Wagos on Final Ring Circuits

[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!.

 

[MrMan1O1]

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.

The regs allow only one unfused spur off the ring socket not two. The unfused spur would have to be in 2.5mm cable not 1.5mm. If you are saying that you've used wagos to expand the ring then I suppose you could take one spur cable from the socket and another from the wagos (which are acting as a 3 terminal JB), but I doubt there will be room in the backbox for 3 X 3-port wagos and five 2.5mm t&e cables. The spurs must be 2.5mm the same as the ring to ensure they're protected by the CU overcurrent device (30A or 32A). You can use 1.5mm cable to supply the two single sockets in series only if you replace your ring socket with a FCU, or wire in the FCU as a spur from your ring socket. The 13A fuse (I assume you mean one in the TV plug) does not protect the 1.5mm cable supplying it; it ruptures for a fault on the load side, not supply.
I know that you are saying that the load is only minimal, but design principles should not be compromised and what you have described is outwith the wiring regulations I'm afraid.
Hope this helps.

 

[westward10]

You can spur from a ring final in 1.5 (1.0 if it is MI) providing circuit protection is not compromised.

 

[Lucien Nunes]

I'm beginning to wonder whether the OP works for Wago. We agree that Wagos are versatile, reliable and practical. The premise of this thread is that if, and only if, you use Wagos, you can argue that multiple spurs taken from one point are actually from separate points. On this we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[telectrix]

I'm beginning to wonder whether the OP works for Wago. We agree that Wagos are versatile, reliable and practical. The premise of this thread is that if, and only if, you use Wagos, you can argue that multiple spurs taken from one point are actually from separate points. On this we will have to agree to disagree.

agree. the wago, no matter which way it's connected, is still a single point on the ring.

 

[John-SJW]

agree. the wago, no matter which way it's connected, is still a single point on the ring.

That is my argument. Looking at the Wago, which has a mini bus bar inside, it is not an interpretation, it is multiple point connections from the ring, not a single point. Look, do not take my word or it. The clear connectors clearly shows the bus bar with the multiple, connections. The mini bus bar charges matter from a normal screwed connection j box. Wago types of connectors add so much more value.

BTW, I do not work for any manufacturer.

 

[DPG]

That is my argument. Looking at the Wago, which has a mini bus bar inside, it is not an interpretation, it is multiple point connections from the ring, not a single point. Look, do not take my word or it. The clear connectors clearly shows the bus bar with the multiple, connections.

BTW, I do not work for any manufacturer.

I think we all understand how a Wago is constructed, but you are making rather wild claims about the function of a cm of copper!

 

[pc1966]

That is my argument. Looking at the Wago, which has a mini bus bar inside, it is not an interpretation, it is multiple point connections from the ring, not a single point.

You are totally missing the whole point of why there are rules limiting spurs off a RFC.

Why is the RFC allowed to use 32A OCPD when the usual 2.5mm cable is 20-26A CCC limit?

Because of diversity in the type of loads and the assumption that the loading is distributed to a moderate degree over the length of the loop, so both 'legs' from the OCPD are sharing the current to a reasonable degree.

The same reason why the regs advise not to put large fixed loads on the RFC - it is not part of the overall strategy for allowing less copper to serve a much bigger area.

Running two spurs off a Wago joint (or any other joint) is NOT achieving that diversity of loading along the length of the ring. It is electrically indistinguishable from taking spurs off spurs as far as the load on either leg of the ring is concerned.

Your argument is like a lawyer looking for a loop-hole, not an engineer analysing the who and why that regulations have developed.

 

[John-SJW]

You are totally missing the whole point of why there are rules limiting spurs off a RFC.

Why is the RFC allowed to use 32A OCPD when the usual 2.5mm cable is 20-26A CCC limit?

Because of diversity in the type of loads and the assumption that the loading is distributed to a moderate degree over the length of the loop, so both 'legs' from the OCPD are sharing the current to a reasonable degree.

The same reason why the regs advise not to put large fixed loads on the RFC - it is not part of the overall strategy for allowing less copper to serve a much bigger area.

Running two spurs off a Wago joint (or any other joint) is NOT achieving that diversity of loading along the length of the ring. It is electrically indistinguishable from taking spurs off spurs as far as the load on either leg of the ring is concerned.

Your argument is like a lawyer looking for a loop-hole, not an engineer analysing the who and why that regulations have developed.

I know exactly what ring circuits are and how they work. You are mainly on about the design of the circuit, in not bunching heavy appliances on the ring. Good design would have a balanced ring - leg A to socket 1 (or FCU), then socket 3, 5, 7, etc, with leg B to socket 2, then socket 4, 6, 8, etc. So when adjacent w/machine and dryer are on, one is drawing off leg A and one leg B, balancing.

You are saying that having heavy appliances bunched off a ring, as in a kitchen is bad design. Of course it is, but legal. I have seen FCUs over worktops in twin boxes. That means the ring cable between the FCUs is inches long, then the sockets further along the worktop. When many appliances are on, w/machine, dryer, dishwasher, electric kettle, 3kW oven, toaster, etc, the ring is highly unbalanced - this is an issue. This setup is common. It is bad design. You are implying that in this situation it is no better than daisy chained spurs off a ring (daisy chained spurs are against regs). It isn't really, but your point is taken.

However, I have seen sockets all bunched off an upstairs ring, bedrooms converted to an office is common, but each one is drawing very low levels of current, via laptops, games consoles, printer, computers, etc. The ring is unbalanced, but the load is so low it is not an issue. On my ring I have a TV, computer, kitchen extract fan and a toaster. The ring is highly unbalanced when the toaster is on, but again the current draw is so low it is not an issue.

A 4 connector Wago with the ring in No.1 then out of No.4 (either ends of the Wago bus bar) with a spur off No. 2 and another off No. 3, is not daisy chaining spurs, as both are off the ring. If having spurs next to each other of course sensible design has to come in, in not having heavy current loads bunched, which of course a Wago can do. Having a Wago serving two spurs off an upstairs, lightly used, ring circuit would give no problems.

 

[DPG]

I give up.

 

[John-SJW]

?

 

[Lucien Nunes]

This is not the argument you were trying to advance earlier. You are now comparing the effects of bunched loads in different situations, and I am broadly in agreement with your analysis. Your original point, however, was that there was a fundamental difference in concept between the use of a Wago (with a specific in-line internal structure) and the use of another suitable connector of equal performance but different structure for the same purpose, namely connecting two spurs to a ring that may or may not represent a significant bunching of load.

Like DPG I am close to giving up but I would like to hear your opinion of the MK1132 junction box:

30 Amp 3 Terminal Junction Box - White | MK (1132WHI)

 

[loz2754]

This has got to be a windup!
A Wago is a connector, not a busbar.
OP is almost religiously dogmatic in stating that the Wago is indeed a mini busbar. A totally ridiculous and unsupportable argument IMHO.

 

[John-SJW]

My original point was that a Wago has a bus bar inside. This bus bar is a part of the ring when the ring cables are connect at each end. Then a number of spurs can be taken off the bus bar - is not daisy chaining spurs, as some thing it is.

The j box below would do exactly the same if wired the same way as the Wago, as can be seen a bus bar is there.



The above j box is quite different to the normal one like below, where thers is no bus and all cables are into one terminal:

 

[John-SJW]

This has got to be a windup!
A Wago is a connector, not a busbar.
OP is almost religiously dogmatic in stating that the Wago is indeed a mini busbar. A totally ridiculous and unsupportable argument IMHO.

Look at one. Do not take my word for it.

 

[John-SJW]

This is not the argument you were trying to advance earlier. You are now comparing the effects of bunched loads in different situations, and I am broadly in agreement with your analysis.

I was responding to a poster.

I have not read of any limits of sizes of bus bars - can be 1/2" or 2 foot.

 

[MrMan1O1]

I know exactly what ring circuits are and how they work. You are mainly on about the design of the circuit, in not bunching heavy appliances on the ring. Good design would have a balanced ring - leg A to socket 1 (or FCU), then socket 3, 5, 7, etc, with leg B to socket 2, then socket 4, 6, 8, etc. So when adjacent w/machine and dryer are on, one is drawing off leg A and one leg B, balancing.

You are saying that having heavy appliances bunched off a ring, as in a kitchen is bad design. Of course it is, but legal. I have seen FCUs over worktops in twin boxes. That means the ring cable between the FCUs is inches long, then the sockets further along the worktop. When many appliances are on, w/machine, dryer, dishwasher, electric kettle, 3kW oven, toaster, etc, the ring is highly unbalanced - this is an issue. This setup is common. It is bad design. You are implying that in this situation it is no better than daisy chained spurs off a ring (daisy chained spurs are against regs). It isn't really, but your point is taken.

However, I have seen sockets all bunched off an upstairs ring, bedrooms converted to an office is common, but each one is drawing very low levels of current, via laptops, games consoles, printer, computers, etc. The ring is unbalanced, but the load is so low it is not an issue. On my ring I have a TV, computer, kitchen extract fan and a toaster. The ring is highly unbalanced when the toaster is on, but again the current draw is so low it is not an issue.

A 4 connector Wago with the ring in No.1 then out of No.4 (either ends of the Wago bus bar) with a spur off No. 2 and another off No. 3, is not daisy chaining spurs, as both are off the ring. If having spurs next to each other of course sensible design has to come in, in not having heavy current loads bunched, which of course a Wago can do. Having a Wago serving two spurs off an upstairs, lightly used, ring circuit would give no problems.

You mentioned in another post that wagos can be a get of jail free card, but if you're taking two spurs off one WAGO terminal then it's you that could be going straight to jail I'm afraid.
A WAGO is not a ring conductor, It's a terminal for goodness sake.
As for balancing loads on a ring circuit....er, hello, it's a ring....the two cables coming from the CU actually act as one, and each cable will carry half the current of the total load from all the outlets.....of course the load varies along the length of the cable but all that means is the point of "balance" (searching for a better word) of current flow will change accordingly.