Got up and did it this weekend (thankfully the weather made it a much
more bearable task).

One question tho - why oh why oh why are the circut joint boxes such a
pain in the arse to work with? What's wrong with a "busbar" type join
box? Surely these things must exist? ISTR seeing this type of
connection used in electro-mechanical systems I've worked on in the
past - what's so wrong about them?

Anyway - took the opportunity of slinging the inhibitor and boiler
noise silencer in the header tank while up there. Also checked the
roof for damage (given that it was put on in 1920) given the high
winds and rain we've had over the summer etc. All seems ship shape
and ready for winter.

Whoo - now back to the bathroom - and time for painting.

BTW - anyone know where to find an 11w normal (not small) edison screw
energy saving cadle lamp? Nowt in Screwfix/QVS/Homebase/B&Q.

Cheers
Dan.

On 2004-09-13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

One question tho - why oh why oh why are the circut joint boxes such a
pain in the arse to work with? What's wrong with a "busbar" type join
box? Surely these things must exist?

Like a standard ceiling rose? Except for the earth of course which is a
PITA on those.

I'd guess it's space that is a problem in a round box.

You can get some makes that use a busbar - usually 30 amp types. TLC sell
them. Only three outlets per busbar, though.

Yeah that's the sort of thing. Indeed it is space that's a problem.
Plus - in order to get all the wires in the connector and have them
safely and reliably connected - they need to be paired up - meaning
that you have to either have

a) very long runs round the box
or
b) two wires per entry

Just gets too damn fiddly and stuff. Nothing that you can't do with
long nose pliers etc - but it would have taken about 1/3 the time if I
had say a 4 terminals per "circuit" busbar type arrangement - could
have screwed it all into and bob's youd uncle etc. Much more securely
wired of course. Not that the effort that I've made isn't securely
done - in fact I'm paranoid etc - but it would have been easier for me
to feel happy iyswim.

Cheers
Dan.

Dan delaMare-Lyon wrote:


One question tho - why oh why oh why are the circut joint boxes such a
pain in the arse to work with? What's wrong with a "busbar" type join
box? Surely these things must exist?

God put us on this earth to suffer; it affords Him a little harmless
pleasure to watch us lose the stupid little headless
screw/slotted-thread thing while we wire up those nasty little JBs
overhead. He often arranges for his minor henchman Sod or his stand-in
Murphy to arrange for said screw to bounce/roll somewhere non-obvious,
so that we raid the next JB for a spare; and if torturing of mortals is
particularly on the agenda for the week, He'll arrange for the screw to
be standing sharp-unfinished-edge-up next time we're walking past with
bare feet.

As to "why not busbar style" - fractionally higher material cost, I
guess. Ceiling roses are "busbar" style, but don't allow multiple cable
entries in as pleasing a style as conventional JBs. A 10-pack of
clip-on-lid, stepped-size-rubber-pseudo-gland square Sarel boxes can be
yours at RS for a mere 8.63quid+VAT with no terminal blocks (251-5633),
in which you can wire with nice commoning blocks such as the ones made
by Zeta (with a rising clamp rather than the cruder direct-screw-down
style), sold by RS as e.g. partnum 315-4790, 10quid for box of 10 3-way
commoners, or 315-4829, 12.50 for a 10box of 5-ways. They allege to be
Man Enough for up to 60A of sustained load, so won't be the weak point
in your design; you might want to use those for E, N, and maybe perm-L,
while using a way or two of the physically smaller choc-block for
switched-L and maybe perm-L, which you'll have fewer cores of. Pricier
than the "I Can't Believe It's A Junction Box" sort of thing you can get
at 60p a time, of course, but may be worth the improvement to your
sanity. There are DIN-rail mounting variants too, which can be handy in
wiring radial circuits with multiple departure points, or Cunning
Electrickle Projects...

....................................... ISTR seeing this type of
connection used in electro-mechanical systems I've worked on in the
past - what's so wrong about them?

Nothing other than cost ;-)

Cheers, Stefek

In article ,
Stefek Zaba wrote:
God put us on this earth to suffer; it affords Him a little harmless
pleasure to watch us lose the stupid little headless
screw/slotted-thread thing while we wire up those nasty little JBs
overhead. He often arranges for his minor henchman Sod or his stand-in
Murphy to arrange for said screw to bounce/roll somewhere non-obvious,
so that we raid the next JB for a spare;

Get ahead. Next time you use a JB to simply extend a cable, keep the extra
grub screw as a spare. You never loose one if you have a spare.

--
*Forget about World Peace...Visualize using your turn signal.

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

On 2004-09-13, Stefek Zaba wrote:
Dan delaMare-Lyon wrote:

As to "why not busbar style" - fractionally higher material cost, I
guess. Ceiling roses are "busbar" style, but don't allow multiple cable
entries in as pleasing a style as conventional JBs. A 10-pack of
clip-on-lid, stepped-size-rubber-pseudo-gland square Sarel boxes can be
yours at RS for a mere 8.63quid+VAT with no terminal blocks (251-5633),
in which you can wire with nice commoning blocks such as the ones made
by Zeta (with a rising clamp rather than the cruder direct-screw-down
style), sold by RS as e.g. partnum 315-4790, 10quid for box of 10 3-way
commoners, or 315-4829, 12.50 for a 10box of 5-ways. They allege to be
Man Enough for up to 60A of sustained load, so won't be the weak point
in your design; you might want to use those for E, N, and maybe perm-L,
while using a way or two of the physically smaller choc-block for
switched-L and maybe perm-L, which you'll have fewer cores of. Pricier
than the "I Can't Believe It's A Junction Box" sort of thing you can get
at 60p a time, of course, but may be worth the improvement to your
sanity. There are DIN-rail mounting variants too, which can be handy in
wiring radial circuits with multiple departure points, or Cunning
Electrickle Projects...

BUGGER - why didn't I know of this before hand - there would have been
much less blood loss from the razor sharp brass screw heads than I
suffered.

Cheers
Dan.

Dan delaMare-Lyon wrote:


BUGGER - why didn't I know of this before hand - there would have been
much less blood loss from the razor sharp brass screw heads than I
suffered.

Already answered: God put us on this world to suffer ;-)

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:43:44 +0100, Stefek Zaba wrote:

snip
A 10-pack of
clip-on-lid, stepped-size-rubber-pseudo-gland square Sarel boxes can be
yours at RS for a mere 8.63quid+VAT with no terminal blocks (251-5633),
in which you can wire with nice commoning blocks such as the ones made
by Zeta
snip

Just had a look. Are the Zeta blocks supposed to be clipped into the Sarel
boxes or just left floating - can't tell from the picture but it looks
like the latter.

I like the Zeta blocks - one clamp per wire is *good* - I've used similar
DIN rail blocks before and everything just feels so much more "positive".

Just I find the idea of floating wires/blocks to be less than perfect
(Hate chocco blocks for same reason)?

The one good thing about the round boxes with grub screws was clarity of
layout - 4 posts well seperated and fixed solid. I do agree though, those
grub screws are a bugger to get in, esp. with 3 x 2.5 mm2 wires going in,
and I do find myself doubting one screw gripping on 3 loose wires
(sometimes one doesn't quite get held properly, which is why I twist then
together before clamping down).

Any insight from the pros?

Timbo

On 2004-09-13, Tim wrote:

The one good thing about the round boxes with grub screws was clarity of
layout - 4 posts well seperated and fixed solid. I do agree though, those
grub screws are a bugger to get in, esp. with 3 x 2.5 mm2 wires going in,
and I do find myself doubting one screw gripping on 3 loose wires
(sometimes one doesn't quite get held properly, which is why I twist then
together before clamping down).

Exactly my thoughts. I'm gonna check again after a week just to make
sure nothing has settled and come at all loose.


Any insight from the pros?

Probably the words "fiddly little buggers"

Cheers
Dan.

Tim wrote:


Just had a look. Are the Zeta blocks supposed to be clipped into the Sarel
boxes or just left floating - can't tell from the picture but it looks
like the latter.

Sorry to disappoint - just left floating, though with the stifness of
single-core cables, even 1mmsq will keep them where you neatly fold the
wires to make them stay; they're fully insulated so nothing Bad will
happen even if they do bump into each other under the influence of a
passing squirrel doing the tango. If you want 'em secured, you're into
buying the DIN-rail-mounting variant, which can (if I recall correctly -
it's raining and I can't be arrassed to check the ones out in the garage
;-) that there's a mounting hole in the DIN-rail clip which you could
use in the absence of a rail...

................................................. I do agree though, those
grub screws are a bugger to get in, esp. with 3 x 2.5 mm2 wires going in,
and I do find myself doubting one screw gripping on 3 loose wires
(sometimes one doesn't quite get held properly, which is why I twist then
together before clamping down).

Ahh, the "should I twist or not" argument - haven't had that one for a
few months now ;-) NICEIC dogma is not to twist: one reason being it
makes inspection harder (if you're doing e.g. measurements of ring
conductor resistance at multiple positions), and repeated twisting and
untwisting will lead to the conductors breaking. For the
regularly-inspected world this argument carries some weight: for the
domestic fit-n-forget world, the security of twisting outweighs, in my
addled mind, the anti-twisting argument...

Stefek

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:39:22 +0100, Stefek Zaba wrote:

Tim wrote:


Just had a look. Are the Zeta blocks supposed to be clipped into the Sarel
boxes or just left floating - can't tell from the picture but it looks
like the latter.

Sorry to disappoint - just left floating, though with the stifness of
single-core cables, even 1mmsq will keep them where you neatly fold the
wires to make them stay; they're fully insulated so nothing Bad will
happen even if they do bump into each other under the influence of a
passing squirrel doing the tango. If you want 'em secured, you're into
buying the DIN-rail-mounting variant, which can (if I recall correctly -
it's raining and I can't be arrassed to check the ones out in the garage
;-) that there's a mounting hole in the DIN-rail clip which you could
use in the absence of a rail...

Doesn't sound too bad - and those blocks do look nice. Think I'll buy me a
pack to play with. The blocks are rated from 1-6mm2 which pretty much
covers everything domestic.

................................................. I do agree though, those
grub screws are a bugger to get in, esp. with 3 x 2.5 mm2 wires going in,
and I do find myself doubting one screw gripping on 3 loose wires
(sometimes one doesn't quite get held properly, which is why I twist then
together before clamping down).

Ahh, the "should I twist or not" argument - haven't had that one for a
few months now ;-) NICEIC dogma is not to twist: one reason being it
makes inspection harder (if you're doing e.g. measurements of ring
conductor resistance at multiple positions), and repeated twisting and
untwisting will lead to the conductors breaking. For the
regularly-inspected world this argument carries some weight: for the
domestic fit-n-forget world, the security of twisting outweighs, in my
addled mind, the anti-twisting argument...

That thought did cross my mind. I agree though - domestic is hardly
touched once in so twisting is definately better IMO.

Cheers

Timbo