2 spurs from a Junction Box....worried?

['mr2'gd4u]

Interesting debate. I've found myself pondering different scenarios which I thought I would share. I don't know the answer but it would be interesting to hear members views.

1. Two wago boxes side by side on the ring (as mentioned earlier in the thread) with a spur from each. Would this be compliant?

2. Whilst installing example 1. You realise that you have a bigger box that will take all the wagos and save on one of the boxes. Would this be compliant?

3. Whilst installing example 2. You realise that you are using 4 way 222s and that you can remove the very short link between the wagos and put both spurs into the same one. So the wago is now maintaining the ring in place of the very short length of cable. Would this be compliant?

At what point, if any, does this become non compliant and why?

1. Yes
2. I guess
3. No

 

[Pete999]

Op is it possible to run the original legs that you cut into on the rfc to a fcu then run both the 2.5mm to that and fix to a wall or something?

The OP hasn't come back with any evidence that he has actually spurred from the ring and no from a spur that already exists.

 

['mr2'gd4u]

The OP hasn't come back with any evidence that he has actually spurred from the ring and no from a spur that already exists.

Well this is true and would be even worse obviously if they had spurred from a spur. op what's the situation can you confirm it's a leg off the rfc and not a spur that you've tapped into??

 

[Deleted member 9648]

The OP hasn't come back with any evidence that he has actually spurred from the ring and no from a spur that already exists.

True, that WOULD be non compliant and possibly dangerous. I have taken on board the disagrees from respected members but remain unconvinced that the two spurs from a single point on a ring is non compliant.

 

[telectrix]

sorry pete. i have to agree with miss whiplash sparkychick..

 

[Pete999]

sorry pete. i have to agree with miss whiplash sparkychick..

No need to be sorry Tel, we all have differing opinions. Out of interest which thread are you agreeing with, and tread carefully Mate, with the innuendos.

 

[Devonchris]

The OP hasn't come back with any evidence that he has actually spurred from the ring and no from a spur that already exists.

I think it's clear from the original post that it's off the ring. The diagram is not up to Richards standard though.

 

[Pete999]

I think it's clear from the original post that it's off the ring. The diagram is not up to Richards standard though.

It may well be as you say Chris, but as the OP is a DIYer it could be his interpretation of what he has done.

 

[johnduffell]

due to it being on a single point of the ring it's classed as 1 spur with 2 sockets on, even if the is no leg between the rfc and the jb

It's all defined by the iet in the regs
"Spur. A branch from a ring or radial final circuit."
So that is clear it refers to the cable rather than the point of connection.

While everyone is on the topic, i can't find anything in the regs that allows a lollipop circuit. I was trying to find out whether the wording would allow a figure of eight, but i can't find any reg allowing a lollipop, as a ring final circuit defines the whole circuit to be arranged as a ring. Any pointers?

 

[Devonchris]

It may well be as you say Chris, but as the OP is a DIYer it could be his interpretation of what he has done.

You could be right Pete. A diagram is only an interpretation. Just like appendix 15.