If consumer unit moved, cables would be too short. solution?
fjk61011
circuit cables would be too short to reach the CU. Would all the
upstairs cables have to be replaced or could the cables be extended by
jointing cables?
Andy Burns
They could be extended, for example by crimping, using a *proper*
ratchet crimping tool like this
<http://media.digikey.com/photos/Paladin%20Tools%20Photos/MFG_1357.jpg>
Not a cheapo tool like this
Allan Mac
fjk61011
I think I have one of the ratchet crimpers or it might be a CAT5/6
tool. I'll check.
fjk61011
Yeah, that's neat. Presumeably if we go down that route, the small box
would be at the end of the existing cables and the new cables would
come from the small box to the CU?
Andy Dingley
> They could be extended, for example by crimping, using a *proper*
> ratchet crimping tool like this
>
> <http://media.digikey.com/photos/Paladin%20Tools%20Photos/MFG_1357.jpg>
>
> Not a cheapo tool like this
>
> <http://cache1.smarthome.com/images/89256.jpg>
If they're pre-insulated crimps and you're not Drivel-inept at using
them, there's sod-all difference.
Mike Tomlinson
s.com>, Andy Dingley <din...@codesmiths.com> writes
>If they're pre-insulated crimps and you're not Drivel-inept at using
>them, there's sod-all difference.
I don't agree. I wouldn't trust a crimped 2.5mm^2 connection rated to
carry 20A made with the cheapo tool.
--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
harry
Or they can be extended by twisting togeter in a proper manner and
soldering (with a blowlamp and using suitable flux.) They can be re-
insulated with heatshrink sleeving. This is actually far better than
crimps. Takes longer but you won't need the expensive crimping tool.
harry
> In article <981526a8-8895-4f4c-86e0-6bdcd1d9f...@e20g2000vbn.googlegroup
> s.com>, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.com> writes
>
> >If they're pre-insulated crimps and you're not Drivel-inept at using
> >them, there's sod-all difference.
>
> I don't agree. I wouldn't trust a crimped 2.5mm^2 connection rated to
> carry 20A made with the cheapo tool.
>
> --
> (\__/)
> (='.'=)
> (")_(")
You're right. That's why it's best to solder. Especially if the cable
will be bent about afterwards.
Ron Lowe
A blowlamp and flux?
For the cable sizes used in a domestic CU?
I don't think so!
We're not trying to solder the bus-bars in a national grid switching
station here.
A proper soldering iron and regular cored solder is the order of the
day. Additional flux is not required.
You need to cut the wires to a sensible length, and I prefer to twist
them together. This is to provide mechanical strength, and hold the
joint still during soldering.
I prefer to 'stagger' the join, so that the Phase, N and E are joined
about a cm apart. It makes the job neater. I also use a double layer
of heatshrink on each conductor, and then an overall single layer of
heatshrink.
--
Ron
harry
A soldering iron has not the heat to penetrate to the centre of a
stranded cable. This method works fine. Cored solder will work but
there's not really enough flux.
With small cables it takes seconds to heat the cable up with a
blowlamp.
This was at one time the only way to joint cables. There is no
possiblity of cables or screws loosening in any way. There is a
system for twisting the cable strands in larger cable obviously
unknown to you but it was all part of standard knowledge when I was an
apprentice. Crimps are inferior in every way apart from saving time
and money.
dennis@home
"harry" <harol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5ae57188-f96b-4213...@j9g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> Or they can be extended by twisting togeter in a proper manner and
> soldering (with a blowlamp and using suitable flux.) They can be re-
> insulated with heatshrink sleeving. This is actually far better than
> crimps. Takes longer but you won't need the expensive crimping tool.
IIRC the figures show soldering to be less reliable than crimping.
Screw terminals are the least reliable, hence the need for access to screwed
joints but not to crimped or soldered.
I would crimp them.
Duncan Di Saudelli
That's not the whole story though.Whilst it is faster and therefore cheaper
to crimp , and I agree that apprenticeships used to teach making-off methods
for cables (and indeed peope like BBC and MOD and BT had their own manuals
for such tasks, and today companies still use such methods), I have read
studies which show the crimping method to provide better reliability.
Firstly, the joint between the cable conductors and the crimp is a cold-weld
meaning a gas-tight joint with little or no chance of moisture ingress -
solder is often full of pinholes (we're on about good joints which contain
voids, not dry joints) which let in moisture and also may self-contain flux
residues which can break down over time.
Secondly, a solder-joint gives a mechanical point of weakness whereby
vibration causes a fracture whereas with a crimp the crimp itself provides a
degree of strain relief.
Thirdly, repeatability is improved with crimping.
DDS
Ron Lowe
But we're not talking about 'larger cables'.
A proper soldering iron ( eg 50W Temperature Controlled ) has plenty
capacity to solder the cable sizes used in a domestic CU.
--
Ron
Ronald Raygun
>> Crimps are inferior in every way apart from saving time and money.
>
> That's not the whole story though.Whilst it is faster and therefore
> cheaper to crimp , and I agree that apprenticeships used to teach
> making-off methods for cables (and indeed peope like BBC and MOD and BT
> had their own manuals for such tasks, and today companies still use such
> methods), I have read studies which show the crimping method to provide
> better reliability.
>
> Firstly, the joint between the cable conductors and the crimp is a
> cold-weld meaning a gas-tight joint with little or no chance of moisture
> ingress
That's only true in the case of a very well made crimp using a tool
capable of applying seriously high pressure. A cheap hand tool would
not usually achieve this, and even the more expensive ratchet version
would struggle.
> - solder is often full of pinholes
Is it? I'd have thought this would be the case only when a joint has
been inexpertly made. Presumably this is the result of not heating it
well/long enough for the flux to boil out.
> which let in moisture
This is easily excluded by coating with vaseline or silicone.
> and also may
> self-contain flux residues which can break down over time.
But the honeycomb of solder should still be OK, unless you mean the
residue or its breakdown products will attack and break down the solder
itself.
> Secondly, a solder-joint gives a mechanical point of weakness whereby
> vibration causes a fracture whereas with a crimp the crimp itself provides
> a degree of strain relief.
There are certain application areas where this is particularly problematic,
e.g. within machinery or on vehicles where motor or engine vibration is to
be expected. But you wouldn't expect vibration to be a problem in the
vicinity of a domestic consumer unit.
It is particularly discouraged to use solder in combination with crimp,
because it compromises flexibility, or to solder-coat the ends of stranded
wire intended to go into screw terminals, because in time the solder will
suffer cold-flow, lowering the pressure of the screw on the wire, thus
compromising the integrity of the joint.
But a direct wire-to-wire join without screw terminals should be perfectly
satisfactory if soldered.
> Thirdly, repeatability is improved with crimping.
If you mean what I think you mean, namely that you are more likely than
with the other methods to get consistent quality (all joints equally bad
or good as the case may be) when making several joins in identical
circumstances (the same type and size of wire, the same crimp terminals),
then I reckon this would only be the case if using an expensive pukka
crimping tool. With the ordinary hand tool I'd expect the joint quality
to be highly variable.
John Rumm
>> If our consumer unit is moved by about a metre/3' 3" the upstairs
>> circuit cables would be too short to reach the CU. Would all the
>> upstairs cables have to be replaced or could the cables be extended by
>> jointing cables?
>
> Or they can be extended by twisting togeter in a proper manner and
> soldering (with a blowlamp and using suitable flux.) They can be re-
With all due respect... bollocks. if soldering battery terminals in a
car, then perhaps - but a normal 25W iron will do just fine on common
sizes of T&E.
> insulated with heatshrink sleeving. This is actually far better than
> crimps. Takes longer but you won't need the expensive crimping tool.
As long as you manage to get adequate mechanical support for the joint,
then soldering is as good as a well made crimp - however note you will
need two layers of heatshrink. One over each wire, and then another to
replace the outer cable insulation. With insulated crimps you obviously
only need the outer.
Decent crimp tools can be had for under a tenner. Generally crimping is
used in practice since its and easy and reliable jointing method without
risks of burns etc, and its also far faster.
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
John Rumm
You can join them. Neatest solution is a dedicated enclosure with say
DIN rail terminals. However junction boxes are fine if you are not
planning on plastering over them. There are also plenty of other
enclosures you can use with wago terminals or crimps etc.
John Rumm
Add to that the problems with modern lead free solders and their
inherent reliability problems...
Invisible Man
> On 20/11/2010 19:44, fjk61011 wrote:
>> If our consumer unit is moved by about a metre/3' 3" the upstairs
>> circuit cables would be too short to reach the CU. Would all the
>> upstairs cables have to be replaced or could the cables be extended by
>> jointing cables?
>
> You can join them. Neatest solution is a dedicated enclosure with say
> DIN rail terminals. However junction boxes are fine if you are not
> planning on plastering over them. There are also plenty of other
> enclosures you can use with wago terminals or crimps etc.
>
>
rather than tails or anything else carrying particularly high currents.
These are jointed all over the place. Unless they are going to be
inaccessible surely junction boxes would suffice. Also gives a means of
disconnecting individual circuits if this is ever required.
John Rumm
> Duncan Di Saudelli wrote:
>
>>> Crimps are inferior in every way apart from saving time and money.
>>
>> That's not the whole story though.Whilst it is faster and therefore
>> cheaper to crimp , and I agree that apprenticeships used to teach
>> making-off methods for cables (and indeed peope like BBC and MOD and BT
>> had their own manuals for such tasks, and today companies still use such
>> methods), I have read studies which show the crimping method to provide
>> better reliability.
>>
>> Firstly, the joint between the cable conductors and the crimp is a
>> cold-weld meaning a gas-tight joint with little or no chance of moisture
>> ingress
>
> That's only true in the case of a very well made crimp using a tool
> capable of applying seriously high pressure. A cheap hand tool would
> not usually achieve this, and even the more expensive ratchet version
> would struggle.
You won't usually get a cold weld with a hand tool, but you will get a
gas tight joint with mechanical support, and those are the important
requirements.
Indeed it will as long as the wires are well twisted (without weakening
or work hardening the wire), and the result insulated.
>> Thirdly, repeatability is improved with crimping.
>
> If you mean what I think you mean, namely that you are more likely than
> with the other methods to get consistent quality (all joints equally bad
> or good as the case may be) when making several joins in identical
> circumstances (the same type and size of wire, the same crimp terminals),
I think the key point here is circumstance. Its easy to make good
reliable joints by crimp or solder when you have free access to the wire
on a bench etc. Its a different case when you are bent over with your
head in one hole in the wall, and need to join a cable at arms length
through another access hole etc.
> then I reckon this would only be the case if using an expensive pukka
> crimping tool. With the ordinary hand tool I'd expect the joint quality
> to be highly variable.
Personally I find making consistently reliable joints with a ratchet
tool quite easy (reliable in that they have very strong pull apart
resistance, and appear "invisible" to a low ohms meter).
A point worth mentioning is that the wiring regs permit welding,
crimping, and soldering for cables joints that will later be made
inaccessible. Since those rules are based on fairly extensive research
and practical experience, its seems like rather a moot point to get to
anal about "my preferred method is better than yours" etc.
John Rumm
Yup, even my ancient Antex 25W iron with the element that protrudes up
the centre of the bit will do domestic T&E up to 4mm^2 with no
difficulty with a modest sized bit on it.
newshound
>
> You can join them. Neatest solution is a dedicated enclosure with say DIN
> rail terminals. However junction boxes are fine if you are not planning on
> plastering over them. There are also plenty of other enclosures you can
> use with wago terminals or crimps etc.
>
Having just "done" my first wagobox (2 way light circuit with incoming power
and the light at the same end, so four cables into the box), I must say I am
very impressed with them. They do a nice mini-pack with four boxes and an
assortment of connections which is a handy and reasonably priced "taster".
For the case described, you could use a pair of 773-173's to take the two
ends of each ring main (2.5 solid) and connect to 6 mm^2 "conduit" wire to
go into the CU, making a relatively neat and un-cluttered layout. Easier to
to than crimping, if tails are short or space is otherwise tight.
Agreed, the DIN rail is neat and looks very professional: might be the
option if you wanted to tidy up an old installation prior to selling, but
it's not cheap.
fjk61011
ladder with a soldering iron, a blow torch, silicone and a jar of
vaseline. :)
It's a solid outer wall, so any solution will be surface mounted. I
like the idea of the DIN rail box (Actually I like the idea of leaving
the CU where it is but apparently that is too "geeky").
There are six cables; shower, immersion, one ring circuit, two
lighting circuits.
I've looked at Hager accessories and the Wagobox site.
http://download.hager.com/hager.uk/files_download/catalogues/sept_2010/enclosures_catalogue.pdf
page 15
http://www.wagobox.com/shop/rail-mounted-terminals?limit=all
I'll need a suitable box with entries on top and exits on the right.
This would avoid any conduit/trunking on show.The CU would be moving
diagonally down and to the right into a floor to ceiling height
cupboard.
fjk61011
The meter tails are fine. They will reach easily to the new location.
tony sayer
>stranded cable. This method works fine. Cored solder will work but
>there's not really enough flux.
>With small cables it takes seconds to heat the cable up with a
>blowlamp.
>This was at one time the only way to joint cables. There is no
>possiblity of cables or screws loosening in any way. There is a
>system for twisting the cable strands in larger cable obviously
>unknown to you but it was all part of standard knowledge when I was an
>apprentice.
>Crimps are inferior in every way apart from saving time
>and money.
So how come in the RS book of words they say approved for use by the
GEGB ?..
I've seen many crimps in Transmitter systems that use a lot more power
than what your average detached house does;!....
--
Tony Sayer
A.Lee
> >
> > You can join them. Neatest solution is a dedicated enclosure with say DIN
> > rail terminals. However junction boxes are fine if you are not planning on
> > plastering over them. There are also plenty of other enclosures you can
> > use with wago terminals or crimps etc.
> Agreed, the DIN rail is neat and looks very professional: might be the
> option if you wanted to tidy up an old installation prior to selling, but
> it's not cheap.
I'm just doing my garage electrics.
Standard metal adaptable box:
<http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/BX442G.html>
Din rail:
<http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/CGDIN1.html>
Assorted WAGO connectors.
<http://www.wagobox.com/shop/rail-mounted-terminals?p=1>
3 wires in, 3 out, total cost less than £10 per box. This size of box
will take probably 12 WAGO 2.5mm connectors, which cost 45p ish each, so
not at all expensive for what would be a nice neat job.
Maybe £20 for a similar set-up for a fusebox to consumer unit
conversion?
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
Andy Dingley
> >If they're pre-insulated crimps and you're not Drivel-inept at using
> >them, there's sod-all difference.
>
> I don't agree. I wouldn't trust a crimped 2.5mm^2 connection rated to
> carry 20A made with the cheapo tool.
I wouldn't be that keen myself. However I wouldn't trust a pre-
insulated crimp made with either tool.
The problem is that the insulator around a pre-insulated crimp is
relatively soft and thick, which affects the ability of either tool to
make an accurate crimp inside it. Crimps rely on an accurately shaped
jaw to displace the connector in the right shape. Wrapping this up in
something squishy makes for unreliable crimps, no matter which tool
you apply to the outsides.
fjk61011
> I'm just doing my garage electrics.
> Standard metal adaptable box:
> <http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/BX442G.html>
> Din rail:
> <http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/CGDIN1.html>
> Assorted WAGO connectors.
> <http://www.wagobox.com/shop/rail-mounted-terminals?p=1>
>
> 3 wires in, 3 out, total cost less than £10 per box. This size of box
> will take probably 12 WAGO 2.5mm connectors, which cost 45p ish each, so
> not at all expensive for what would be a nice neat job.
>
> Maybe £20 for a similar set-up for a fusebox to consumer unit
> conversion?
>
> Alan.
>
> --
> To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
How did you fix the DIN rail to the box?
A.Lee
> On Nov 21, 3:42 pm, a...@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:
> > I'm just doing my garage electrics.
> > Standard metal adaptable box:
> > <http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/BX442G.html>
> > Din rail:
> > <http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/CGDIN1.html>
> > Assorted WAGO connectors.
> > <http://www.wagobox.com/shop/rail-mounted-terminals?p=1>
> >
> > 3 wires in, 3 out, total cost less than �10 per box. This size of box
> > will take probably 12 WAGO 2.5mm connectors, which cost 45p ish each, so
> > not at all expensive for what would be a nice neat job.
> How did you fix the DIN rail to the box?
Either screw straight through the din rail and box into backboard, or
pan head screw and nut.
fjk61011
> Either screw straight through the din rail and box into backboard, or
> pan head screw and nut.
> --
js.b1
To produce a correct cold weld involves several critical success
factors; a crimp tool of the right type (single indent for fine
stranded, circumferential impingement for stranded/solid); precise
force applied consistently; correct crimp design for the conductor
type (solid, stranded, fine stranded); crimp maker matched to tool
maker (often forgotten).
Personally I would never solder.
Most people can learn to solder with even a little practice (avoid a
dry joint), and learn to bind two solid conductors together with fine
copper wire so the solder does not take the current & fault current,
and learn to adhesive heatshrink (preferably in the appropriate
colours). However for extending a CU it is a bit messy.
I would always use DIN rail terminal block in a suitable enclosure.
The CU uses such terminals, they are easy to access, inspect,
maintain, alter, extend, reduce. Just bundle appropriate cables at
entry to the enclosure with P-clips sized to hold the cables tight (so
no load can be imposed on terminals), or route cables in trunking,
etc.
You can get DIN rail terminals & enclosure from Ebay, CPC, Farnell,
RS, Rapid, electrical factors, lots of places online. The box may cost
about £8, the DIN terminals and end-blocks will cost probably £15-20
depending on number. If in doubt, post the circuits and it only takes
someone a few minutes to suggest the part numbers required.
A novice might screw-up crimping or soldering, and right by a CU it is
a cascading fire, whereas the probability of copying the photo with
screw terminals is both safer and easier - it allows adjustment in
future. Soldering & crimping does not (you end up running short of
cable with changes, something a DIN terminal will prevent).
newshound
"A.Lee" <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote in message
news:1jsbcnw.18gsx1m17cnw5cN%alan@darkroom.+.com...
>
> I'm just doing my garage electrics.
> Standard metal adaptable box:
> <http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/BX442G.html>
> Din rail:
> <http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/CGDIN1.html>
> Assorted WAGO connectors.
> <http://www.wagobox.com/shop/rail-mounted-terminals?p=1>
>
> 3 wires in, 3 out, total cost less than �10 per box. This size of box
> will take probably 12 WAGO 2.5mm connectors, which cost 45p ish each, so
> not at all expensive for what would be a nice neat job.
>
> Maybe �20 for a similar set-up for a fusebox to consumer unit
> conversion?
>
> Alan.
>
> --
Compared to the excellent web stuff on the "loose" connectors used in the
Wagobox, they don't make a very good job of explaining the capability of
their rail mounted terminals, though. It looks as though the push-fits only
take two wires, is that right? Do you have to use a lever clamp if you want
to put two or more wires in one entry?
And as you point out, a TLC box and rail is much cheaper than the Wago one
(although I think I would be inclined to use a plastic box). I have a CU to
replace some time, and I'd like to make it look tidy compared to the rats
nest that I inherited.....
A.Lee
> "A.Lee" <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote in message
> news:1jsbcnw.18gsx1m17cnw5cN%alan@darkroom.+.com...
> >
> > I'm just doing my garage electrics.
> > Standard metal adaptable box:
> > <http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/BX442G.html>
> > Din rail:
> > <http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/CGDIN1.html>
> > Assorted WAGO connectors.
> > <http://www.wagobox.com/shop/rail-mounted-terminals?p=1>
> Compared to the excellent web stuff on the "loose" connectors used in the
> Wagobox, they don't make a very good job of explaining the capability of
> their rail mounted terminals, though. It looks as though the push-fits only
> take two wires, is that right? Do you have to use a lever clamp if you want
> to put two or more wires in one entry?
>
> And as you point out, a TLC box and rail is much cheaper than the Wago one
..
I've only used a metal box as I had to terminate some SWA cable.
Yes, you can only fit 2 wires in each of the DIN mount terminals, though
the normal terminals are available in up to 5 ways iirc, and a DIN rail
mount can be bought for these too, though they are not as tidy looking:
<http://www.wagobox.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06
f020e43594a9c230972d/d/s/ds0773-0173_02.jpg>
HTH
fjk61011
>
> You can get DIN rail terminals & enclosure from Ebay, CPC, Farnell,
> RS, Rapid, electrical factors, lots of places online. The box may cost
> about £8, the DIN terminals and end-blocks will cost probably £15-20
> depending on number. If in doubt, post the circuits and it only takes
> someone a few minutes to suggest the part numbers required.
>
> A novice might screw-up crimping or soldering, and right by a CU it is
> a cascading fire, whereas the probability of copying the photo with
> screw terminals is both safer and easier - it allows adjustment in
> future. Soldering & crimping does not (you end up running short of
> cable with changes, something a DIN terminal will prevent).
I'll probably go the DIN rail terminal route. I have a Hager enclosure
for 8 modules (?) that I was going to use for a garage unit.
The circuits are:
6 mm^2
4 mm^2
Ring 2 x 2.5 mm^2
Lighting 2 x 1.5 (?) mm^2
TSIN Yeung
this makes no sense, why did this even need to extend those wires
--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy/if-consumer-unit-moved-cables-would-be-too-short-solution-669682-.htm
ARW
> replying to Allan Mac, TSIN Yeung wrote:
> this makes no sense, why did this even need to extend those wires
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa14VNsdSYM
--
Adam