found this under floorboards

[aptsys]

Why we are talking about wiring centres with screw down terminals, I do not know.

If a wiring centre MUST be used, the maintenance free Wago L32 wiring centre is available, which may serve the purpose.

I can't see any claim it's maintenance free, certainly no BS5722 or MF markings on the enclosure.

 

[sparkwright]

I can't see any claim it's maintenance free, certainly no BS5722 or MF markings on the enclosure.

The TLC website claims it's maintenance free.

 

[JohnW2]

The TLC website claims it's maintenance free.

Itr does. The nearest the wago website gets to that (in its description of the "L32"/207-4031) appears to be ...

The tool-free and maintenance-free connection technology of the 221 Series Splicing Connector ensures fast wiring, easy rewiring and a secure connection.

Kind Regards, John

 

[DaveOC]

As I have 8 cables, will they all fit in the L32, there seems to be 2 cable entry points would they take four 1.5mm cables each?

 

[aptsys]

Itr does. The nearest the wago website gets to that (in its description of the "L32"/207-4031) appears to be ...


Kind Regards, John

It's using maintenance free connectors, but without the proper maintenance free box, they do not form a maintenance free junction box. There's no MF or BS5733 markings on the box to indicate otherwise.

Wago 221 for example require the levers to be held closed by the enclosure, which this box does not.

 

[JohnW2]

It's using maintenance free connectors, but without the proper maintenance free box, they do not form a maintenance free junction box.

Yes, I know that (that was my point), and ...

There's no MF or BS5733 markings on the box to indicate otherwise.

... and I know that, too. However, that doesn't alter the fact that TLC, presumably incorrectly, describe the entire product as 'maintenance free'.

Wago 221 for example require the levers to be held closed by the enclosure, which this box does not.

That I did NOT know. However, it seems odd - I can think of nothing about being 'inaccessible' that makes it more likley that the connectors will 'spring open' (in fact, quite the converse), so if they require an external mechanical means of preventing that happening when 'inaccessible'. why not also when they are 'accessible'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[plugwash]

I presume the idea in the head of those writing the standards is if something can't be inspected/maintained it needs to meet a higher standard of reliability than something which can be inspected/maintined.

Of course the reality is that many joints in a typical electrical installation probably never get inspected/maintained even if they theoretically could be. EICRs only test a sample of the installation, so the whole thing gets a bit silly.

 

[JohnW2]

I presume the idea in the head of those writing the standards is if something can't be inspected/maintained it needs to meet a higher standard of reliability than something which can be inspected/maintined.

Yes, I presume the same. However, as you go on to say ...

Of course the reality is that many joints in a typical electrical installation probably never get inspected/maintained even if they theoretically could be. EICRs only test a sample of the installation, so the whole thing gets a bit silly.

Quite so. If there really were a significant risk of 221s 'springing open' unless there was something 'external' preventing that happening, then, since (as you say) many accessible joints will probably never be inspected (and certainly won't be inspected 'every day'), it would seem that "those writing standards" should also require this type of joint to have the sort of additional 'mechanical protection' mentioned by aptsys even when it is 'accessible', wouldn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[aptsys]

... and I know that, too. However, that doesn't alter the fact that TLC, presumably incorrectly, describe the entire product as 'maintenance free'.

I think that's TLC's error. The datasheet attached to that product doesn't mention anything about being maintenance free, also on the website for the actual product they're very careful to say they are using "Wago 221 Maintenance Free Connectors" rather than claiming the product is maintenance free.

 

[JohnW2]

I think that's TLC's error. The datasheet attached to that product doesn't mention anything about being maintenance free, also on the website ...

Indeed, and that's the point I was agreeing with.

... for the actual product they're very careful to say they are using "Wago 221 Maintenance Free Connectors" rather than claiming the product is maintenance free.

Again, indeed, and, as you will have seen, I've already made that point.

What are your thoughts about what I've been saying about this apparent requirement for the levers of 221s to be kept closed by an external mechanical means when they are 'inaccessible' but not when they are (at least theoretically) 'accessible' (even if rarely/never 'inspected)?

Is a connector which cannot be relied upon to 'stay closed' (whether 'accessible' or 'inaccessible') arguably 'not fit for purpose'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[plugwash]

The makers of the wagboxes do seem to think that the wago terminals need to be constrained in slots to meet maintainance free requirements, I haven't seen anything stating their rationale for this design though.

Interestingly ideal don't seem to think there is any need to constrain the terminals in their MF boxes.

 

[JohnW2]

The makers of the wagboxes do seem to think that the wago terminals need to be constrained in slots to meet maintainance free requirements, I haven't seen anything stating their rationale for this design though.

aptsys seemed to be implying that this is a requirement in the MF Standard.

Kind Regards, John

 

[plugwash]

I haven't actually obtained/read the standard in question, but Ideal seem to think loose terminals are ok..........

 

[flameport]

BS5733 isn't a standard specifically for maintenance free items, it's a general standard for electrical accessories that just happens to have a few paragraphs of text relating to maintenance free accessories.

The only parts of relevance are the definition of MF items - accessory which does not require further inspection, testing or maintenance after installation in a circuit, and which incorporates screwless terminals (see 14.5) and cable clamps to secure any associated cables

a clause that requires MF accessories to have screwless terminals and cable clamps (basically the same as the definition)

if it includes a plug & socket arrangement, it must have a retaining mechanism that engages automatically

MF accessories cannot have switches, fuses, thermostats, surge protectors or several other devices

and a section on various additional tests including for vibration, thermal shock, overloads, volt drop and 'long term connection capability', all of which apply specifically to the terminals, not the enclosure.

 

[JohnW2]

...The only parts of relevance are the definition of MF items - accessory which does not require further inspection, testing or maintenance after installation in a circuit, and which incorporates screwless terminals (see 14.5) and cable clamps to secure any associated cables
....a clause that requires MF accessories to have screwless terminals and cable clamps (basically the same as the definition)
....if it includes a plug & socket arrangement, it must have a retaining mechanism that engages automatically
....MF accessories cannot have switches, fuses, thermostats, surge protectors or several other devices

Thanks. Which (if any) of those do you think requires there to be an external mechanical means of keeping the lever of a 221 closed (if it is to be 'MF')?

... and a section on various additional tests including for vibration, thermal shock, overloads, volt drop and 'long term connection capability', all of which apply specifically to the terminals, not the enclosure.

So, if a connector/terminal itself passed all those tests, would it not (if accompanied by some sort of 'cable restraint') be acceptable as an 'MF' connector, regardless of what enclosure it was housed in (and regardless of whether or not there was any external means of 'keeping the lever closed')?

Kind Regards, John