Discuss Wagos on Final Ring Circuits in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net

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

Reaction score
115
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.

Each cable in a Wago (or an in-Sure) has it own connection slot for each wire. This makes a difference.
Wagos are mini bus bars. If a 32A four connector Wago has a 2.5mm wire in each end, then the brass 'bus bar' inside is obviously a part of the ring that full current can run through.

So, if a four connector Wago is in a junction box on a ring with the ring cables in each end, (must be in each end) then each of the centre two connectors can have a spur off, as both are off the mini bus bar in the Wago that forms a part of the ring. So two spurs off the one Wago, as both are independently off the ring.

What are the views of you guys.
 
Last edited:
It's a cheeky literal interpretation of the regs to bypass their intention. The idea is that with the ring cables in the end ports the Wago internal busbar spine forms part of the ring 'wiring' so the two inner ports are 'separate' locations in the ring, each of which is entitled to feed one spur. In fact if you allow that each piece of the busbar can form part of the ring, it doesn't matter which holes the wires are in, as Tel notes.

But it's a specious argument because the intent of the regulation is not so much about the actual connectors as the tendency for multiple spurs radiating from a point along the cable to concentrate load at that point. Two adjacent traditional round JBs would have the same effect and may be technically compliant but bad practice.
 
Last edited:
why can't the RFC wires be in the inner ports and the spur wires in the outer ports?
Thanks.
As I explained, the brass bar insie the Wago forms a bus bar. The ring current will run from one end to the other. Spurs off the two centre connectors are off the ring itself for sure. I gave an e.g., of a four connector, and that would not make much difference which way the wires are in the connector, but would make a difference with a five connector Wago.

With a five, if say the two ring wires were in one end, it is clear that three sockets (spurs) could be off one Wago. That is why I say having the ring cables off the end connections is important - to maintain the integrity of the ring.
 
Last edited:
It's a cheeky literal interpretation of the regs to bypass their intention. The idea is that with the ring cables in the end ports the Wago internal busbar spine forms part of the ring 'wiring' so the two inner ports are 'separate' locations in the ring, each of which is entitled to feed one spur. In fact if you allow that each piece of the busbar can form part of the ring, it doesn't matter which holes the wires are in, as Tel notes.

But it's a specious argument because the intent of the regulation is not so much about the actual connectors as the tendency for multiple spurs radiating from a point along the cable to concentrate load at that point. Two adjacent traditional round JBs would have the same effect and may be technically compliant but bad practice.
Thanks.
I would not call it cheeky, just looking at the construction of the Wago. Electrically having two or three sockets, or FCUs off the centre connections of the Wago is electrically sound, electrically it is safe - and it does conform to the literal interpretation. I have no idea what Wago or in-Sure's intentions were.

It is a work around for sure.
 
Last edited:
however it's configured, there's the danger of putting too much load on a single point of the ring.
Thanks.
I would not call that danger.
That would be more ring design and balancing with two much load on one leg. But, say one leg of a ring take 75% of the load. by the time it reach 32A (assuming a 32A mcb on the ring), the most used leg will only be drawing 24A, which is within the ~27A of the 2.5mm cable.

Having sockets off a ring in a kitchen with a number of high current drawing appliances off the ring within inches or feet of each other, could be classed bunching on a ring as most of the load is all at one location of the ring. That is an ultra common situation. This can be overcome by a balanced ring, having say leg one feed alternative sockets. There again - design.

Lucien Nunes highlighted putting two 30A J boxes next to each other on a ring with a spur off each, which is the same.
 
Exactly, so my point is that one does not need to go to extreme lengths to justfy where you are connecting the spurs if you are designing appropriately. There is nothing better or worse about the Wago example vs. the two JB's example. It's just a matter of whether you want to argue over the definition of a cable and whether the innards of a Wago qualify as one. The argument has nothing to do with either electrical safety or compliance with the intended meaning of the regulations.
 
It's just a matter of whether you want to argue over the definition of a cable and whether the innards of a Wago qualify as one.
Thanks.
Looking at the innards of a Wago block the brass bus bar clearly makes up a part of the ring if using say the five connector Wago with the ring wires at each end. There is no argument on that - it just does. The brass inside is more substantial than the cable, capable of taking a heavier load.

John Ward's vid on Wagos, heavily overloading them until they melted, was clear in that the cable melted before the Wago. Even using the no-name cheapo Chinese brand.

The regs were written with screwed terminal j boxes and sockets in mind, as that is what was there. It looks like technology has overtaken the regs. BTW, in Germany they sell sockets with Wago connectors on the back, eliminating screwed connectors.
 
I'm not sure if we are at cross purposes. Any terminal or junction box should be suitable for the rated current and the number of cables connected. That is a separate consideration to whether more than one spur should be fed from a single point in the ring.

The brass inside is more substantial than the cable, capable of taking a heavier load.
The relationship is not quite that simple, since the bulk resistance of the metal is not the main source of heat dissipation. That occurs chiefly at the point of contact between cable and connector, where the current density is highest. The main difference that the CSA of the structural parts of a bussed connector makes, is in the thermal resistance to ambient they provide to the points of high current density.

The regs were written with screwed terminal j boxes and sockets in mind,

When the regs were written, rings were normally wired in 7/.029. One can make a connection of lower resistance between two spurs and a through-run of 7/.029 in a 30A marshmallow, than one can between two spurs and a through-run of 2.5 in a 5-hole 222. The advantage of the Wago is that the contact resistance is consistently low across time, temperature and cable types, not that it is insignificant altogether. I am a great fan of Wagos having been using them since the 1980s, but they don't have magical powers.
 
Thanks.
Looking at the innards of a Wago block the brass bus bar clearly makes up a part of the ring if using say the five connector Wago with the ring wires at each end. There is no argument on that - it just does. The brass inside is more substantial than the cable, capable of taking a heavier load.

John Ward's vid on Wagos, heavily overloading them until they melted, was clear in that the cable melted before the Wago. Even using the no-name cheapo Chinese brand.

The regs were written with screwed terminal j boxes and sockets in mind, as that is what was there. It looks like technology has overtaken the regs. BTW, in Germany they sell sockets with Wago connectors on the back, eliminating screwed connectors.
Just design the circuit/layout correctly in the first place, do away with JBs of any description MF or not, a decent circuit design beats the need for any joints, good planning beats Migraines caused by worrying if you have done it correctly in the first place, JBs are good for afterthoughts and nothing much else. Tin hat firmly on head.
 
Thanks.
In a new circuit what you wrote was the way to go. But it is the additions along the way that entail junctions, spurs, etc.

An e.g., my place. I have: w/machine, d/washer, boiler, fridge, boiler, TV amplifier & Modem, all on their own 2.5mm radial circuits with their own RCBOs. The ring circuit feeds the TV, laptop, 800w toaster and cooker hood. Minimal load. Divide and rule.

Looking at the Wagos, if I wanted to take a two spurs off say one of the kitchen sockets - out of convenience, the Wagos would do it at the rear of a 35mm deep backbox. Electrically safe? No doubt. To the regs, I would say yes. Others may disagree, that is the aim of this thread, to make awareness getting differing views. BTW, I have no intention of adding spurs.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
New posts

Reply to Wagos on Final Ring Circuits in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock