Daisy Chaining Flourescent Lighting

[dk1uk]

Hi all, a bit of advice would be appreciated please...

In my garage, I have two single flourescent lights/tubes. They are both run off the same switch.

I’d like to add two more lights. Can I just take a feed from each light for each new light? Effectively daisy chaining.

Many thanks in advance.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Yes!

 

[dk1uk]

Yes!

Thank you. For the tidiest job, I could take the cable out of the existing light, feed it into a new junction box on the ceiling, then run new cable to each of the two lights (the existing one and the new one).

Can you see any issues with this?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Can you see any issues with this?

Not a problem, but joints are best avoided.

 

[AndyPRK]

Depends in your definition of tidy is.

usually using a little more cable is preferred to a junction

 

[EFLImpudence]

As above:

For the tidiest job,

That wouldn't be the tidiest, would it?


DIYers love junction boxes; don't know why?

 

[JohnW2]

DIYers love junction boxes; don't know why?

As a sort-of side issue, whilst I understand the theoretical (electrical, as well as 'tidiness') reason for minimising the number of joints in a circuit, I wonder how often you (or any other electrician) has actually seen problems due to the joints in a JB?

Kind Regards, John

 

[dk1uk]

As above:


That wouldn't be the tidiest, would it?


DIYers love junction boxes; don't know why?

I’m no fan of JB’s. How would you do the job? Take the feed for the second light direct from the terminals inside the first light?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I’m no fan of JB’s. How would you do the job?

Many electrical problems trace to wiring joints and terminals, that is why some types are required to be accessible for inspection - so the fewer there are, the better.

 

[JohnW2]

Many electrical problems trace to wiring joints and terminals, that is why some types are required to be accessible for inspection - so the fewer there are, the better.

As I recently wrote, that is the theoretical argument. However, as I asked, I wonder how many people have actually seen problems caused by the joints in a JB?

Of course, the only joints which are 'avoidable' are those in JBs in situations in which an alternative would be to use a single (usually longer) cable instead (often entailing additional work/effort). In most/all other situations, avoidance of JBs merely shifts the joints from the JB to somewhere else (usually/hopefully somewhere accessible')

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Take the feed for the second light direct from the terminals inside the first light?

Yes, by whichever route is easier/best fpr you.

 

[RF Lighting]

Over my career so far I bet the number of faults I’ve tracked back to junction boxes must run to over 100.

Granted they are almost always due to poor installation, but then again you don’t get many junctions / faults on a good installation.

 

[Notch7]

Over my career so far I bet the number of faults I’ve tracked back to junction boxes must run to over 100.

Granted they are almost always due to poor installation, but then again you don’t get many junctions / faults on a good installation.

Maybe such faults will be a thing of the past with spring loaded connectors like Wagos?

 

[JohnW2]

Over my career so far I bet the number of faults I’ve tracked back to junction boxes must run to over 100. Granted they are almost always due to poor installation, but then again you don’t get many junctions / faults on a good installation.

Interesting. How do you think that figure compares with the number of faults you have tracked back to problems at screwed terminals which were not in JBs (e.g. in sockets, switches, roses, light fittings, appliances, CUs etc. etc.)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Maybe such faults will be a thing of the past with spring loaded connectors like Wagos?

... or maybe 'a thing of the future' once we have as much long-term experience of spring-loaded connectors as we currently have of ones with screwed terminals ?

Kind Regards, John