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?

John M

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?

John M
It's probably the only way. It helps to strip them the right length,
and make sure you can see all three ends of the insulation below the
edge of the plastic hole over the terminal all the time you are
tightening them. Possibly twisting them together is a good idea if you
can do it reproducibly, but I'm not convinced. I'd be interested in
what the professionals do.

--

Roger Hayter

On 17/10/2019 00:44, 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.Â* Fitting them with a single strand seems to be
the easiest way but is it a good idea?

John M

UK sockets aren't designed to have the ends folded over.
Folding the single core enough to get it in will probably result in
stress fractures. Then you have to be sure the screw is clamping the
unbent bit and not the bit you have bent over as it could break later
due to thermal creep and vibration.

I never fold them over, if they don't fit and grip its time to use a
different brand of fitting.

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.

For 3 cables twisting seems to make things harder.

Owain

On 17/10/19 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.

For 3 cables twisting seems to make things harder.

If there was room in the box/pattress, would it be in line with the regs
to use a 3-way Wago with the ring mains connected to that rather than
the socket screw, and the single "output" connected to the screw
terminal of the ring socket together with the spur wire to the new socket?

--

Jeff

On Thursday, 17 October 2019 10:26:24 UTC+1, Jeff Layman wrote:

If there was room in the box/pattress, would it be in line with the regs
to use a 3-way Wago with the ring mains connected to that rather than
the socket screw, and the single "output" connected to the screw
terminal of the ring socket together with the spur wire to the new socket?

That would be equivalent to putting two sockets on a single spur
off the ring which is not allowed.

John

On 17/10/2019 00:44, 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.Â* Fitting them with a single strand seems to be
the easiest way but is it a good idea?

Personally I don' twist[1]. Just strip the right length of insulation
and insert all straight into the terminal. The quality of the connection
will be the same, and its easier to separate for testing at a later
stage if required.

(not a fan of using one bit of earth sleeving for multiple cables either)

[1] on odd occasions when terminating a single cable, it might be
necessary to fold a wire end over to make a big enough target for the
terminal screw.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 17/10/19 10:36, wrote:
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 10:26:24 UTC+1, Jeff Layman wrote:

If there was room in the box/pattress, would it be in line with the regs
to use a 3-way Wago with the ring mains connected to that rather than
the socket screw, and the single "output" connected to the screw
terminal of the ring socket together with the spur wire to the new socket?

That would be equivalent to putting two sockets on a single spur
off the ring which is not allowed.

John

Indeed. Hadn't thought of that. What about a different layout:

Ring in to current socket screw - new wire from that screw to 3-way Wago
- one of the two remaining Wago connections to the other ring main, and
the final Wago connection to the new spur? That makes the Wago part of
the ring, and the spur is off that.

--

Jeff

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.

On 17/10/2019 11:10, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 17/10/19 10:36, wrote:
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 10:26:24 UTC+1, Jeff LaymanÂ* wrote:

If there was room in the box/pattress, would it be in line with the regs
to use a 3-way Wago with the ring mains connected to that rather than
the socket screw, and the single "output" connected to the screw
terminal of the ring socket together with the spur wire to the new
socket?

That would be equivalent to putting two sockets on a single spur
off the ring which is not allowed.

John

Indeed. Hadn't thought of that. What about a different layout:

Ring in to current socket screw - new wire from that screw to 3-way Wago
- one of the two remaining Wago connections to the other ring main, and
the final Wago connection to the new spur? That makes the Wago part of
the ring, and the spur is off that.


I wondered about doing the same just the other day...

On 17/10/2019 10:36, wrote:
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 10:26:24 UTC+1, Jeff Layman wrote:

If there was room in the box/pattress, would it be in line with the regs
to use a 3-way Wago with the ring mains connected to that rather than
the socket screw, and the single "output" connected to the screw
terminal of the ring socket together with the spur wire to the new socket?

That would be equivalent to putting two sockets on a single spur
off the ring which is not allowed.

John

It's not "two sockets", it is a double socket, which is allowed on an
unfused spur.

"Unfused spurs from a ring wired in the same cable as the ring are
allowed to run one socket (single or double) or one fused connection
unit (FCU)"

newshound wrote:

On 17/10/2019 10:36, wrote:
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 10:26:24 UTC+1, Jeff Layman wrote:

If there was room in the box/pattress, would it be in line with the regs
to use a 3-way Wago with the ring mains connected to that rather than
the socket screw, and the single "output" connected to the screw
terminal of the ring socket together with the spur wire to the new socket?

That would be equivalent to putting two sockets on a single spur
off the ring which is not allowed.

John

It's not "two sockets", it is a double socket, which is allowed on an
unfused spur.

"Unfused spurs from a ring wired in the same cable as the ring are
allowed to run one socket (single or double) or one fused connection
unit (FCU)"
I think that what is being suggested is that, while the Wago connector
joins both sides of the ring, there is the original spur coming off it
(the one that led to there being three wires in the first place, and a
new very short spur from the Wago connector to the local double socket.

--

Roger Hayter

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
On 17/10/2019 00:44, 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?

John M

UK sockets aren't designed to have the ends folded over.

Eh? Can you explain further?

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.


Then you have to be sure the screw is clamping the
unbent bit and not the bit you have bent over as it could break later
due to thermal creep and vibration.

Screwing it down properly will centralise the cable gripping both equally.
Just as happens with two separate cables.

I never fold them over, if they don't fit and grip its time to use a
different brand of fitting.

Only time I'd fold a cable is where it is a single - like on a spur. No
need with two or three.

--
*Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

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

On 17/10/2019 14:31, Roger Hayter wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 17/10/2019 10:36, wrote:
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 10:26:24 UTC+1, Jeff Layman wrote:

If there was room in the box/pattress, would it be in line with the regs
to use a 3-way Wago with the ring mains connected to that rather than
the socket screw, and the single "output" connected to the screw
terminal of the ring socket together with the spur wire to the new socket?

That would be equivalent to putting two sockets on a single spur
off the ring which is not allowed.

John

It's not "two sockets", it is a double socket, which is allowed on an
unfused spur.

"Unfused spurs from a ring wired in the same cable as the ring are
allowed to run one socket (single or double) or one fused connection
unit (FCU)"
I think that what is being suggested is that, while the Wago connector
joins both sides of the ring, there is the original spur coming off it
(the one that led to there being three wires in the first place, and a
new very short spur from the Wago connector to the local double socket.

Ah, you sort of mean two separate unfused spurs coming off the same
point in the ring. While I am sure the regs don't permit daisy chaining,
i.e an unfused spur coming off from the first socket of a fused spur,
it's not obvious to me that this case isn't compliant (or electrically
unsafe).

newshound wrote:

On 17/10/2019 14:31, Roger Hayter wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 17/10/2019 10:36, wrote:
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 10:26:24 UTC+1, Jeff Layman wrote:

If there was room in the box/pattress, would it be in line with the
regs to use a 3-way Wago with the ring mains connected to that rather
than the socket screw, and the single "output" connected to the screw
terminal of the ring socket together with the spur wire to the new
socket?

That would be equivalent to putting two sockets on a single spur
off the ring which is not allowed.

John

It's not "two sockets", it is a double socket, which is allowed on an
unfused spur.

"Unfused spurs from a ring wired in the same cable as the ring are
allowed to run one socket (single or double) or one fused connection
unit (FCU)"
I think that what is being suggested is that, while the Wago connector
joins both sides of the ring, there is the original spur coming off it
(the one that led to there being three wires in the first place, and a
new very short spur from the Wago connector to the local double socket.

Ah, you sort of mean two separate unfused spurs coming off the same
point in the ring. While I am sure the regs don't permit daisy chaining,
i.e an unfused spur coming off from the first socket of a fused spur,
it's not obvious to me that this case isn't compliant (or electrically
unsafe).
I can't see why it is likely to be a problem, but I think that was the
point being raised about using a Wago connector.

--

Roger Hayter

In article ,
newshound wrote:
On 17/10/2019 14:31, Roger Hayter wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 17/10/2019 10:36, wrote:
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 10:26:24 UTC+1, Jeff Layman wrote:

If there was room in the box/pattress, would it be in line with the regs
to use a 3-way Wago with the ring mains connected to that rather than
the socket screw, and the single "output" connected to the screw
terminal of the ring socket together with the spur wire to the new socket?

That would be equivalent to putting two sockets on a single spur
off the ring which is not allowed.

John

It's not "two sockets", it is a double socket, which is allowed on an
unfused spur.

"Unfused spurs from a ring wired in the same cable as the ring are
allowed to run one socket (single or double) or one fused connection
unit (FCU)"
I think that what is being suggested is that, while the Wago connector
joins both sides of the ring, there is the original spur coming off it
(the one that led to there being three wires in the first place, and a
new very short spur from the Wago connector to the local double socket.

Ah, you sort of mean two separate unfused spurs coming off the same
point in the ring. While I am sure the regs don't permit daisy chaining,
i.e an unfused spur coming off from the first socket of a fused spur,
it's not obvious to me that this case isn't compliant (or electrically
unsafe).

Have you ever comes across a 13 amp socket that won't take 3 2.5mm cables?

--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

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

On 17/10/2019 10:36, wrote:
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 10:26:24 UTC+1, Jeff Layman wrote:

If there was room in the box/pattress, would it be in line with the regs
to use a 3-way Wago with the ring mains connected to that rather than
the socket screw, and the single "output" connected to the screw
terminal of the ring socket together with the spur wire to the new socket?

That would be equivalent to putting two sockets on a single spur
off the ring which is not allowed.

No, that is the equivalent of putting one double socket on the end of an
unfused spur, and that *is* allowed.

(one double is allowed since the nominal load is taken as 20A, and the
minimum installed cable current carrying capacity on a ring circuit is 20A)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 17/10/2019 15:19, newshound wrote:
On 17/10/2019 14:31, Roger Hayter wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 17/10/2019 10:36, wrote:
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 10:26:24 UTC+1, Jeff LaymanÂ* wrote:

If there was room in the box/pattress, would it be in line with the
regs
to use a 3-way Wago with the ring mains connected to that rather than
the socket screw, and the single "output" connected to the screw
terminal of the ring socket together with the spur wire to the new
socket?

That would be equivalent to putting two sockets on a single spur
off the ring which is not allowed.

John

It's not "two sockets", it is a double socket, which is allowed on an
unfused spur.

"Unfused spurs from a ring wired in the same cable as the ring are
allowed to run one socket (single or double) or one fused connection
unit (FCU)"
I think that what is being suggested is that, while the Wago connector
joins both sides of the ring, there is the original spur coming off it
(the one that led to there being three wires in the first place, and a
new very short spur from the Wago connector to the local double socket.

Ah, you sort of mean two separate unfused spurs coming off the same
point in the ring. While I am sure the regs don't permit daisy chaining,
i.e an unfused spur coming off from the first socket of a fused spur,
it's not obvious to me that this case isn't compliant (or electrically
unsafe).

You can indeed run two spurs from the same point on the ring if
required. Its not necessarily good practice if both are likely to be
highly loaded as you will then create a high point load on the ring.
However in this particular case where one "spur" is at most a couple of
inches long its going to be close in function to it not being there at
all.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 17/10/2019 16:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:
On 17/10/2019 14:31, Roger Hayter wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 17/10/2019 10:36, wrote:
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 10:26:24 UTC+1, Jeff Layman wrote:

If there was room in the box/pattress, would it be in line with the regs
to use a 3-way Wago with the ring mains connected to that rather than
the socket screw, and the single "output" connected to the screw
terminal of the ring socket together with the spur wire to the new socket?

That would be equivalent to putting two sockets on a single spur
off the ring which is not allowed.

John

It's not "two sockets", it is a double socket, which is allowed on an
unfused spur.

"Unfused spurs from a ring wired in the same cable as the ring are
allowed to run one socket (single or double) or one fused connection
unit (FCU)"
I think that what is being suggested is that, while the Wago connector
joins both sides of the ring, there is the original spur coming off it
(the one that led to there being three wires in the first place, and a
new very short spur from the Wago connector to the local double socket.

Ah, you sort of mean two separate unfused spurs coming off the same
point in the ring. While I am sure the regs don't permit daisy chaining,
i.e an unfused spur coming off from the first socket of a fused spur,
it's not obvious to me that this case isn't compliant (or electrically
unsafe).

Have you ever comes across a 13 amp socket that won't take 3 2.5mm cables?

Most will take that easily enough in ideal circumstances IME. However
sometimes it can be difficult with awkward wire entry points, short
tails, or old stranded T&E etc.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

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?

--
Michael Chare

On Thursday, 17 October 2019 16:34:09 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:

You can indeed run two spurs from the same point on the ring if
required. Its not necessarily good practice if both are likely to be
highly loaded as you will then create a high point load on the ring.
However in this particular case where one "spur" is at most a couple of
inches long its going to be close in function to it not being there at
all.

But in this case, as it was described by the OP, there is one very
short spur from the Wago connector to the first socket, then a
continuation of the same spur from the first socket to the second
socket. One of the sockets is described as being a double, the
other has as far as I can see not been defined yet. This means
there are either three or four sockets from a single spur. It may
not actually matter, but surely this does not comply with the
wiring regs?

John

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.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Andrew" wrote in message
...
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.

On 17/10/2019 16:48, wrote:
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 16:34:09 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:

You can indeed run two spurs from the same point on the ring if
required. Its not necessarily good practice if both are likely to be
highly loaded as you will then create a high point load on the ring.
However in this particular case where one "spur" is at most a couple of
inches long its going to be close in function to it not being there at
all.

But in this case, as it was described by the OP, there is one very

I think it was Jeff rather than the OP that introduced the concept of
using a wago...

short spur from the Wago connector to the first socket, then a
continuation of the same spur from the first socket to the second
socket. One of the sockets is described as being a double, the
other has as far as I can see not been defined yet.

For the purposes of this discussion there is no distinction between a
double or single socket... an unfused spur can feed one single or one
double no more. (this rule offers overload protection to the spur cable,
while the circuit protective device continues to offer fault protection
to the spur cable).

This means
there are either three or four sockets from a single spur. It may

Not sure how you get to three or four, or am I missing your point somewhere?

not actually matter, but surely this does not comply with the
wiring regs?

Reading Jeff's post again he does make reference to a three way wago,
doing it that way you would need to take care with the topology to
arrive at a fully compliant solution.

So:

Line In - socket - line out - wago T1
wago T2 - line out to next socket on ring
wago t3 - line out to spur

That will result in the original socket being connected to the ring in
the traditional way with only two wires per terminal, the wago also
being on the ring with three terminals, two of which provide ring
continuity, and the third can connect to the spur feeding one single or
double socket.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 17/10/2019 16:38, Michael Chare wrote:
On 17/10/2019 10:07, wrote:
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 00:44:20 UTC+1, John MillerÂ* 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.Â* 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?

There are for sockets, but they don't mandate the size and capacity of
the terminals beyond being adequate.

IME modern socket terminals are easier to wire than older ones,
especially the type with rectangular recesses. That way the width of the
recess can be a fairly close match to the width of the terminal screw,
and so its much easier to clamp a single wire without risk of it
slipping out to the side from under the screw, but you also have plenty
of capacity for 4 x 2.5mm^2 wires due to the length of the recess.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
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.

The reason you havent seen any is because you are blind, silly.

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
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.

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?

Just because the hole is big enough doesn't mean they are designed to do
something.

Its so you can fit three or more cables in.

On 17/10/2019 14:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
On 17/10/2019 00:44, 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?

John M

UK sockets aren't designed to have the ends folded over.

Eh? Can you explain further?

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 you have to be sure the screw is clamping the
unbent bit and not the bit you have bent over as it could break later
due to thermal creep and vibration.

Screwing it down properly will centralise the cable gripping both equally.
Just as happens with two separate cables.

What about the other cables or are you just talking about a spur?
How do you check?



I never fold them over, if they don't fit and grip its time to use a
different brand of fitting.

Only time I'd fold a cable is where it is a single - like on a spur. No
need with two or three.


No need on a spur either.

On Thursday, 17 October 2019 19:13:36 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:

But in this case, as it was described by the OP, there is one very

I think it was Jeff rather than the OP that introduced the concept of
using a wago...

Yes.

short spur from the Wago connector to the first socket, then a
continuation of the same spur from the first socket to the second
socket. One of the sockets is described as being a double, the
other has as far as I can see not been defined yet.

For the purposes of this discussion there is no distinction between a
double or single socket... an unfused spur can feed one single or one
double no more. (this rule offers overload protection to the spur cable,
while the circuit protective device continues to offer fault protection
to the spur cable).

This means
there are either three or four sockets from a single spur. It may

Not sure how you get to three or four, or am I missing your point somewhere?

I meant that two twin sockets would be a total of four sockets, but as you
say it doesn't matter.

not actually matter, but surely this does not comply with the
wiring regs?

Reading Jeff's post again he does make reference to a three way wago,
doing it that way you would need to take care with the topology to
arrive at a fully compliant solution.

That was what I was trying to say, but not doing a very good job!


So:

Line In - socket - line out - wago T1
wago T2 - line out to next socket on ring
wago t3 - line out to spur

That will result in the original socket being connected to the ring in
the traditional way with only two wires per terminal, the wago also
being on the ring with three terminals, two of which provide ring
continuity, and the third can connect to the spur feeding one single or
double socket.

That looks good, but is different to my interpretation of what Jeff wrote.
I think we actually agree!

John

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 08:53:01 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


The reason you havent seen any is because you are blind, silly.

Shut your senile gob, senile cretin!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Thursday, 17 October 2019 09:39:32 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:

UK sockets aren't designed to have the ends folded over.
Folding the single core enough to get it in will probably result in
stress fractures.

don't think I've ever had that happen. Being nicked by cutters can do it, but not bending it over, even if then pliered tight.

Then you have to be sure the screw is clamping the
unbent bit and not the bit you have bent over as it could break later
due to thermal creep and vibration.

I don't think so. Don't think I've ever encountered any vibrating wall sockets either.

I never fold them over, if they don't fit and grip its time to use a
different brand of fitting.

Or fold the cable end over. Seems more sensible to me anyway.


NT

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.

--
Chris Green
·

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.

--
Chris Green
·

Roger Hayter laid this down on his screen :
Possibly twisting them together is a good idea if you
can do it reproducibly, but I'm not convinced. I'd be interested in
what the professionals do.

Never a good idea with modern cables. Just push each wire in, one at a
time and tighten the terminal screw.

dennis@home explained on 17/10/2019 :
UK sockets aren't designed to have the ends folded over.
Folding the single core enough to get it in will probably result in stress
fractures. Then you have to be sure the screw is clamping the unbent bit and
not the bit you have bent over as it could break later due to thermal creep
and vibration.

Folding works fine, where there is only one wire to go in the terminal
and the hole is too large. Idea is to fill up the hole, to promote best
contact between wire, terminal and screw.

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.


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.

11.5.1 Compliance shall be checked by inspection and by fitting the
appropriate conductors.

11.6 Earthing terminals in fixed socket-outlets shall permit the
connection, without special preparation, of one, two or three 1.5 mm2 or
2.5 mm2 solid or stranded or of one or two 4 mm2 stranded conductors.

11.6.1 Compliance shall be checked by inspection and fitting the
appropriate conductors."

Of course fitting 3 x 2.5mm on the bench in good light with freshly
stripped new cable may be a bit different from replacing a socket on old
cable with bugger all slack, with a permanent wave, inside a cupboard.

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

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

dennis@home pretended :
All copper cables work harden.

True, but only if they are 'worked', as in continually flexed. In a
normal fixed installation cables do not become work hardened.

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. It will also make them more prone to breakage due to
the stress of twisting. If they don't break on first installation, they
certainly will if they have to be disconnected and reconnected after
testing - never twist them.

Twisting used to be necessary with the old Imperial stranded sizes, but
even then strands would often break.

I think the terminal specs. are deliberately tight to stop people inserting four 2.5mm2 cables in and creating two spurs off one socket. I do seem to recall terminals used to be wider maybe back in the day when stranded wires were used or maybe with age they look smaller these days�

Richard

On 18/10/2019 10:05, Robin wrote:
Of course fitting 3 x 2.5mm on the bench in good light with freshly
stripped new cable may be a bit different from replacing a socket on old
cable with bugger all slack, with a permanent wave, inside a cupboard.

well get a short back and sides then!


--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill