Volt Free Contacts

[ban-all-sheds]

It was I who started this branch of the discussion and I can assure you that the potentially misleading terminology was precisely 'the point' (and the only point) I raised - so, regardless of what others may wish to discuss, I'm missing nothing.

Oh, I see.

My apologies - I mistakenly thought that you were trying to say that stevo's idea that he might be able to use alarm cable was due to the potentially misleading term "volt free" rather than fundamental ignorance.

I hadn't realised that you'd decided to start up a generic complaint about something which had no bearing on the potentially incorrect approach that the OP was going to adopt.

Thank you for making it clear, as I can now ignore any more tedious and pointless, misleading even, off-topic nonsense from you.

 

[JohnW2]

Oh, I see. My apologies - I mistakenly thought that you were trying to say that stevo's idea that he might be able to use alarm cable was due to the potentially misleading term "volt free" rather than fundamental ignorance.

I was not 'trying to say that' but, since you mention it, I would strongly suspect that he would not have had that idea if the contacts has been described as something other than "volt free". Whether or not he is 'fundamentally ignorant' is a different issue, which I'm sure you are well able to explore without my assistance.

I hadn't realised that you'd decided to start up a generic complaint about something which had no bearing on the potentially incorrect approach that the OP was going to adopt.

If you read the thread, then you know exactly how it happened. EFLI wrote "Volts free does not mean what it says." and I responded with the comment "Indeed it doesn't. Another wonderful piece of totally ridiculous/confusing terminoloy..." - and then everyone jumped in and started arguing!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I was not 'trying to say that' but, since you mention it, I would strongly suspect that he would not have had that idea if the contacts has been described as something other than "volt free".

Fair enough - please explain how in either case stevo would not have had to write either

Hi,

I have a boiler that has "isolated contacts" for the thermostat. I need to relocate it to another room and try not to disturb our decor...

Seen as they are isolated is it acceptable to use wire such as alarm cable and run it under carpets etc?

or does it still need twin and earth?

Thanks

or

Hi,

I have a boiler that has "not internally connected contacts" for the thermostat. I need to relocate it to another room and try not to disturb our decor...

Seen as they are not internally connected is it acceptable to use wire such as alarm cable and run it under carpets etc?

or does it still need twin and earth?

Thanks

and would instead have been fully clued up on what voltage was present at the terminals of his boiler and would therefore have known what cable he needed to use.

If you read the thread, then you know exactly how it happened. EFLI wrote "Volts free does not mean what it says." and I responded with the comment "Indeed it doesn't. Another wonderful piece of totally ridiculous/confusing terminoloy..." - and then everyone jumped in and started arguing!

I have been reading the thread, but I hadn't realised that you'd decided to introduce a complaint which had no relevance whatsoever to the OP's problem and was therefore not based on any evidence whatsoever, and was, in short, just some off-topic nonsense about something you'd invented and about which you are wrong.

 

[JohnW2]

Thank you for making it clear, as I can now ignore any more tedious and pointless, misleading even, off-topic nonsense from you.

You could, indeed - but it doesn't seem that you can?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I did indeed.

Perhaps I should have written "Volt free does not mean what you (steevo) think it does".
Would it have made a difference? Probably not.

However, I am with John on this one as, and I've read all the arguments, I can see no logic or reason in describing something, to which you may, quite correctly, connect 240V, as 'Volt free'.

The terminals/contacts are no different than any others before the wiring is connected.

 

[JohnW2]

However, I am with John on this one as, and I've read all the arguments, I can see no logic or reason in describing something, to which you may, quite correctly, connect 240V, as 'Volt free'. The terminals/contacts are no different than any others before the wiring is connected.

Glad you agree. There is, of course, one sense in which the termnals are 'different from (some/many) others before the wiring is connected' - in not having a pre-wired internal connection between one of the contacts and L. The description of the item clearly needs to indicate that (to an electrician, just as much as to 'the ignorant') but I remain of the view that "volt free" is just not a good, clear or logical way of converying that - something like "not internally connected" would have a precise and understandable meaning to everyone.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

There is, of course, one sense in which the termnals are 'different from (some/many) others before the wiring is connected' - in not having a pre-wired internal connection between one of the contacts and L.

Not if you want to send 240V to an appliance using a link

 

[ban-all-sheds]

something like "not internally connected" would have a precise and understandable meaning to everyone.

Everyone must include stevo.

Please explain why if it had been so described stevo would not have written

Hi,

I have a boiler that has "not internally connected contacts" for the thermostat. I need to relocate it to another room and try not to disturb our decor...

Seen as they are not internally connected is it acceptable to use wire such as alarm cable and run it under carpets etc?

or does it still need twin and earth?

Thanks

and would instead have been fully clued up on what voltage was present at the terminals of his boiler and would therefore have known what cable he needed to use.

 

[JohnW2]

There is, of course, one sense in which the termnals are 'different from (some/many) others before the wiring is connected' - in not having a pre-wired internal connection between one of the contacts and L.

Not if you want to send 240V to an appliance using a link

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You presumably are not disagreeing with my statement (which you've quoted) that "volt free" contacts don't have a pre-wired connection between one of the contacts and L?

Of course, one can convert a thermostat with 'volt free' contacts into a 'traditonal' one by adding a link from one to the L supply, but that goes without saying.

Am I missing your meaning?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You presumably are not disagreeing with my statement (which you've quoted) that "volt free" contacts don't have a pre-wired connection between one of the contacts and L?

It won't work unless one of the terminals is connected to L.

Of course, one can convert a thermostat with 'volt free' contacts into a 'traditonal' one by adding a link from one to the L supply, but that goes without saying.

There you go

or it could need a separate L.

Am I missing your meaning?

Something - if not my meaning.


Here is the diagram which comes with an immersion timer which is described as having volt free contacts - which it does.

However it comes with the link pre-installed and shows the live to be connected to the volt free.

Untitled

• EFLImpudence
• 25 Sep 2012
• 1

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You presumably are not disagreeing with my statement (which you've quoted) that "volt free" contacts don't have a pre-wired connection between one of the contacts and L?

It won't work unless one of the terminals is connected to L.

It won't work unless both of the contacts are connected to some appropriate places, but neither has to be the 230V L and nor do either necessarily have to be connected to one side of the supply (LV or ELV). I thought the whole point was that they are simply 'unconnected contacts' that can be used for any switching purpose (within the limitations of their ratings)?

Of course, one can convert a thermostat with 'volt free' contacts into a 'traditonal' one by adding a link from one to the L supply, but that goes without saying.

There you go ... or it could need a separate L.

... or (as above) not necessarily even an 'L' (in the sense of one side of a supply) at all.

Am I missing your meaning?

Something - if not my meaning. ... Here is the diagram which comes with an immersion timer which is described as having volt free contacts - which it does. However it comes with the link pre-installed and shows the live to be connected to the volt free.

Oh dear - just when I thought we were agreeing, I think this may be getting worse! All contacts, in anything, are obviously 'volt free' until something is connected to them. However, if the piece of equipment comes with a link from L to one of them pre-installed, then I again think that one has to be very careful bringing the 'volt free' phrase anywhere near it. Yes, it can be converted to 'volt free' by removing the link - but, as supplied, I would have said that it is no different from a non-volt free (what's the word for that - "volted"? ) unit. I fear we may be heading for a semantic discussion as to whether its the contacts or the terminsla that are 'volt free'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

Your analogy is spurious. The term 'nut-free' is used in supermarkets, which are frequented by the majority of us.

Exactly - which (along with all the other examples) is the reason why 'the great majority of us' could surely be excused for believing that they know what "X free" means?

There is no reason why, in any field, techical terminology and jargon cannot remain consistent with everyday English - and, IMO, a good few reasons (some relating to safety) why it should. Nothing will change my feelings about that.

Kind Regards, John

This thread is just a load of nonsense (at least after BAS told him to check the wiring diagram). 'volt-free' is a technical term describing a piece of kit. The manufacturer instructions are (and need to be) clear to anybody competent to work with their kit.

 

[JohnW2]

This thread is just a load of nonsense (at least after BAS told him to check the wiring diagram). 'volt-free' is a technical term describing a piece of kit. The manufacturer instructions are (and need to be) clear to anybody competent to work with their kit.

There is no reason why, in any field, techical terminology and jargon cannot remain consistent with everyday English - and, IMO, a good few reasons (some relating to safety) why it should. Nothing will change my feelings about that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

Any switch is "volt free" until it is installed and wired up.

 

[JohnW2]

Any switch is "volt free" until it is installed and wired up.

Indeed - as BAS pointed out early in the discussion.

From my viewpoint, however, the point is that with an item such as we are talking about, the 'contacts' remain "volt free" (and available for any external switching purpose, just as with a relay) even when the supply to the item is connected, whereas with a 'traditional' ('3 wire') thermostat, one of those contacts then becomes live.

This is why I was a bit additionally surprised/concerned when EFLI mentioned something described as having "volt free" contacts even though there was a factory-fitted (albeit presumably removable) link between L of the supply and one of the contacts.

Are you happy with this terminology?

Kind Regards, John