never used one but I would have no hesitations whatsoever in
using one.

A further thought. You say there are more switch drops at your existing
JB than there are lights in your house.

Well it might be worth checking behind a few light switches for
spare/unused cables - maybe someone has removed wall lights, or heaven
forbid changed a 5A socket into a 13A socket.

--
Adam

On 25/01/2017 20:50, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , John
Rumm escribió:

Perhaps he has a bedside mirror?

Someone has to kiss him goodnight.

Now there is a mental image I did not need...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 24/01/2017 17:47, ARW wrote:
On 24/01/2017 17:37, Andy Burns wrote:
ARW wrote:

how about?
http://www.surewire.co.uk/products/l...-and-benefits/



That website makes it look like it's only a concept for a product,
rather than an actual product ...


Well I cannot find the 6 way one anywhere. However the 4 way one is here

http://www.screwfix.com/p/surewire-s...ox-white/2742j

Thanks, that does look much neater than a series of 4-way junction boxes.

Fredxxx wrote:

ARW wrote:

I cannot find the 6 way one anywhere. However the 4 way one is here
http://www.screwfix.com/p/surewire-s...ox-white/2742j

Thanks, that does look much neater than a series of 4-way junction boxes.

Surprised they don't do a version that has power in/out plus three or
four sets of lights with two-way switches, to cater for bedrooms with
wall and ceiling switches.

On 25/01/2017 07:49, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 11:11:23 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 24/01/2017 08:11, harry wrote:


The best thing to do with that lot is to rip out the whole house wiring and start again.
No doubt there is other hidden stuff as bad or worse.
This is the sort of thing ends up killing people.
DON'T try to bodge it up piecemeal.

Rubbish - it just needs tiding up.

--
Adam

You must have very low standards.
Junction boxes should only appear where there has been modifications to an installation.

A new installation should have none.


Something else harry has wrong.

Mike Humphrey wrote:
The bigger question is what on earth all these wires do...

And the answer is... a lot of them do nothing.

So, I replaced the live terminal with a terminal strip - one wire on
each. This made it pretty easy to find the incoming power, then link
each cable in turn (with much up and down to the CU to keep turning
the power off and on) to find out what it powered. For four of them, the
answer is "nothing" - so that's eight cables that can be removed
completely. The rest are all labelled and connected to some temporary
terminal strips while I wait for my junction boxes to arrive:

https://goo.gl/photos/dBmFuu1zRtCWn9wi8

(a slight cheat, I haven't reconnected the loft lights yet).

Having discovered that the bathroom lights have multiple pointless
junction boxes, I've decided to rewire them. I'll also tidy up
the wiring to the dining room at the same time. So I've got three
Surewire boxes on order - two multi-light ones for the downlights in
the bathroom and dining room, and a 4-way single light one for the
rest. These will be on a board on the rafters so I can get at them,
rather than buried in the loft insulation. Photos to follow when it's
done, though it might be a while.

Now I'm just wondering what else may be lurking under the loft
insulation...

Mike

Mike Humphrey wrote:

Mike Humphrey wrote:
The bigger question is what on earth all these wires do...

And the answer is... a lot of them do nothing.

So, I replaced the live terminal with a terminal strip - one wire on
each. This made it pretty easy to find the incoming power, then link
each cable in turn (with much up and down to the CU to keep turning
the power off and on) to find out what it powered. For four of them, the
answer is "nothing" - so that's eight cables that can be removed
completely. The rest are all labelled and connected to some temporary
terminal strips while I wait for my junction boxes to arrive:

https://goo.gl/photos/dBmFuu1zRtCWn9wi8

(a slight cheat, I haven't reconnected the loft lights yet).

Having discovered that the bathroom lights have multiple pointless
junction boxes, I've decided to rewire them. I'll also tidy up
the wiring to the dining room at the same time. So I've got three
Surewire boxes on order - two multi-light ones for the downlights in
the bathroom and dining room, and a 4-way single light one for the
rest. These will be on a board on the rafters so I can get at them,
rather than buried in the loft insulation. Photos to follow when it's
done, though it might be a while.

Now I'm just wondering what else may be lurking under the loft
insulation...

Mike

As a matter of interest, is it acceptable to label wires with PVC tape
rather than sleeving? It has the disadvantage that it invariably
falls off if you wait long enough. I have no idea what the answer is,
if indeed there is an agreed answer.

--

Roger Hayter

On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 09:47:54 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 25-Jan-17 7:49 AM, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 11:11:23 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 24/01/2017 08:11, harry wrote:


The best thing to do with that lot is to rip out the whole house wiring and start again.
No doubt there is other hidden stuff as bad or worse.
This is the sort of thing ends up killing people.
DON'T try to bodge it up piecemeal.

Rubbish - it just needs tiding up.

--
Adam

You must have very low standards.
Junction boxes should only appear where there has been modifications to an installation.

There is nothing wrong with using junction boxes, provided that the
access to them is not 'significantly impaired'.

A new installation should have none.

So no loop-in ceiling roses then?


A loop in ceiling rose is not a junction box.

Even without loop in ceiling roses, a new installtion should have no joint/junction boxes.

On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 15:02:10 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/01/2017 09:47, Nightjar wrote:
On 25-Jan-17 7:49 AM, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 11:11:23 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 24/01/2017 08:11, harry wrote:


The best thing to do with that lot is to rip out the whole house
wiring and start again.
No doubt there is other hidden stuff as bad or worse.
This is the sort of thing ends up killing people.
DON'T try to bodge it up piecemeal.

Rubbish - it just needs tiding up.

--
Adam

You must have very low standards.
Junction boxes should only appear where there has been modifications
to an installation.

There is nothing wrong with using junction boxes, provided that the
access to them is not 'significantly impaired'.

A new installation should have none.

So no loop-in ceiling roses then?

Perhaps all harry's lights are hard wired in a radial with no switches?

OK luv, who's turn is it to go to the CU to turn off the bedside light?



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

I can't help your ignorance.
I had a five year apprentice electrician training.
Junction boxes are for amateurs, modifications and repairs to damage.

On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 09:47:54 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 25-Jan-17 7:49 AM, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 11:11:23 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 24/01/2017 08:11, harry wrote:


The best thing to do with that lot is to rip out the whole house wiring and start again.
No doubt there is other hidden stuff as bad or worse.
This is the sort of thing ends up killing people.
DON'T try to bodge it up piecemeal.

Rubbish - it just needs tiding up.

--
Adam

You must have very low standards.
Junction boxes should only appear where there has been modifications to an installation.

There is nothing wrong with using junction boxes, provided that the
access to them is not 'significantly impaired'.

A new installation should have none.

So no loop-in ceiling roses then?


Loop in ceiling roses are not junction boxes.

Roger Hayter wrote:
Mike Humphrey wrote:

Mike Humphrey wrote:
The bigger question is what on earth all these wires do...

And the answer is... a lot of them do nothing.

So, I replaced the live terminal with a terminal strip - one wire on
each. This made it pretty easy to find the incoming power, then link
each cable in turn (with much up and down to the CU to keep turning
the power off and on) to find out what it powered. For four of them, the
answer is "nothing" - so that's eight cables that can be removed
completely. The rest are all labelled and connected to some temporary
terminal strips while I wait for my junction boxes to arrive:

https://goo.gl/photos/dBmFuu1zRtCWn9wi8

(a slight cheat, I haven't reconnected the loft lights yet).

Having discovered that the bathroom lights have multiple pointless
junction boxes, I've decided to rewire them. I'll also tidy up
the wiring to the dining room at the same time. So I've got three
Surewire boxes on order - two multi-light ones for the downlights in
the bathroom and dining room, and a 4-way single light one for the
rest. These will be on a board on the rafters so I can get at them,
rather than buried in the loft insulation. Photos to follow when it's
done, though it might be a while.

Now I'm just wondering what else may be lurking under the loft
insulation...

Mike

As a matter of interest, is it acceptable to label wires with PVC tape
rather than sleeving? It has the disadvantage that it invariably
falls off if you wait long enough. I have no idea what the answer is,
if indeed there is an agreed answer.

Labels from a Dymo 4200 or similar seem pretty permanent, you can do
'flag' labels or ones that wrap round the cable.

--
Chris Green
·

Chris Green wrote:

Roger Hayter wrote:
Mike Humphrey wrote:

Mike Humphrey wrote:
The bigger question is what on earth all these wires do...

And the answer is... a lot of them do nothing.

So, I replaced the live terminal with a terminal strip - one wire on
each. This made it pretty easy to find the incoming power, then link
each cable in turn (with much up and down to the CU to keep turning
the power off and on) to find out what it powered. For four of them, the
answer is "nothing" - so that's eight cables that can be removed
completely. The rest are all labelled and connected to some temporary
terminal strips while I wait for my junction boxes to arrive:

https://goo.gl/photos/dBmFuu1zRtCWn9wi8

(a slight cheat, I haven't reconnected the loft lights yet).

Having discovered that the bathroom lights have multiple pointless
junction boxes, I've decided to rewire them. I'll also tidy up
the wiring to the dining room at the same time. So I've got three
Surewire boxes on order - two multi-light ones for the downlights in
the bathroom and dining room, and a 4-way single light one for the
rest. These will be on a board on the rafters so I can get at them,
rather than buried in the loft insulation. Photos to follow when it's
done, though it might be a while.

Now I'm just wondering what else may be lurking under the loft
insulation...

Mike

As a matter of interest, is it acceptable to label wires with PVC tape
rather than sleeving? It has the disadvantage that it invariably
falls off if you wait long enough. I have no idea what the answer is,
if indeed there is an agreed answer.

Labels from a Dymo 4200 or similar seem pretty permanent, you can do
'flag' labels or ones that wrap round the cable.

I'm talking about sleeving to indicate that blue wires are live, or, as
in this case, protective earth. The ones in the picture above seem to
be done with tape rather than sleeving. I am questioning whether this
is appropriate.



--

Roger Hayter

Roger Hayter wrote:
I'm talking about sleeving to indicate that blue wires are live, or, as
in this case, protective earth. The ones in the picture above seem to
be done with tape rather than sleeving. I am questioning whether this
is appropriate.

I'd prefer to use sleeving for a permanent installation, particualry
for earth as earth sleeving is easily obtainable compared to, eg,
red sleeving*. But for the OP's work in progress I'd have no objection.

*I keep offcuts of 10mm T+E to make red sleeving from.

jgh

On 29/01/2017 16:41, harry wrote:

I can't help your ignorance.

True, in fact as far as I can tell, there is little with which you can help.

I had a five year apprentice electrician training.

Having heard the many tales of electricians apprentices here, that is
actually quite easy to believe.

Junction boxes are for amateurs, modifications and repairs to damage.

Prejudice, or just ignorance?

It is entirely resonable to wire an parts of or even an entire lighting
circuit with 4 terminal junctions boxes in the right circumstance.
Ceiling roses[1] are not always appropriate.

[1] Also bleedingly obviously a junction box! The location of the cable
entry and exit holes does not change what it does.

For socket circuits they are less often required at the time of initial
installation, unless you need a backbone / spur style radial circuit.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Roger Hayter wrote:
I'm talking about sleeving to indicate that blue wires are live, or, as
in this case, protective earth. The ones in the picture above seem to
be done with tape rather than sleeving. I am questioning whether this
is appropriate.

Well it's certainly the normal practice to mark the blue (or black) of a
switch drop with tape to indicate it's switched live and not neutral
(though whoever installed the junction box that started this thread
didn't bother). I've never seen sleeving used for this, though it is
available - as is cable with two browns so no marking is needed.

As for the earth wires, yes it is a bit lazy to use offcuts of cable
marked with tape - I should have used some spare earth wire with
sleeving on. But I'll be taking it apart again next week, so the tape
should last until then - and each cable is marked at both ends and in
the middle where there's room.

It's far from the only thing wrong (most obviously the lack of an
enclosure - there are exposed live screws, though it would be pretty
difficult to touch them by accident), though it's probably still safer
than when I started.

Mike

I'd prefer to use sleeving for a permanent installation, particualry
for earth as earth sleeving is easily obtainable compared to, eg,
red sleeving*. But for the OP's work in progress I'd have no objection.

*I keep offcuts of 10mm T+E to make red sleeving from.

It is my understanding that cables that need sleeving even in the old red & black colours that the sleeving should use the unified colours.

Richard

Mike Humphrey wrote:

Roger Hayter wrote:
I'm talking about sleeving to indicate that blue wires are live, or, as
in this case, protective earth. The ones in the picture above seem to
be done with tape rather than sleeving. I am questioning whether this
is appropriate.

Well it's certainly the normal practice to mark the blue (or black) of a
switch drop with tape to indicate it's switched live and not neutral
(though whoever installed the junction box that started this thread
didn't bother). I've never seen sleeving used for this, though it is
available - as is cable with two browns so no marking is needed.

As for the earth wires, yes it is a bit lazy to use offcuts of cable
marked with tape - I should have used some spare earth wire with
sleeving on. But I'll be taking it apart again next week, so the tape
should last until then - and each cable is marked at both ends and in
the middle where there's room.

It's far from the only thing wrong (most obviously the lack of an
enclosure - there are exposed live screws, though it would be pretty
difficult to touch them by accident), though it's probably still safer
than when I started.

Mike

Sorry, I wasn't particularly meaning to criticise your setup, which is
obviously temporary, it was more I have seen tape used (and fallen off!)
and I wondered what others thought about its use for permanent wiring.

--

Roger Hayter

Tricky Dicky wrote:

I'd prefer to use sleeving for a permanent installation, particualry
for earth as earth sleeving is easily obtainable compared to, eg,
red sleeving*. But for the OP's work in progress I'd have no objection.

*I keep offcuts of 10mm T+E to make red sleeving from.

It is my understanding that cables that need sleeving even in the old red
& black colours that the sleeving should use the unified colours.

Richard
Isn't that going to be a bit confusing unless you also use brown on the
red wires, and blue on the black wires when they don't get brown
sleeving? I'lll admit that I have done as you suggest when wiring two
ganged switches with old and new cables to them, but that may have been
laziness.



--

Roger Hayter

On 29/01/2017 16:41, harry wrote:

snip

I had a five year apprentice electrician training.

That is an embarrassingly long apprenticeship for an electrician.

On Monday, 30 January 2017 02:18:20 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 29/01/2017 16:41, harry wrote:

snip

I had a five year apprentice electrician training.

That is an embarrassingly long apprenticeship for an electrician.

It was normal back then.
But then it was proper training and involved the firms own training school and Technical college as well as practical work.
At the end of it I had an HNC in electrical machines, power, control sytems and industtial administration.

On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 12:01:39 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/01/2017 07:49, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 11:11:23 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 24/01/2017 08:11, harry wrote:


The best thing to do with that lot is to rip out the whole house wiring and start again.
No doubt there is other hidden stuff as bad or worse.
This is the sort of thing ends up killing people.
DON'T try to bodge it up piecemeal.

Rubbish - it just needs tiding up.

--
Adam

You must have very low standards.
Junction boxes should only appear where there has been modifications to an installation.

Nonsense spoken with such authority...

A new installation should have none.

That really does depend on what type of installation it is. Sometimes a
junction box is the most appropriate implementation - especially with
lighting circuits as is the case here.




Drivel.
I have seen many lighting circuit systems fall in and out of favour.
The only one where junction boxes were considered acceptable was rubbber insulated lead served cable.
Fell out of favour around 1960.

Every joint is a potential source of trouble, which is why they should be minimised.
Anybody that can't do a new installation without joint /junction boxes is not fit for the job.

In article , harry
wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 12:01:39 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/01/2017 07:49, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 11:11:23 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 24/01/2017 08:11, harry wrote:


The best thing to do with that lot is to rip out the whole house
wiring and start again. No doubt there is other hidden stuff as bad
or worse. This is the sort of thing ends up killing people. DON'T
try to bodge it up piecemeal.

Rubbish - it just needs tiding up.

-- Adam

You must have very low standards. Junction boxes should only appear
where there has been modifications to an installation.

Nonsense spoken with such authority...

A new installation should have none.

That really does depend on what type of installation it is. Sometimes a
junction box is the most appropriate implementation - especially with
lighting circuits as is the case here.




Drivel. I have seen many lighting circuit systems fall in and out of
favour. The only one where junction boxes were considered acceptable was
rubbber insulated lead served cable. Fell out of favour around 1960.

Every joint is a potential source of trouble, which is why they should be
minimised. Anybody that can't do a new installation without joint
/junction boxes is not fit for the job.

That sounds like a cable manufacturer's sales pitch. Do you have every
individual light switch cabled back to the Consumer Unit?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 29/01/2017 16:41, harry wrote:

Junction boxes are for amateurs, modifications and repairs to damage.


OK, so how would you fit in a new installation a ceiling light fitting
which has only 2 terminals (spring-loaded clamps)?

FTAOD (a) there's not even somewhere to park a CPC and (b) there are
loads such sold every day by IKEA et al.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 30/01/2017 09:06, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 12:01:39 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/01/2017 07:49, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 11:11:23 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 24/01/2017 08:11, harry wrote:


The best thing to do with that lot is to rip out the whole house wiring and start again.
No doubt there is other hidden stuff as bad or worse.
This is the sort of thing ends up killing people.
DON'T try to bodge it up piecemeal.

Rubbish - it just needs tiding up.

--
Adam

You must have very low standards.
Junction boxes should only appear where there has been modifications to an installation.

Nonsense spoken with such authority...

A new installation should have none.

That really does depend on what type of installation it is. Sometimes a
junction box is the most appropriate implementation - especially with
lighting circuits as is the case here.




Drivel.
I have seen many lighting circuit systems fall in and out of favour.
The only one where junction boxes were considered acceptable was rubbber insulated lead served cable.
Fell out of favour around 1960.

Every joint is a potential source of trouble, which is why they should be minimised.

The number of joints is mostly a function of the circuit topology. You
make those connections at an accessible place - be that a junction box
(four terminal, ceiling rose, click connector, wago box etc), or at the
switch. The number of wires you need to join is not changed by the
jointing method.

Anybody that can't do a new installation without joint /junction boxes is not fit for the job.

So then why not enlighten us; how would you wire a lighting circuit
without junction boxes?






--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 11:19:07 +0000, Robin wrote:

On 29/01/2017 16:41, harry wrote:

Junction boxes are for amateurs, modifications and repairs to damage.


OK, so how would you fit in a new installation a ceiling light fitting
which has only 2 terminals (spring-loaded clamps)?

FTAOD (a) there's not even somewhere to park a CPC and (b) there are
loads such sold every day by IKEA et al.

I had the same problem when I put four Klik ceiling 'roses' in our
lounge. Flat three terminal plate, on a BESA box.

I used a junction box in the floor void above.
--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Monday, 30 January 2017 11:19:10 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 29/01/2017 16:41, harry wrote:

Junction boxes are for amateurs, modifications and repairs to damage.


OK, so how would you fit in a new installation a ceiling light fitting
which has only 2 terminals (spring-loaded clamps)?


You put in and extra terminal.

On Monday, 30 January 2017 11:04:06 UTC, charles wrote:
In article , harry
wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 12:01:39 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/01/2017 07:49, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 11:11:23 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 24/01/2017 08:11, harry wrote:


The best thing to do with that lot is to rip out the whole house
wiring and start again. No doubt there is other hidden stuff as bad
or worse. This is the sort of thing ends up killing people. DON'T
try to bodge it up piecemeal.

Rubbish - it just needs tiding up.

-- Adam

You must have very low standards. Junction boxes should only appear
where there has been modifications to an installation.

Nonsense spoken with such authority...

A new installation should have none.

That really does depend on what type of installation it is. Sometimes a
junction box is the most appropriate implementation - especially with
lighting circuits as is the case here.




Drivel. I have seen many lighting circuit systems fall in and out of
favour. The only one where junction boxes were considered acceptable was
rubbber insulated lead served cable. Fell out of favour around 1960.

Every joint is a potential source of trouble, which is why they should be
minimised. Anybody that can't do a new installation without joint
/junction boxes is not fit for the job.

That sounds like a cable manufacturer's sales pitch. Do you have every
individual light switch cabled back to the Consumer Unit?

No, the purpose of three terminal ceiling. roses is to negate that.

Prior to that (ie back in the 70's) lighting circuits were run using single core cable, the live was run from one switch to the next.
Neutrals were run in single core from one light point to the next.
Switch wires were run from the switch to the lighting point.
But no joint boxes.

On Monday, 30 January 2017 11:25:53 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/01/2017 09:06, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 12:01:39 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/01/2017 07:49, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 11:11:23 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 24/01/2017 08:11, harry wrote:


The best thing to do with that lot is to rip out the whole house wiring and start again.
No doubt there is other hidden stuff as bad or worse.
This is the sort of thing ends up killing people.
DON'T try to bodge it up piecemeal.

Rubbish - it just needs tiding up.

--
Adam

You must have very low standards.
Junction boxes should only appear where there has been modifications to an installation.

Nonsense spoken with such authority...

A new installation should have none.

That really does depend on what type of installation it is. Sometimes a
junction box is the most appropriate implementation - especially with
lighting circuits as is the case here.




Drivel.
I have seen many lighting circuit systems fall in and out of favour.
The only one where junction boxes were considered acceptable was rubbber insulated lead served cable.
Fell out of favour around 1960.

Every joint is a potential source of trouble, which is why they should be minimised.

The number of joints is mostly a function of the circuit topology. You
make those connections at an accessible place - be that a junction box
(four terminal, ceiling rose, click connector, wago box etc), or at the
switch. The number of wires you need to join is not changed by the
jointing method.

Anybody that can't do a new installation without joint /junction boxes is not fit for the job.

So then why not enlighten us; how would you wire a lighting circuit
without junction boxes?






--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk

Neglecting earth wire.

L&N cables starts at the CU and goes from one ceiling rose to the next all round the area in question.

Twin live goes from each ceiling rose to the light switch controlling it. (Except if a switch controls more than one rose.)
Any two way switches as above but has three core cable between switch points.
Intermediate switches (if any) are positioned on the three core.

Simple, virtually impossible to go wrong.
Much better than previous methods.
No joint boxes.
Suitable for idiots and apprentices too.

On 30/01/2017 19:21, harry wrote:


Prior to that (ie back in the 70's) lighting circuits were run using single core cable, the live was run from one switch to the next.
Neutrals were run in single core from one light point to the next.
Switch wires were run from the switch to the lighting point.
But no joint boxes.

Did you know that we have that on the wiki?

Did you know that such installations are still used?




--
Adam

On 29/01/2017 16:38, harry wrote:

A loop in ceiling rose is not a junction box.


It is.



--
Adam

On 29/01/2017 23:01, Tricky Dicky wrote:

I'd prefer to use sleeving for a permanent installation, particualry
for earth as earth sleeving is easily obtainable compared to, eg,
red sleeving*. But for the OP's work in progress I'd have no objection.

*I keep offcuts of 10mm T+E to make red sleeving from.

It is my understanding that cables that need sleeving even in the old red & black colours that the sleeving should use the unified colours.

That's not required.

However you are supposed to have a notice on the CU warning of the mixed
colour change.



--
Adam

On 30/01/2017 19:16, harry wrote:
On Monday, 30 January 2017 11:19:10 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 29/01/2017 16:41, harry wrote:

Junction boxes are for amateurs, modifications and repairs to damage.


OK, so how would you fit in a new installation a ceiling light fitting
which has only 2 terminals (spring-loaded clamps)?


You put in and extra terminal.


You seem to be assuming:

a. there's room in the fitting
b. the customer does not mind you invalidating the warranty
c. you can do so without invalidating the certification of the fitting
d. there will be only a single cable to all such fittings - which begs
the question what topology your design uses.




--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Monday, 30 January 2017 19:44:24 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 29/01/2017 16:38, harry wrote:

A loop in ceiling rose is not a junction box.


It is.



--
Adam

Drivel.
No more that a switch is a junction box.

On 30/01/2017 19:35, harry wrote:
On Monday, 30 January 2017 11:25:53 UTC, John Rumm wrote:

Anybody that can't do a new installation without joint /junction boxes is not fit for the job.

So then why not enlighten us; how would you wire a lighting circuit
without junction boxes?


Neglecting earth wire.

L&N cables starts at the CU and goes from one ceiling rose to the next all round the area in question.

A ceiling rose is a junction box... what else could it be? Wires come in
and go out, they join at screw terminals in the box - it serves no other
function.

Twin live goes from each ceiling rose to the light switch controlling it. (Except if a switch controls more than one rose.)
Any two way switches as above but has three core cable between switch points.
Intermediate switches (if any) are positioned on the three core.

Simple, virtually impossible to go wrong.
Much better than previous methods.

What you have described is what we call "loop-in" wiring. Common and
standard practice that uses a junction box at every light fitting.

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/...Loop-in_Wiring

No joint boxes.

Apart from the one at the light fitting. Either in the form for a
ceiling rose, or a "four terminal" box or similar for lamp fittings that
don't use ceiling roses (which in many places these days will be all or
most of them).

Suitable for idiots and apprentices too.

So harry, it seems your entire argument is simply one of semantics. You
would wire a lighting circuit the same as anyone else, but like to argue
that the junction box you use at each lighting position is not one so
that you can claim their use is in some way deprecated.

Say you were wiring lighting positions that consist only of
downlighters, no ceiling roses?



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 31/01/2017 10:46, John Rumm wrote:

So harry, it seems your entire argument is simply one of semantics. You
would wire a lighting circuit the same as anyone else, but like to argue
that the junction box you use at each lighting position is not one so
that you can claim their use is in some way deprecated.

Say you were wiring lighting positions that consist only of
downlighters, no ceiling roses?




Obviously harry would use a bit of terminal block to connect the spare
wires and hide it behind one of the lights back boxes or in the ceiling.

He appears to think you need three core cable for two way lighting for
some odd reason.

On 31/01/2017 10:46, John Rumm wrote:


Say you were wiring lighting positions that consist only of
downlighters, no ceiling roses?


Good question. (I was wondering as I sorted a neighbour's kitchen
downlighter yesterday how Harry would have wired her 6 downlighters to a
single switch.)


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 12:46:29 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/01/2017 10:46, John Rumm wrote:

So harry, it seems your entire argument is simply one of semantics. You
would wire a lighting circuit the same as anyone else, but like to argue
that the junction box you use at each lighting position is not one so
that you can claim their use is in some way deprecated.

Say you were wiring lighting positions that consist only of
downlighters, no ceiling roses?




Obviously harry would use a bit of terminal block to connect the spare
wires and hide it behind one of the lights back boxes or in the ceiling.

If the fitting had only a twin terminal block,/ I would substitute it for a triple.

He appears to think you need three core cable for two way lighting for
some odd reason.

What do yo suppose this for ****-fer-brains.
https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_In...ree_Core_Grey/

On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 12:51:41 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 31/01/2017 10:46, John Rumm wrote:


Say you were wiring lighting positions that consist only of
downlighters, no ceiling roses?


Good question. (I was wondering as I sorted a neighbour's kitchen
downlighter yesterday how Harry would have wired her 6 downlighters to a
single switch.)


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

They would be "daisy chained".

On 01/02/2017 18:03, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 12:46:29 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/01/2017 10:46, John Rumm wrote:

So harry, it seems your entire argument is simply one of semantics. You
would wire a lighting circuit the same as anyone else, but like to argue
that the junction box you use at each lighting position is not one so
that you can claim their use is in some way deprecated.

Say you were wiring lighting positions that consist only of
downlighters, no ceiling roses?




Obviously harry would use a bit of terminal block to connect the spare
wires and hide it behind one of the lights back boxes or in the ceiling.

If the fitting had only a twin terminal block,/ I would substitute it for a triple.

He appears to think you need three core cable for two way lighting for
some odd reason.

What do yo suppose this for ****-fer-brains.
https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_In...ree_Core_Grey/


Today it used for a 3 phase fan in a hotel kitchen.

--
Adam