On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 22:57:45 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 17/10/2019 11:11, Andrew wrote:
On 17/10/2019 09:39, dennis@home wrote:
UK sockets aren't designed to have the ends folded over.

Rubbish. The better quality brands allow two ends of a
ring to be folded over.

If you must buy cheap crap from Homebase, the thats your
problem.

Why do you always post contradictions that have no relevance to what you
are posting about rod?

It's because he is a lonely troll, killfiled by many (and hence all
the aliases) and because he is mostly ignored, has taken on a 'peanut
gallery' approach, mostly for his own entertainment.

It's similar with whisky-dave, other than at least he's posting from
this country (even if he's from a different planet). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 18/10/2019 09:11, Chris Green wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote:
Why don't sockets have a system where a plate is tightened down on the wire
or wires like we used to see in terminal blocks of old. I'd have though that
was a more positive method, since you would have to have the space for all
three in such a socket. No not seen any either.

It then needs to be wide enough for all the cables though doesn't it?
I agree, I prefer the type you describe as well but often have the
problem that the wires get the wrong side of the plate.

You can do it using an rectangular terminal recess, where the width
matches the scree diameter - so its not easy for wires to be "missed" by
the screw, but the length still allows for plenty of wires.

These GET Ultimate ones I find are easy to get 4 wires into:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/...rminations.jpg


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Chris Green wrote:

Brian Gaff wrote:
Why don't sockets have a system where a plate is tightened down on the wire
or wires like we used to see in terminal blocks of old. I'd have though that
was a more positive method, since you would have to have the space for all
three in such a socket. No not seen any either.

It then needs to be wide enough for all the cables though doesn't it?
I agree, I prefer the type you describe as well but often have the
problem that the wires get the wrong side of the plate.

I find you can avoid that by starting with the terminal screw fully
unscrewed, at least with most types.

--

Roger Hayter

On 2019-10-18, John Rumm wrote:

On 18/10/2019 09:11, Chris Green wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote:
Why don't sockets have a system where a plate is tightened down on the wire
or wires like we used to see in terminal blocks of old. I'd have though that
was a more positive method, since you would have to have the space for all
three in such a socket. No not seen any either.

It then needs to be wide enough for all the cables though doesn't it?
I agree, I prefer the type you describe as well but often have the
problem that the wires get the wrong side of the plate.

You can do it using an rectangular terminal recess, where the width
matches the scree diameter - so its not easy for wires to be "missed" by
the screw, but the length still allows for plenty of wires.

These GET Ultimate ones I find are easy to get 4 wires into:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/...rminations.jpg

I think MK accessories have that kind of recess now too.

One thing I was wondering about recently --- would it not be better if
there were a captive but non-rotating piece of flat brass between the
screw & the wires, so that the screw isn't twisting against the wires
when you tighten it?

On 18/10/2019 09:36, Chris Green wrote:
Michael Chare wrote:
On 17/10/2019 10:07, wrote:
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 00:44:20 UTC+1, John Miller wrote:
Interested to know how others do this, particularly the professionals.
When spurring off a socket on the ring, there's always 3 cables to fit
into the holes. In the past I've tried twisting the 3 together, usually
with pliers, but not always successfully, folding individual cables back
on themselves just don't seems to fit even clamping them up tightly with
pliers- 2 OK but not 3. Fitting them with a single strand seems to be
the easiest way but is it a good idea?

Sockets vary widely in their terminal sizes - some will accept 3 x 2.5mm
easily, others won't, even if they should.


Is there really no BS standard?

Surely BS1363 applies, whether that covers the size of terminals I
don't know though.


BS 1363-2:2016 says:


"11.5 Line and neutral terminals in fixed socket-outlets shall permit
the connection, without special preparation, of one, two or three 2.5
mm2 solid or stranded or of one or two 4 mm2 stranded conductors as
given in Table 4 of [BS 6004:20121."

"11.8 Terminal screws shall have a declared outside diameter of not less
than 3 mm or be not smaller than 6 B.A."

There are quite a number of specs on sockets with screewless connections
as well.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 18/10/2019 10:15, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
It happens that Dave Plowman (News) formulated :
Only time I'd fold a cable is where it is a single - like on a spur. No
need with two or three.

+1

All the original sockets in my 1976-build house had the ends of power
cables folded over.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Folding the single core enough to get it in will probably result in
stress fractures.

You must search far and wide to find wire of such poor quality.

All copper cables work harden.

Then only bend them once. I do accept this needs the skill to get it right
first time.

--
*If I worked as much as others, I would do as little as they *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 18/10/2019 10:05, Robin wrote:
I only have the 2003 edition:

"11.5 Line and neutral terminals in fixed socket-outlets shall permit
the connection, without special preparation, of one, two or three 2.5
mm2 solid or stranded or of one or two 4 mm2 stranded conductors.

I'm assuming that folding the end over counts as "special preparation"
which would imply that there should never be any need to fold the ends.

"Harry Bloomfield"; "Esq." wrote in
message ...
laid this down on his screen :
Sockets vary widely in their terminal sizes - some will accept 3 x 2.5mm
easily, others won't, even if they should.

Never come across that!

For 3 cables twisting seems to make things harder.

Obviously, if they are twisted then the diameter will be increased due to
the bunching.

No it does not.

It will also make them more prone to breakage due to the stress of
twisting.

Never had that.

If they don't break on first installation, they certainly will if they
have to be disconnected and reconnected after testing

Yes, that's the real downside with twisting,
doesn't allow easy testing, but that's only
really necessary with a ring, not a spur.

- never twist them.

Twisting is much better when the wires are
much smaller than the terminal hole can take.
You can see one of the wires get up the side
of the screw you don't twist them in that situation.

Twisting used to be necessary with the old Imperial stranded sizes,

And still is when the wire gauge is much smaller
than the terminal hole can take with more than
one wire.

On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 05:00:54 +1100, ZakJames, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


FLUSH senile asshole's latest troll****

05:00 am in Australia? Were you on tenterhooks waiting for 05:00, so you
wouldn't post a 04:something, you ridiculous miserable clinically insane
asshole? LOL

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On 18/10/2019 12:24, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2019-10-18, John Rumm wrote:

On 18/10/2019 09:11, Chris Green wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote:
Why don't sockets have a system where a plate is tightened down on the wire
or wires like we used to see in terminal blocks of old. I'd have though that
was a more positive method, since you would have to have the space for all
three in such a socket. No not seen any either.

It then needs to be wide enough for all the cables though doesn't it?
I agree, I prefer the type you describe as well but often have the
problem that the wires get the wrong side of the plate.

You can do it using an rectangular terminal recess, where the width
matches the scree diameter - so its not easy for wires to be "missed" by
the screw, but the length still allows for plenty of wires.

These GET Ultimate ones I find are easy to get 4 wires into:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/...rminations.jpg

I think MK accessories have that kind of recess now too.

One thing I was wondering about recently --- would it not be better if
there were a captive but non-rotating piece of flat brass between the
screw & the wires, so that the screw isn't twisting against the wires
when you tighten it?

There is something to be said for a (lightly) pointed screw end contact
directly with a wire, since its easier to get a connection that is gas
tight, and so minimises the chance that the contact resistance will
creep up due to oxidisation.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"Mike Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2019 10:05, Robin wrote:
I only have the 2003 edition:

"11.5 Line and neutral terminals in fixed socket-outlets shall permit the
connection, without special preparation, of one, two or three 2.5 mm2
solid or stranded or of one or two 4 mm2 stranded conductors.

I'm assuming that folding the end over counts as "special preparation"

Nope;

which would imply that there should never be any need to fold the ends.

Nope

On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 19:53:30 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Nope;

LOL

Nope

LOL

Get treatment, you clinically insane, auto-contradicting, senile pest!

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On 18/10/2019 17:44, Mike Clarke wrote:
On 18/10/2019 10:05, Robin wrote:
I only have the 2003 edition:

"11.5 Line and neutral terminals in fixed socket-outlets shall permit
the connection, without special preparation, of one, two or three 2.5
mm2 solid or stranded or of one or two 4 mm2 stranded conductors.

I'm assuming that folding the end over counts as "special preparation"
which would imply that there should never be any need to fold the ends.

Correct.


--
Adam

On 20/10/2019 16:58, ARW wrote:
On 18/10/2019 17:44, Mike Clarke wrote:
On 18/10/2019 10:05, Robin wrote:
I only have the 2003 edition:

"11.5 Line and neutral terminals in fixed socket-outlets shall permit
the connection, without special preparation, of one, two or three 2.5
mm2 solid or stranded or of one or two 4 mm2 stranded conductors.

I'm assuming that folding the end over counts as "special preparation"
which would imply that there should never be any need to fold the ends.

Correct.



You can tell an amateur has done it when the wires are folded for no
good reason.

On 20/10/2019 23:22, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/10/2019 16:58, ARW wrote:
On 18/10/2019 17:44, Mike Clarke wrote:
On 18/10/2019 10:05, Robin wrote:
I only have the 2003 edition:

"11.5 Line and neutral terminals in fixed socket-outlets shall
permit the connection, without special preparation, of one, two or
three 2.5 mm2 solid or stranded or of one or two 4 mm2 stranded
conductors.

I'm assuming that folding the end over counts as "special
preparation" which would imply that there should never be any need to
fold the ends.

Correct.



You can tell an amateur has done it when the wires are folded for no
good reason.

Thanks for all the replies to my original post - interesting to say the
least. I've always folded over the ends when installing a single cable
into a socket to ensure a better purchase - something I was advised to
do by an electrician of many years experience. One lives & learns.

John M

On 21/10/2019 00:32, John Miller wrote:
On 20/10/2019 23:22, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/10/2019 16:58, ARW wrote:
On 18/10/2019 17:44, Mike Clarke wrote:
On 18/10/2019 10:05, Robin wrote:
I only have the 2003 edition:

"11.5 Line and neutral terminals in fixed socket-outlets shall
permit the connection, without special preparation, of one, two or
three 2.5 mm2 solid or stranded or of one or two 4 mm2 stranded
conductors.

I'm assuming that folding the end over counts as "special
preparation" which would imply that there should never be any need
to fold the ends.

Correct.



You can tell an amateur has done it when the wires are folded for no
good reason.

Thanks for all the replies to my original post - interesting to say the
least. I've always folded over the ends when installing a single cable
into a socket to ensure a better purchase - something I was advised to
do by an electrician of many years experience. One lives & learns.


Folding the end over for a single cable is for a good reason.


--
Adam

On 2019-10-19, John Rumm wrote:

On 18/10/2019 12:24, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2019-10-18, John Rumm wrote:

On 18/10/2019 09:11, Chris Green wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote:
Why don't sockets have a system where a plate is tightened down on the wire
or wires like we used to see in terminal blocks of old. I'd have though that
was a more positive method, since you would have to have the space for all
three in such a socket. No not seen any either.

It then needs to be wide enough for all the cables though doesn't it?
I agree, I prefer the type you describe as well but often have the
problem that the wires get the wrong side of the plate.

You can do it using an rectangular terminal recess, where the width
matches the scree diameter - so its not easy for wires to be "missed" by
the screw, but the length still allows for plenty of wires.

These GET Ultimate ones I find are easy to get 4 wires into:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/...rminations.jpg

I think MK accessories have that kind of recess now too.

One thing I was wondering about recently --- would it not be better if
there were a captive but non-rotating piece of flat brass between the
screw & the wires, so that the screw isn't twisting against the wires
when you tighten it?

There is something to be said for a (lightly) pointed screw end contact
directly with a wire, since its easier to get a connection that is gas
tight, and so minimises the chance that the contact resistance will
creep up due to oxidisation.

That's an interesting point. I can see that for a single wire in one
of the traditional brass cylinders, but I'm sure some of the sockets &
switches I've used recently have flat plates opposite the screws, &
wouldn't the pointed screw push two wires apart?

On 22/10/2019 12:35, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2019-10-19, John Rumm wrote:

On 18/10/2019 12:24, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2019-10-18, John Rumm wrote:

On 18/10/2019 09:11, Chris Green wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote:
Why don't sockets have a system where a plate is tightened down on the wire
or wires like we used to see in terminal blocks of old. I'd have though that
was a more positive method, since you would have to have the space for all
three in such a socket. No not seen any either.

It then needs to be wide enough for all the cables though doesn't it?
I agree, I prefer the type you describe as well but often have the
problem that the wires get the wrong side of the plate.

You can do it using an rectangular terminal recess, where the width
matches the scree diameter - so its not easy for wires to be "missed" by
the screw, but the length still allows for plenty of wires.

These GET Ultimate ones I find are easy to get 4 wires into:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/...rminations.jpg

I think MK accessories have that kind of recess now too.

One thing I was wondering about recently --- would it not be better if
there were a captive but non-rotating piece of flat brass between the
screw & the wires, so that the screw isn't twisting against the wires
when you tighten it?

There is something to be said for a (lightly) pointed screw end contact
directly with a wire, since its easier to get a connection that is gas
tight, and so minimises the chance that the contact resistance will
creep up due to oxidisation.

That's an interesting point. I can see that for a single wire in one
of the traditional brass cylinders, but I'm sure some of the sockets &
switches I've used recently have flat plates opposite the screws, &
wouldn't the pointed screw push two wires apart?

If the space is the same width (near enough) as the screw, and we are
talking about only a gentle angle of point or dome on the screw tip,
then it does not seem to in reality, but does bit into the wire a little.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 2019-10-22, John Rumm wrote:

On 22/10/2019 12:35, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2019-10-19, John Rumm wrote:

On 18/10/2019 12:24, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2019-10-18, John Rumm wrote:

On 18/10/2019 09:11, Chris Green wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote:
Why don't sockets have a system where a plate is tightened down on the wire
or wires like we used to see in terminal blocks of old. I'd have though that
was a more positive method, since you would have to have the space for all
three in such a socket. No not seen any either.

It then needs to be wide enough for all the cables though doesn't it?
I agree, I prefer the type you describe as well but often have the
problem that the wires get the wrong side of the plate.

You can do it using an rectangular terminal recess, where the width
matches the scree diameter - so its not easy for wires to be "missed" by
the screw, but the length still allows for plenty of wires.

These GET Ultimate ones I find are easy to get 4 wires into:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/...rminations.jpg

I think MK accessories have that kind of recess now too.

One thing I was wondering about recently --- would it not be better if
there were a captive but non-rotating piece of flat brass between the
screw & the wires, so that the screw isn't twisting against the wires
when you tighten it?

There is something to be said for a (lightly) pointed screw end contact
directly with a wire, since its easier to get a connection that is gas
tight, and so minimises the chance that the contact resistance will
creep up due to oxidisation.

That's an interesting point. I can see that for a single wire in one
of the traditional brass cylinders, but I'm sure some of the sockets &
switches I've used recently have flat plates opposite the screws, &
wouldn't the pointed screw push two wires apart?

If the space is the same width (near enough) as the screw, and we are
talking about only a gentle angle of point or dome on the screw tip,
then it does not seem to in reality, but does bit into the wire a little.

Interesting, thanks.