Pet hate is the back box for sockets and switches. The way of cramming in
the cables is crude. Especially as if you change a fitting the termianls
can be in a different configuration.

I would like to suggest - for your views!

The circuit cables attached to a terminal block that is a part of the back
box. The switch or socket would be connected to that block with a fly lead
that would be an integral part of that switch / socket with a Wago type
connector.

Any sympathy for this idea?

On Tuesday, 20 April 2021 at 09:57:41 UTC+1, JohnP wrote:
Pet hate is the back box for sockets and switches. The way of cramming in
the cables is crude. Especially as if you change a fitting the termianls
can be in a different configuration.

I would like to suggest - for your views!

The circuit cables attached to a terminal block that is a part of the back
box. The switch or socket would be connected to that block with a fly lead
that would be an integral part of that switch / socket with a Wago type
connector.

Any sympathy for this idea?

I cannot see that coming but there is potential for Wago type connectors on double sockets. I have seen a video of someone who mocked up one just as a demonstration. Light switches, single sockets and other 1-gang accessories could be problematic to fit in existing back boxes and that is where the real problem is in backward compatibility.

Richard

On 20/04/2021 10:33, Tricky Dicky wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 April 2021 at 09:57:41 UTC+1, JohnP wrote:
Pet hate is the back box for sockets and switches. The way of cramming in
the cables is crude. Especially as if you change a fitting the termianls
can be in a different configuration.

I would like to suggest - for your views!

The circuit cables attached to a terminal block that is a part of the back
box. The switch or socket would be connected to that block with a fly lead
that would be an integral part of that switch / socket with a Wago type
connector.

Any sympathy for this idea?

I cannot see that coming but there is potential for Wago type connectors on double sockets. I have seen a video of someone who mocked up one just as a demonstration. Light switches, single sockets and other 1-gang accessories could be problematic to fit in existing back boxes and that is where the real problem is in backward compatibility.

Richard



One common issue I do see is the copper wire deforming in a ductile
manner under the screw, which is a form of stress relaxation

The wires are no longer under the same level of compression at the time
of installation, so that would be one benefit of using wago style
terminals in place of the screws.

Heck, the same idea could be applied to RCBOs/MCBs current carrying
capacity permitted on the output terminals.

On Tuesday, 20 April 2021 at 09:57:41 UTC+1, JohnP wrote:
Pet hate is the back box for sockets and switches. The way of cramming in
the cables is crude. Especially as if you change a fitting the termianls
can be in a different configuration.

I would like to suggest - for your views!

The circuit cables attached to a terminal block that is a part of the back
box. The switch or socket would be connected to that block with a fly lead
that would be an integral part of that switch / socket with a Wago type
connector.

Any sympathy for this idea?

What I would very much like, though costs might put me off, is a system where what you can see - the plate, the socket holes, the switch - can be removed and replaced easily and safely.

I have seen so many cracked, broken and otherwise damaged faceplates over the years. As well as the ones that have paint slathered up the sides.

polygonum_on_google wrote:
What I would very much like, though costs might put me off, is a system
where what you can see - the plate, the socket holes, the switch - can be
removed and replaced easily and safely.

I think you could have a system where the cabling is terminated in the
backbox, and the faceplate simply plugs into it. With some careful design,
removing the socket wouldn't break the ring/radial connections and wouldn't
expose live parts - a little like the base plates of cordless kettles. That
could allow Joe Householder to change the colour of their sockets without
disturbing the wiring, and would allow easy removal for painting etc. It
would also be useful for 'smart' sockets (with USB ports etc) in that you
could safely disconnect them when testing circuits, and it would make it
easier to fit them in the first place.

You'd probably make this in three parts - the metal/plastic backbox that's
part of the fabric of the building, the slim base contacts, and the socket
faceplate. For better termination you might have three sets of Wago-style
clamp, rather than having wires sharing screw terminals. Having separate
base contacts would mean you could choose the size to fit the job - if you
have 10mm2 cables for some reason you could get the right one to terminate
those.

It might cost a bit more, but it pales into insignificance compared with
electricians' time.

Theo

On 20/04/2021 09:57, JohnP wrote:
Pet hate is the back box for sockets and switches. The way of cramming in
the cables is crude. Especially as if you change a fitting the termianls
can be in a different configuration.

I would like to suggest - for your views!

The circuit cables attached to a terminal block that is a part of the back
box. The switch or socket would be connected to that block with a fly lead
that would be an integral part of that switch / socket with a Wago type
connector.

Any sympathy for this idea?


Sympathy? Perhaps. Willingness to invest? Not a chance - for the
reasons Owain has given - plus the risk it'd end up requiring 40mm deep
back boxes.

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

On 20/04/2021 10:33, Tricky Dicky wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 April 2021 at 09:57:41 UTC+1, JohnP wrote:
Pet hate is the back box for sockets and switches. The way of cramming in
the cables is crude. Especially as if you change a fitting the termianls
can be in a different configuration.

I would like to suggest - for your views!

The circuit cables attached to a terminal block that is a part of the back
box. The switch or socket would be connected to that block with a fly lead
that would be an integral part of that switch / socket with a Wago type
connector.

Any sympathy for this idea?

I cannot see that coming but there is potential for Wago type connectors on double sockets. I have seen a video of someone who mocked up one just as a demonstration. Light switches, single sockets and other 1-gang accessories could be problematic to fit in existing back boxes and that is where the real problem is in backward compatibility.

Richard


It may mean that back boxes have to be deeper. Cooker switches or light
dimmers often have to be fitted to deep back boxes - and this is without
them also being stuffed with extra connectors.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 20/04/2021 10:43, SH wrote:

The wires are no longer under the same level of compression at the time
of installation, so that would be one benefit of using wago style
terminals in place of the screws.

Wouldn't this be solved by having wago type screwless terminals on the
switches and sockets rather than a modified back box?


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 20/04/2021 10:43, SH wrote:
On 20/04/2021 10:33, Tricky Dicky wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 April 2021 at 09:57:41 UTC+1, JohnP wrote:
Pet hate is the back box for sockets and switches. The way of
cramming in
the cables is crude. Especially as if you change a fitting the termianls
can be in a different configuration.

I would like to suggest - for your views!

The circuit cables attached to a terminal block that is a part of the
back
box. The switch or socket would be connected to that block with a fly
lead
that would be an integral part of that switch / socket with a Wago type
connector.

Any sympathy for this idea?

I cannot see that coming but there is potential for Wago type
connectors on double sockets. I have seen a video of someone who
mocked up one just as a demonstration. Light switches, single sockets
and other 1-gang accessories could be problematic to fit in existing
back boxes and that is where the real problem is in backward
compatibility.

Richard



One common issue I do see is the copper wire deforming in a ductile
manner under the screw, which is a form of stress relaxation

Copper is pretty much creep-free. Unlike aluminium that requires a
maintenance schedule.

The only cause of movement would be differential expansion between
copper and the alternative material, normally brass.

The wires are no longer under the same level of compression at the time
of installation, so that would be one benefit of using wago style
terminals in place of the screws.

While contact may be consistent I doubt it would enjoy the same pressure
as a screw terminal.
Heck, the same idea could be applied to RCBOs/MCBs current carrying
capacity permitted on the output terminals.

Theo wrote in
:

polygonum_on_google wrote:
What I would very much like, though costs might put me off, is a
system where what you can see - the plate, the socket holes, the
switch - can be removed and replaced easily and safely.

I think you could have a system where the cabling is terminated in the
backbox, and the faceplate simply plugs into it. With some careful
design, removing the socket wouldn't break the ring/radial connections
and wouldn't expose live parts - a little like the base plates of
cordless kettles. That could allow Joe Householder to change the
colour of their sockets without disturbing the wiring, and would allow
easy removal for painting etc. It would also be useful for 'smart'
sockets (with USB ports etc) in that you could safely disconnect them
when testing circuits, and it would make it easier to fit them in the
first place.

You'd probably make this in three parts - the metal/plastic backbox
that's part of the fabric of the building, the slim base contacts, and
the socket faceplate. For better termination you might have three
sets of Wago-style clamp, rather than having wires sharing screw
terminals. Having separate base contacts would mean you could choose
the size to fit the job - if you have 10mm2 cables for some reason you
could get the right one to terminate those.

It might cost a bit more, but it pales into insignificance compared
with electricians' time.

Theo


The "fly lead" moulded into the socket / switch would lead to a cost
saving and could be more flexible than the heavier circuit cable.

In article ,
JohnP wrote:
Pet hate is the back box for sockets and switches. The way of cramming in
the cables is crude. Especially as if you change a fitting the termianls
can be in a different configuration.

Never had a problem with a decent size box and leaving adequate length
tails. Some seem to think cable costs a fortune, so try and save every
inch.

I would like to suggest - for your views!

The circuit cables attached to a terminal block that is a part of the
back box. The switch or socket would be connected to that block with a
fly lead that would be an integral part of that switch / socket with a
Wago type connector.

Any sympathy for this idea?

Since connections are always the weak point in any circuit, adding more
than needed is nonsense.

--
*I went to school to become a wit, only got halfway through.

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

On 20/04/2021 13:47, Fredxx wrote:


Copper is pretty much creep-free. Unlike aluminium that requires a
maintenance schedule.

When I checked the tightness of all the socket cable screws many
years ago, and about 18 years after the house was built, many needed
tightening. They weren't 'loose' but neither were they tight.

On 20/04/2021 09:57, JohnP wrote:
Pet hate is the back box for sockets and switches. The way of cramming in
the cables is crude. Especially as if you change a fitting the termianls
can be in a different configuration.

I would like to suggest - for your views!

The circuit cables attached to a terminal block that is a part of the back
box. The switch or socket would be connected to that block with a fly lead
that would be an integral part of that switch / socket with a Wago type
connector.

Any sympathy for this idea?

fine for hollow walls..but might make for deeper chasing in masonry


--
€œI know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.€�

ۥ Leo Tolstoy

On 20/04/2021 14:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JohnP wrote:
Pet hate is the back box for sockets and switches. The way of cramming in
the cables is crude. Especially as if you change a fitting the termianls
can be in a different configuration.

Never had a problem with a decent size box and leaving adequate length
tails. Some seem to think cable costs a fortune, so try and save every
inch.

My mother's house was built in the 1960s and all the wiring in that
property is stretched within a inch of its life - no slack anywhere.
Remove a ceiling rose and you are in trouble as the wire tries to shrink
back into the ceiling. Remove a wall socket and it will come forward
just enough to get a screwdriver in to the terminals, and if replacing
the socket one with a similar connection location has to be purchased.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 20/04/2021 14:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

fine for hollow walls..but might make for deeper chasing in masonry

Possibly means that you cant install back to back sockets in a stud wall.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Well many moons ago I bought some outdoor switches of French origin that did
more or less this, but it was silly as in this case the depth of the box was
far greater than ours!

Have you ever tried to cram a dimmer into a normal wall box without
resorting to one of those spacer thingies? Nightmare.
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.!
"JohnP" wrote in message
. ..
Pet hate is the back box for sockets and switches. The way of cramming in
the cables is crude. Especially as if you change a fitting the termianls
can be in a different configuration.

I would like to suggest - for your views!

The circuit cables attached to a terminal block that is a part of the back
box. The switch or socket would be connected to that block with a fly lead
that would be an integral part of that switch / socket with a Wago type
connector.

Any sympathy for this idea?

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 20/04/2021 14:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JohnP wrote:
Pet hate is the back box for sockets and switches. The way of cramming in
the cables is crude. Especially as if you change a fitting the termianls
can be in a different configuration.

Never had a problem with a decent size box and leaving adequate length
tails. Some seem to think cable costs a fortune, so try and save every
inch.

My mother's house was built in the 1960s and all the wiring in that
property is stretched within a inch of its life - no slack anywhere.
Remove a ceiling rose and you are in trouble as the wire tries to shrink
back into the ceiling. Remove a wall socket and it will come forward
just enough to get a screwdriver in to the terminals, and if replacing
the socket one with a similar connection location has to be purchased.

Some 'pro' electricians seem to take a pride in doing this.

--
*If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before

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

On Tuesday, 20 April 2021 at 14:23:52 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Never had a problem with a decent size box and leaving adequate length
tails. Some seem to think cable costs a fortune, so try and save every
inch.

A previous house, every cable was as short as possible. Almost impossible to replace a socket or switch if the positions were even slightly different. In fact, you could take the screws out and the socket or switch wouldn't move more than a fraction of a millimetre.

Owain Lastname wrote:

JohnP wrote:

I would like to suggest - for your views! The circuit cables
attached to a terminal block that is a part of the back box.

Not really.

you're more likely to see sockets with wago type connectors on the back.