Wagos on Final Ring Circuits

[John-SJW]

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:  American Electrical Advice Forum

The advantage of the Wago is that the contact resistance is consistently low across time, temperature and cable types,

Thanks.
I knows guys who in the 1st fix will use Wagos inside the backboxes, connecting up a ring (or radial), and even the earth terminal of a metal backbox. The backbozes are double up as j boxes. They test the ring. Any wiring problems are identified before finishing trades turn up. Putting it right afterwards may be big problems.

Then the plasterers and painters come in doing their work. They leave the Wagos in place in the backboxes. Then on the 2nd fix, on a bench they prepared the sockets, by screwing into all the socket's tails of flexible 2.5mm cable, inc' an insulated earth wire, about 4 to 6 inches long. They then just quickly put the tails into the Wagos at the back of the back boxes. The socket easily pushes back in being on flex tails. Then test again. The speed, and ease, of instalation was much quicker.

Each socket is a spur. The 2.5mm flex tails to a double socket cannot be more than 26A with 27A rated cable. So OK.

I have found many terminal screws on the back of sockets can work loose over time - expansion-contraction, vibration from people walking on wooden floors, etc. This is then a potential fire situation, with maybe arcing, adding higher resistances to the ring, which may cause one leg of the ring to take most of the load, etc.

That is where Wagos, in the scenario I just outlined, where they take the rings load, not the terminal on the rear of the sockets, with sockets being spurs, are safer. Having Wago connections on the rear of sockets, as in Germany, adds another level of safety, in eliminating another potential failure/fire risk.

I am a great fan of Wagos having been using them since the 1980s, but they don't have magical powers.

That they are not, but they add so much value in many ways. And are superb get out of jail solutions at times.

 

[loz2754]

Thanks.
I knows guys who in the 1st fix will use Wagos inside the backboxes, connecting up a ring (or radial), and even the earth terminal of a metal backbox. The backbozes are double up as j boxes. They test the ring. Any wiring problems are identified before finishing trades turn up. Putting it right afterwards may be big problems.

Then the plasterers and painters come in doing their work. They leave the Wagos in place in the backboxes. Then on the 2nd fix, on a bench they prepared the sockets, by screwing into all the socket's tails of flexible 2.5mm cable, inc' an insulated earth wire, about 4 to 6 inches long. They then just quickly put the tails into the Wagos at the back of the back boxes. The socket easily pushes back in being on flex tails. Then test again. The speed, and ease, of instalation was much quicker.

Each socket is a spur. The 2.5mm flex tails to a double socket cannot be more than 26A with 27A rated cable. So OK.

I have found many terminal screws on the back of sockets can work loose over time - expansion-contraction, vibration from people walking on wooden floors, etc. This is then a potential fire situation, with maybe arcing, adding higher resistances to the ring, which may cause one leg of the ring to take most of the load, etc.

That is where Wagos, in the scenario I just outlined, where they take the rings load, not the terminal on the rear of the sockets, with sockets being spurs, are safer. Having Wago connections on the rear of sockets, as in Germany, adds another level of safety, in eliminating another potential failure/fire risk.


That they are not, but they add so much value in many ways. And are superb get out of jail solutions at times.

I'm liking this idea. May cut down on future ring continuity problems

 

[pc1966]

If you are adding a new spur, could you not simply run 2 * 2.5mm to it and make it part of the ruin at that JB?

 

[John-SJW]

If you are adding a new spur, could you not simply run 2 * 2.5mm to it and make it part of the ruin at that JB?

That would be the best solution of course. But that is not the point of the thread. Wagos can (some cannot) have two spurs off them, which makes matters very easy in some situations.

 

[pc1966]

Two spurs from the same point is against the design rational for the ring (that you don't have a high concentration of loads at some point). Otherwise you are not sure to get good balance between the two legs and the use of, say 32A MCB for overload protection on 2.5mm is getting a little dodgy.

 

[John-SJW]

I do like Wago terminal strips.

 

[John-SJW]

Two spurs from the same point is against the design rational for the ring (that you don't have a high concentration of loads at some point). Otherwise you are not sure to get good balance between the two legs and the use of, say 32A MCB for overload protection on 2.5mm is getting a little dodgy.

For e.g, A wall mounted TV and sound bar. Take spurs off a local socket (using Wagos to maintain the ring), with two spurs off the Wago in the backbox to two single sockets, one for the TV and one for the sound bar. Depending on the shape of the back of the TV, with the mounting brackets there, a double socket may be unsuitable of one spur, with two singles the way (the case with mine). Then two 1.5mm cables off a Wago inside the local socket's backbox on the ring will be suitable. The 13A fuse protects the 1.5mm cable.

Also the load on thes two sockets is minimal.

 

[MrMan1O1]

In a ring if there is a 30A screw terminal junction box in the ring one spur can be taken off this. The j box terminals have three cables in them.

Exactly, you wouldn't take two spurs from a single point on a ring whether it be a screw terminal JB or a socket, so why think it's ok to take two spurs from one point on the ring just because the multiple connection ports on WAGO terminals make it convenient? A spur from a ring equals three cables, end of.
No matter how many connector ports a WAGO terminal has got it surely should be treated as a replacement for a screwed terminal and the cable configuration should be no different to a conventional ring circuit. No matter how long the WAGO is I don't buy into the idea that the ring terminals go in at each end and the spur from the centre....it simply doesn't matter.... it's a connector, not part of the ring in the way that a cable is. My rationale is that even if the WAGO "mini busbar" is 2 or 3cm long, all connection points on it are at the same potential, ie there's no voltage drop along it in the same way you will get over a long length of cable.
I think anyone using Wagos or similar should be careful not to compromise the design convention of a circuit just because it's easy/convenient/possible.

 

[John-SJW]

No matter how long the WAGO is I don't buy into the idea that the ring terminals go in at each end and the spur from the centre....it simply doesn't matter.... it's a connector, not part of the ring in the way that a cable is.

Thanks.
Look at a Wago, a 4 or 5 connector version. The mini bus bar in the Wago IS a part of the ring, like a cable. It just is, it is not open to opinion. This may be inside a product whose target market is making connections, but that does not dissolve the fact that the mini bus bar is a part of the ring, taking the full current of the ring when full current is drawn. And that a connection taken off the Wago is an individual connection taken off the ring. Very different to three wires touching each other taken off one brass screwed terminal.

A normal screwed j box does not operate like a Wago in current transport, especially with 4 or 5 connector Wagos.

Let's take a scenario. A 35mm deep box with socket on the front and spurs taken of the back existing via the back.
1) ring cable in to the 1st connection on a 3 connector Wago (a);
2) ring cable out on the last (3rd) connector;
3) then a wire out of the 2nd connector to the front socket (which is a spur);

4) Then another 3 connector Wago (b) inside (enough space);
5) the ring wire out of Wago (a) connector then into Wago (b) connector 1st;
6) ring cable out of last connector 3rd on Wago (b);
7) then a wire out the middle 2nd connector on Wago b) to a spur;

Two Wagos in a ring with a spur off both.
The two Wagos take the full current of the ring - it runs right through the two of them. This is all as we understand taking spurs of rings. All legal as we know it.

Inside the 35mm box there is a ring wire that may be only 2 inches long that joins the two Wagos effectively joining the mini bus bars inside the Wagos.

Having one 4 connector Wago, with the ring in the 1st and out of the 4th connectors with the socket and spur off the two middle connectors does the same thing, with less connectors, which mean less resistance, etc. And looks safer. But some may say that is illegal, even though it is better all around. I say there is nothing wrong with that being a superior solution.

 

[DPG]

Thanks.
Look at a Wago, a 4 or 5 connector version. The mini bus bar in the Wago IS a part of the ring, like a cable. It just is, it is not open to opinion. This may be inside a product whose target market is making connections, but that does not dissolve the fact that the mini bus bar is a part of the ring, taking the full current of the ring when full current is drawn. And that a connection taken off the Wago is an individual connection taken off the ring. Very different to three wires touching each other taken off one brass screwed terminal.

A normal screwed j box does not operate like a Wago in current transport, especially with 4 or 5 connector Wagos.

Let's take a scenario. A 35mm deep box with socket on the front and spurs taken of the back existing via the back.
1) ring cable in to the 1st connection on a 3 connector Wago (a);
2) ring cable out on the last (3rd) connector;
3) then a wire out of the 2nd connector to the front socket (which is a spur);

4) Then another 3 connector Wago (b) inside (enough space);
5) the ring wire out of Wago (a) connector then into Wago (b) connector 1st;
6) ring cable out of last connector 3rd on Wago (b);
7) then a wire out the middle 2nd connector on Wago b) to a spur;

Two Wagos in a ring with a spur off both.
The two Wagos take the full current of the ring - it runs right through the two of them. This is all as we understand taking spurs of rings. All legal as we know it.

Inside the 35mm box there is a ring wire that may be only 2 inches long that joins the two Wagos effectively joining the mini bus bars inside the Wagos.

Having one 4 connector Wago, with the ring in the 1st and out of the 4th connectors with the socket and spur off the two middle connectors does the same thing, with less connectors, which mean less resistance, etc. And looks safer. But some may say that is illegal, even though it is better all around. I say there is nothing wrong with that being a superior solution.

I don't really see your argument that it's ok as long as you use the outer terminals if the Wago. In reality the difference between one terminal and the next is tiny and wouldn't really make a difference.

 

[dodger421]

Thanks.
Look at a Wago, a 4 or 5 connector version. The mini bus bar in the Wago IS a part of the ring, like a cable. It just is, it is not open to opinion. This may be inside a product whose target market is making connections, but that does not dissolve the fact that the mini bus bar is a part of the ring, taking the full current of the ring when full current is drawn. And that a connection taken off the Wago is an individual connection taken off the ring. Very different to three wires touching each other taken off one brass screwed terminal.

A normal screwed j box does not operate like a Wago in current transport, especially with 4 or 5 connector Wagos.

Let's take a scenario. A 35mm deep box with socket on the front and spurs taken of the back existing via the back.
1) ring cable in to the 1st connection on a 3 connector Wago (a);
2) ring cable out on the last (3rd) connector;
3) then a wire out of the 2nd connector to the front socket (which is a spur);

4) Then another 3 connector Wago (b) inside (enough space);
5) the ring wire out of Wago (a) connector then into Wago (b) connector 1st;
6) ring cable out of last connector 3rd on Wago (b);
7) then a wire out the middle 2nd connector on Wago b) to a spur;

Two Wagos in a ring with a spur off both.
The two Wagos take the full current of the ring - it runs right through the two of them. This is all as we understand taking spurs of rings. All legal as we know it.

Inside the 35mm box there is a ring wire that may be only 2 inches long that joins the two Wagos effectively joining the mini bus bars inside the Wagos.

Having one 4 connector Wago, with the ring in the 1st and out of the 4th connectors with the socket and spur off the two middle connectors does the same thing, with less connectors, which mean less resistance, etc. And looks safer. But some may say that is illegal, even though it is better all around. I say there is nothing wrong with that being a superior solution.

That logic applies to screwed metal earth terminal blocks too, (which is effectively what a Wago is in a smaller, insulated and easier to use form). Nobody sane would argue you could take multiple spurs off one of those as long as you’ve got the ring conductors in either end (and somehow suitably insulated the block etc etc...).

As Lucien and many others have pointed out this is a very literal reading of the regs to try and bypass their intentions whilst utterly missing the point.

 

[telectrix]

either extend the ring or sort your spurs out. Yee Hah!.