I have done some minor wiring, which in due course will be inspected.

I removed a socket and substituted a terminal block and blanking
plate. Should I have folded the conductor cables where they enter the
terminal block, or is this a thing of the past?

On 26/07/2018 17:22, Scott wrote:
I have done some minor wiring, which in due course will be inspected.

I removed a socket and substituted a terminal block and blanking
plate. Should I have folded the conductor cables where they enter the
terminal block, or is this a thing of the past?

Either are acceptable so long as you can get a good firm termination.
The only time folding is really needed is with a small diameter wire
into a large terminal, where you may not otherwise be able to get the
screw to grip it.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 26/07/2018 17:22, Scott wrote:
I have done some minor wiring, which in due course will be inspected.

I removed a socket and substituted a terminal block and blanking
plate. Should I have folded the conductor cables where they enter the
terminal block, or is this a thing of the past?


I strip both wires so they're long enough to be gripped by both screws,
if there's room. Just seems better, doubt if it's compliant with anything.

Cheers
--
Clive

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 18:14:08 +0100, Clive Arthur
wrote:

On 26/07/2018 17:22, Scott wrote:
I have done some minor wiring, which in due course will be inspected.

I removed a socket and substituted a terminal block and blanking
plate. Should I have folded the conductor cables where they enter the
terminal block, or is this a thing of the past?


I strip both wires so they're long enough to be gripped by both screws,
if there's room. Just seems better, doubt if it's compliant with anything.

That's an interesting approach.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 18:14:08 +0100, Clive Arthur wrote:

On 26/07/2018 17:22, Scott wrote:
I have done some minor wiring, which in due course will be inspected.

I removed a socket and substituted a terminal block and blanking
plate. Should I have folded the conductor cables where they enter the
terminal block, or is this a thing of the past?


I strip both wires so they're long enough to be gripped by both screws,
if there's room. Just seems better, doubt if it's compliant with anything.

Cheers

I do that with in-line choc block, if there's room under the screw, as it
should reduce the chance of a loose connection.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

I was taught that you fold the when you're terminating it, ie it
is the sole wire entering the terminal, and flat otherwise, ie
there is more than one wire entering the terminal.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 13:43:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I was taught that you fold the when you're terminating it, ie it
is the sole wire entering the terminal, and flat otherwise, ie
there is more than one wire entering the terminal.

Would there be an argument for putting both leads into the same side,
so each terminal has two wires going into it, then the wires are in
physical contact and the space is better filled?

Scott wrote:
Would there be an argument for putting both leads into the same side,
so each terminal has two wires going into it, then the wires are in
physical contact and the space is better filled?

I don't have a preference, it depends on the space I'm putting it in.
If it's two cables coming in from the same side I'd put them into the
block side by side. If it's something coming in one end and going out
somewhere else I'd do it end to end, eg a neutral return passing
through a light switch, eg in the wiki:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/...tingWiring.gif

On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 07:33:33 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Scott wrote:
Would there be an argument for putting both leads into the same side,
so each terminal has two wires going into it, then the wires are in
physical contact and the space is better filled?

I don't have a preference, it depends on the space I'm putting it in.
If it's two cables coming in from the same side I'd put them into the
block side by side. If it's something coming in one end and going out
somewhere else I'd do it end to end, eg a neutral return passing
through a light switch, eg in the wiki:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/...tingWiring.gif

Thanks. It's actually (unusually) a radial circuit for the computer.
I am bypassing an existing socket so only two wires to deal with and
plenty of space in the box for the terminal block. It seems to me
putting them both into the same side would guarantee a solid
connection and avoid any risk in bending.

A friend - a retired electrical engineer from a major electricity
supply company - will be checking it so my aim is to impress him !!!

On 27/07/2018 15:33, wrote:
Scott wrote:
Would there be an argument for putting both leads into the same side,
so each terminal has two wires going into it, then the wires are in
physical contact and the space is better filled?

I don't have a preference, it depends on the space I'm putting it in.
If it's two cables coming in from the same side I'd put them into the
block side by side. If it's something coming in one end and going out
somewhere else I'd do it end to end, eg a neutral return passing
through a light switch, eg in the wiki:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/...tingWiring.gif


Just crimp the silly things then.

Andrew wrote:
Just crimp the silly things then.

Ah, but should I crimp them end to end or side by side?

After serious thinking Scott wrote :
Would there be an argument for putting both leads into the same side,
so each terminal has two wires going into it, then the wires are in
physical contact and the space is better filled?

Always aim to as near as possible fill the space in a connector, to
minimise resistance. Sometimes you can put two wires in from opposite
ends and long enough to be caught by both screws. Sometimes you can
feed both in from one end. The idea is to minimise the current flowing
through the connectors metalwork, by having the copper side by side.
Fold them over too, if you possibly can.

In the days when we used to solder cable lugs on large cables, if the
lug's socket was a little large, we would be taught to build the copper
up with a layer of copper wire wound around it, rather than rely on the
lead solder.

On 27/07/2018 20:54, wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Just crimp the silly things then.

Ah, but should I crimp them end to end or side by side?

Neither. Solder and protect with heat-shrink tube. Now are you going to
solder them in-line or sticking out?

Actually. If you are bypassing a socket, I'd go for two in one side of
choc-block minimising movement from the current setup and being easily
removed in the future if you want to re-instate the socket at any time.

SteveW

On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 23:23:26 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 27/07/2018 20:54, wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Just crimp the silly things then.

Ah, but should I crimp them end to end or side by side?

Neither. Solder and protect with heat-shrink tube. Now are you going to
solder them in-line or sticking out?

Actually. If you are bypassing a socket, I'd go for two in one side of
choc-block minimising movement from the current setup and being easily
removed in the future if you want to re-instate the socket at any time.

Thanks. I'm going to do that this morning!

On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 21:27:45 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

After serious thinking Scott wrote :
Would there be an argument for putting both leads into the same side,
so each terminal has two wires going into it, then the wires are in
physical contact and the space is better filled?

Always aim to as near as possible fill the space in a connector, to
minimise resistance. Sometimes you can put two wires in from opposite
ends and long enough to be caught by both screws. Sometimes you can
feed both in from one end. The idea is to minimise the current flowing
through the connectors metalwork, by having the copper side by side.
Fold them over too, if you possibly can.

Does this mean you can use a smaller connector block to ensure a good
fit, on the basis that if the wires are in contact there is no current
flowing through the connector block?

In the days when we used to solder cable lugs on large cables, if the
lug's socket was a little large, we would be taught to build the copper
up with a layer of copper wire wound around it, rather than rely on the
lead solder.

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 09:18:14 +0100, Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 23:23:26 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 27/07/2018 20:54, wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Just crimp the silly things then.

Ah, but should I crimp them end to end or side by side?

Neither. Solder and protect with heat-shrink tube. Now are you going to
solder them in-line or sticking out?

Actually. If you are bypassing a socket, I'd go for two in one side of
choc-block minimising movement from the current setup and being easily
removed in the future if you want to re-instate the socket at any time.

Thanks. I'm going to do that this morning!

Now done. I hope it passes inspection!

On Saturday, 28 July 2018 09:20:44 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 21:27:45 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:
After serious thinking Scott wrote :

Would there be an argument for putting both leads into the same side,
so each terminal has two wires going into it, then the wires are in
physical contact and the space is better filled?

Always aim to as near as possible fill the space in a connector, to
minimise resistance. Sometimes you can put two wires in from opposite
ends and long enough to be caught by both screws. Sometimes you can
feed both in from one end. The idea is to minimise the current flowing
through the connectors metalwork, by having the copper side by side.
Fold them over too, if you possibly can.

Does this mean you can use a smaller connector block to ensure a good
fit, on the basis that if the wires are in contact there is no current
flowing through the connector block?

With domestic mains wiring no, the connector must be rated as required. If you were designing an appliance and the connections were always done this way, a downrated connector could be justified. Though if you think no current would flow through then you're not skilled enough to do that.


NT

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 04:29:58 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Saturday, 28 July 2018 09:20:44 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 21:27:45 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:
After serious thinking Scott wrote :

Would there be an argument for putting both leads into the same side,
so each terminal has two wires going into it, then the wires are in
physical contact and the space is better filled?

Always aim to as near as possible fill the space in a connector, to
minimise resistance. Sometimes you can put two wires in from opposite
ends and long enough to be caught by both screws. Sometimes you can
feed both in from one end. The idea is to minimise the current flowing
through the connectors metalwork, by having the copper side by side.
Fold them over too, if you possibly can.

Does this mean you can use a smaller connector block to ensure a good
fit, on the basis that if the wires are in contact there is no current
flowing through the connector block?

With domestic mains wiring no, the connector must be rated as required. If you were designing an appliance and the connections were always done this way, a downrated connector could be justified. Though if you think no current would flow through then you're not skilled enough to do that.

Thanks. Maybe not no current but a current within the capabilities of
a 'downrated' connector. However, your first comment is determinative
as the work will be inspected.

On 27/07/2018 23:23, Steve Walker wrote:
On 27/07/2018 20:54, wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Just crimp the silly things then.

Ah, but should I crimp them end to end or side by side?

Neither. Solder and protect with heat-shrink tube. Now are you going to
solder them in-line or sticking out?

Actually. If you are bypassing a socket, I'd go for two in one side of
choc-block minimising movement from the current setup and being easily
removed in the future if you want to re-instate the socket at any time.

That's ok if the socket position is having a blanking plate on it so its
still visible, and the screw terminals will remain accessible for
maintenance.

If you are filling in the socket recess, then the joint needs to be a
maintenance free joint (crimp, solder, wago etc). Also consider if
removing all trace of the socket, whether the cables are going to still
be in a permitted zone.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 13:25:01 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 27/07/2018 23:23, Steve Walker wrote:
On 27/07/2018 20:54, wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Just crimp the silly things then.

Ah, but should I crimp them end to end or side by side?

Neither. Solder and protect with heat-shrink tube. Now are you going to
solder them in-line or sticking out?

Actually. If you are bypassing a socket, I'd go for two in one side of
choc-block minimising movement from the current setup and being easily
removed in the future if you want to re-instate the socket at any time.

That's ok if the socket position is having a blanking plate on it so its
still visible, and the screw terminals will remain accessible for
maintenance.

Which is the case here. Also accessible for inspection :-)

If you are filling in the socket recess, then the joint needs to be a
maintenance free joint (crimp, solder, wago etc). Also consider if
removing all trace of the socket, whether the cables are going to still
be in a permitted zone.

I think I would want a continuous cable run in that situation.

On 28/07/2018 13:52, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 13:25:01 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 27/07/2018 23:23, Steve Walker wrote:
On 27/07/2018 20:54, wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Just crimp the silly things then.

Ah, but should I crimp them end to end or side by side?

Neither. Solder and protect with heat-shrink tube. Now are you going to
solder them in-line or sticking out?

Actually. If you are bypassing a socket, I'd go for two in one side of
choc-block minimising movement from the current setup and being easily
removed in the future if you want to re-instate the socket at any time.

That's ok if the socket position is having a blanking plate on it so its
still visible, and the screw terminals will remain accessible for
maintenance.

Which is the case here. Also accessible for inspection :-)

If you are filling in the socket recess, then the joint needs to be a
maintenance free joint (crimp, solder, wago etc). Also consider if
removing all trace of the socket, whether the cables are going to still
be in a permitted zone.

I think I would want a continuous cable run in that situation.

That would be the ideal, but not always achievable. Crimped, or soldered
and then heatshrink is usually the best alternative in that case.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 28/07/2018 12:29, wrote:
On Saturday, 28 July 2018 09:20:44 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 21:27:45 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:
After serious thinking Scott wrote :

Would there be an argument for putting both leads into the same side,
so each terminal has two wires going into it, then the wires are in
physical contact and the space is better filled?

Always aim to as near as possible fill the space in a connector, to
minimise resistance. Sometimes you can put two wires in from opposite
ends and long enough to be caught by both screws. Sometimes you can
feed both in from one end. The idea is to minimise the current flowing
through the connectors metalwork, by having the copper side by side.
Fold them over too, if you possibly can.

Does this mean you can use a smaller connector block to ensure a good
fit, on the basis that if the wires are in contact there is no current
flowing through the connector block?

With domestic mains wiring no, the connector must be rated as required. If you were designing an appliance and the connections were always done this way, a downrated connector could be justified. Though if you think no current would flow through then you're not skilled enough to do that.

So I have two wires side by side inside the connector. The screws are
clamping the wires together. That's the low resistance path. There is a
higher resistance one, where the current leaves one wire, flows into the
connector, then back into the other wire - but surely it'll not be
carrying much current? At a guess a third? Which might be OK for a
smaller connector designed to take a current where the wires aren't
touching?

Andy

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
news
On 28/07/2018 12:29, wrote:
On Saturday, 28 July 2018 09:20:44 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 21:27:45 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:
After serious thinking Scott wrote :

Would there be an argument for putting both leads into the same side,
so each terminal has two wires going into it, then the wires are in
physical contact and the space is better filled?

Always aim to as near as possible fill the space in a connector, to
minimise resistance. Sometimes you can put two wires in from opposite
ends and long enough to be caught by both screws. Sometimes you can
feed both in from one end. The idea is to minimise the current flowing
through the connectors metalwork, by having the copper side by side.
Fold them over too, if you possibly can.

Does this mean you can use a smaller connector block to ensure a good
fit, on the basis that if the wires are in contact there is no current
flowing through the connector block?

With domestic mains wiring no, the connector must be rated as required.
If you were designing an appliance and the connections were always done
this way, a downrated connector could be justified. Though if you think
no current would flow through then you're not skilled enough to do that.

So I have two wires side by side inside the connector. The screws are
clamping the wires together. That's the low resistance path. There is a
higher resistance one, where the current leaves one wire, flows into the
connector, then back into the other wire - but surely it'll not be
carrying much current? At a guess a third?

Thats very arguable indeed given that the two wires have
much more contact area between the wire and the inside
of the hole in the connector than between the wires.

Which might be OK for a
smaller connector designed to take a current where the wires aren't
touching?

On Monday, 30 July 2018 21:50:16 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 28/07/2018 12:29, tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 28 July 2018 09:20:44 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 21:27:45 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:
After serious thinking Scott wrote :

Would there be an argument for putting both leads into the same side,
so each terminal has two wires going into it, then the wires are in
physical contact and the space is better filled?

Always aim to as near as possible fill the space in a connector, to
minimise resistance. Sometimes you can put two wires in from opposite
ends and long enough to be caught by both screws. Sometimes you can
feed both in from one end. The idea is to minimise the current flowing
through the connectors metalwork, by having the copper side by side.
Fold them over too, if you possibly can.

Does this mean you can use a smaller connector block to ensure a good
fit, on the basis that if the wires are in contact there is no current
flowing through the connector block?

With domestic mains wiring no, the connector must be rated as required. If you were designing an appliance and the connections were always done this way, a downrated connector could be justified. Though if you think no current would flow through then you're not skilled enough to do that.

So I have two wires side by side inside the connector. The screws are
clamping the wires together.

Probably. Maybe they don't even touch each other.

That's the low resistance path. There is a
higher resistance one, where the current leaves one wire, flows into the
connector, then back into the other wire - but surely it'll not be
carrying much current? At a guess a third? Which might be OK for a
smaller connector designed to take a current where the wires aren't
touching?

Andy

You don't know the relevant resistances, you're merely guessing. A solid block of conector metal is in fact very low resistance. The wire to wire resistance is variable.


NT

On 28/07/2018 12:29, wrote:
On Saturday, 28 July 2018 09:20:44 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 21:27:45 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:
After serious thinking Scott wrote :

Would there be an argument for putting both leads into the same side,
so each terminal has two wires going into it, then the wires are in
physical contact and the space is better filled?

Always aim to as near as possible fill the space in a connector, to
minimise resistance. Sometimes you can put two wires in from opposite
ends and long enough to be caught by both screws. Sometimes you can
feed both in from one end. The idea is to minimise the current flowing
through the connectors metalwork, by having the copper side by side.
Fold them over too, if you possibly can.

Does this mean you can use a smaller connector block to ensure a good
fit, on the basis that if the wires are in contact there is no current
flowing through the connector block?

With domestic mains wiring no, the connector must be rated as required. If you were designing an appliance and the connections were always done this way, a downrated connector could be justified. Though if you think no current would flow through then you're not skilled enough to do that.

Can you use a 20A junction box on 32A final ring circuit to join two
cables together?


--
Adam

On Monday, 30 July 2018 23:48:21 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
On 28/07/2018 12:29, tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 28 July 2018 09:20:44 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 21:27:45 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:
After serious thinking Scott wrote :

Would there be an argument for putting both leads into the same side,
so each terminal has two wires going into it, then the wires are in
physical contact and the space is better filled?

Always aim to as near as possible fill the space in a connector, to
minimise resistance. Sometimes you can put two wires in from opposite
ends and long enough to be caught by both screws. Sometimes you can
feed both in from one end. The idea is to minimise the current flowing
through the connectors metalwork, by having the copper side by side.
Fold them over too, if you possibly can.

Does this mean you can use a smaller connector block to ensure a good
fit, on the basis that if the wires are in contact there is no current
flowing through the connector block?

With domestic mains wiring no, the connector must be rated as required. If you were designing an appliance and the connections were always done this way, a downrated connector could be justified. Though if you think no current would flow through then you're not skilled enough to do that.

Can you use a 20A junction box on 32A final ring circuit to join two
cables together?

Physically you can use all sorts of things, but it ain't compliant on a 32A circuit.


NT

On 28/07/2018 09:18, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 23:23:26 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 27/07/2018 20:54, wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Just crimp the silly things then.

Ah, but should I crimp them end to end or side by side?

Neither. Solder and protect with heat-shrink tube. Now are you going to
solder them in-line or sticking out?

Actually. If you are bypassing a socket, I'd go for two in one side of
choc-block minimising movement from the current setup and being easily
removed in the future if you want to re-instate the socket at any time.

Thanks. I'm going to do that this morning!



Unless you are unable to use a screwdriver then I would not worry about
using strip connector:-)

--
Adam

On 30/07/2018 23:55, wrote:
On Monday, 30 July 2018 23:48:21 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
On 28/07/2018 12:29, tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 28 July 2018 09:20:44 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 21:27:45 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:
After serious thinking Scott wrote :

Would there be an argument for putting both leads into the same side,
so each terminal has two wires going into it, then the wires are in
physical contact and the space is better filled?

Always aim to as near as possible fill the space in a connector, to
minimise resistance. Sometimes you can put two wires in from opposite
ends and long enough to be caught by both screws. Sometimes you can
feed both in from one end. The idea is to minimise the current flowing
through the connectors metalwork, by having the copper side by side.
Fold them over too, if you possibly can.

Does this mean you can use a smaller connector block to ensure a good
fit, on the basis that if the wires are in contact there is no current
flowing through the connector block?

With domestic mains wiring no, the connector must be rated as required. If you were designing an appliance and the connections were always done this way, a downrated connector could be justified. Though if you think no current would flow through then you're not skilled enough to do that.

Can you use a 20A junction box on 32A final ring circuit to join two
cables together?

Physically you can use all sorts of things, but it ain't compliant on a 32A circuit.


Ta:-))))))))))


--
Adam

On 28/07/2018 18:11, John Rumm wrote:


That would be the ideal, but not always achievable. Crimped, or soldered
and then heatshrink is usually the best alternative in that case.


I always feel *slightly* safer with soldered and heat shrunk, even
though I have a fairly good ratchet crimper.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 23:57:25 +0100, ARW
wrote:

On 28/07/2018 09:18, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 23:23:26 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 27/07/2018 20:54, wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Just crimp the silly things then.

Ah, but should I crimp them end to end or side by side?

Neither. Solder and protect with heat-shrink tube. Now are you going to
solder them in-line or sticking out?

Actually. If you are bypassing a socket, I'd go for two in one side of
choc-block minimising movement from the current setup and being easily
removed in the future if you want to re-instate the socket at any time.

Thanks. I'm going to do that this morning!

Unless you are unable to use a screwdriver then I would not worry about
using strip connector:-)

Thankfully the screwdriver was in good working order. The next stage
is an inspection by an electrical engineer (retired and enjoys a
curry) later today :-) .

On 31/07/2018 10:25, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 23:57:25 +0100, ARW
wrote:

On 28/07/2018 09:18, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 23:23:26 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 27/07/2018 20:54, wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Just crimp the silly things then.

Ah, but should I crimp them end to end or side by side?

Neither. Solder and protect with heat-shrink tube. Now are you going to
solder them in-line or sticking out?

Actually. If you are bypassing a socket, I'd go for two in one side of
choc-block minimising movement from the current setup and being easily
removed in the future if you want to re-instate the socket at any time.

Thanks. I'm going to do that this morning!

Unless you are unable to use a screwdriver then I would not worry about
using strip connector:-)

Thankfully the screwdriver was in good working order. The next stage
is an inspection by an electrical engineer (retired and enjoys a
curry) later today :-) .


Are you currying favour?

I'll get me coat.

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

In article ,
newshound scribeth thus
On 28/07/2018 18:11, John Rumm wrote:


That would be the ideal, but not always achievable. Crimped, or soldered
and then heatshrink is usually the best alternative in that case.


I always feel *slightly* safer with soldered and heat shrunk, even
though I have a fairly good ratchet crimper.

Nothing is as good in my experience as a decent ratchet crimper and
decent crimp terminals never had a problem with them ever!..
--
Tony Sayer

On 31/07/2018 00:02, ARW wrote:
On 30/07/2018 23:55, wrote:
On Monday, 30 July 2018 23:48:21 UTC+1, ARWÂ* wrote:
On 28/07/2018 12:29, tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 28 July 2018 09:20:44 UTC+1, ScottÂ* wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 21:27:45 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:
After serious thinking Scott wrote :

Would there be an argument for putting both leads into the same
side,
so each terminal has two wires going into it, then the wires are in
physical contact and the space is better filled?

Always aim to as near as possible fill the space in a connector, to
minimise resistance. Sometimes you can put two wires in from opposite
ends and long enough to be caught by both screws. Sometimes you can
feed both in from one end. The idea is to minimise the current
flowing
through the connectors metalwork, by having the copper side by side.
Fold them over too, if you possibly can.

Does this mean you can use a smaller connector block to ensureÂ* a good
fit, on the basis that if the wires are in contact there is no current
flowing through the connector block?

With domestic mains wiring no, the connector must be rated as
required. If you were designing an appliance and the connections
were always done this way, a downrated connector could be justified.
Though if you think no current would flow through then you're not
skilled enough to do that.

Can you use a 20A junction box on 32A final ring circuit to join two
cables together?

Physically you can use all sorts of things, but it ain't compliant on
a 32A circuit.


Ta:-))))))))))


Not rising to the bait then?

--
Adam

On 31/07/2018 10:25, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 23:57:25 +0100, ARW
wrote:

On 28/07/2018 09:18, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 23:23:26 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 27/07/2018 20:54, wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Just crimp the silly things then.

Ah, but should I crimp them end to end or side by side?

Neither. Solder and protect with heat-shrink tube. Now are you going to
solder them in-line or sticking out?

Actually. If you are bypassing a socket, I'd go for two in one side of
choc-block minimising movement from the current setup and being easily
removed in the future if you want to re-instate the socket at any time.

Thanks. I'm going to do that this morning!

Unless you are unable to use a screwdriver then I would not worry about
using strip connector:-)

Thankfully the screwdriver was in good working order. The next stage
is an inspection by an electrical engineer (retired and enjoys a
curry) later today :-) .


JOOI if you replaced a double socket would you have that inspected?

--
Adam

On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 17:26:34 +0100, ARW
wrote:

On 31/07/2018 10:25, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 23:57:25 +0100, ARW
wrote:

On 28/07/2018 09:18, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 23:23:26 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 27/07/2018 20:54, wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Just crimp the silly things then.

Ah, but should I crimp them end to end or side by side?

Neither. Solder and protect with heat-shrink tube. Now are you going to
solder them in-line or sticking out?

Actually. If you are bypassing a socket, I'd go for two in one side of
choc-block minimising movement from the current setup and being easily
removed in the future if you want to re-instate the socket at any time.

Thanks. I'm going to do that this morning!

Unless you are unable to use a screwdriver then I would not worry about
using strip connector:-)

Thankfully the screwdriver was in good working order. The next stage
is an inspection by an electrical engineer (retired and enjoys a
curry) later today :-) .


JOOI if you replaced a double socket would you have that inspected?

Well, he's with me now since you mention it :-)

And no, I was not being entirely serious. I've done quite a bit of
minor electrics over the years (including replacing a double socket
recently).

My friend is doing present job because it involves rerouting the ring
main, channeling and entering the consumer unit. Also, he has much
better tools than me !!!

On 31/07/2018 09:21, newshound wrote:
On 28/07/2018 18:11, John Rumm wrote:


That would be the ideal, but not always achievable. Crimped, or
soldered and then heatshrink is usually the best alternative in that
case.


I always feel *slightly* safer with soldered and heat shrunk, even
though I have a fairly good ratchet crimper.

Solder can be very good - so long as the joint is mechanically supported
well enough.

Crimps are easier to deploy in the field usually, and don't have the
mechanical support worry.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 23:41:11 +0100, Scott
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 17:26:34 +0100, ARW
wrote:

On 31/07/2018 10:25, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 23:57:25 +0100, ARW
wrote:

On 28/07/2018 09:18, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 23:23:26 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 27/07/2018 20:54, wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Just crimp the silly things then.

Ah, but should I crimp them end to end or side by side?

Neither. Solder and protect with heat-shrink tube. Now are you going to
solder them in-line or sticking out?

Actually. If you are bypassing a socket, I'd go for two in one side of
choc-block minimising movement from the current setup and being easily
removed in the future if you want to re-instate the socket at any time.

Thanks. I'm going to do that this morning!

Unless you are unable to use a screwdriver then I would not worry about
using strip connector:-)

Thankfully the screwdriver was in good working order. The next stage
is an inspection by an electrical engineer (retired and enjoys a
curry) later today :-) .


JOOI if you replaced a double socket would you have that inspected?

Well, he's with me now since you mention it :-)

And no, I was not being entirely serious. I've done quite a bit of
minor electrics over the years (including replacing a double socket
recently).

My friend is doing present job because it involves rerouting the ring
main, channeling and entering the consumer unit. Also, he has much
better tools than me !!!

In fact, I excelled myself. We dropped the inspection light and M
said it was 'buggered' because it was LED. I was sceptical, checked
and found it was only a battery dislodged.

I think he is following my wiring plan rather than his because it
involves much less work !!!