Multiple conductors in terminals - installation method

[EFLImpudence]

Surely then, that is not mechanically, and therefore not electrically, secure.

Not mechanically or electrically what, EFLI?

..................................

...................................

 

[JohnW2]

What would be useful would be twin sockets with 1 terminal per conductor (each would have to have room for two though for spurs and for my wheeze).. .. with .. .. jumper bars between them (present by default so that you needn't use both sets of terminals if you didn't want to).

That's essentially what I was talking about - but not sure why you need to be able to remove the jumper, why not have it there permanently? I have a small number of these. I can't remember when/where I acquired them and haven't seen any advertised. I'm not sure who makes them (Says "RPP" and "Made in England"), and I can see no reference to BS1363 on it (only "PROV PAT"). Anyone know if anything like this exists these days (preferably BS1363 compliant/labelled!):

Untitled

• JohnW2
• 29 Oct 2011
• 6

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

but not sure why you need to be able to remove the jumper, why not have it there permanently?

As I said - so you can extend a ring from there.

Break the link between the two halves, take a new cable from one side, off to the new sockets(s), returning to the other side of the socket.

 

[JohnW2]

but not sure why you need to be able to remove the jumper, why not have it there permanently?

As I said - so you can extend a ring from there. Break the link between the two halves, take a new cable from one side, off to the new sockets(s), returning to the other side of the socket.

Oh, I see (I think!) - do you mean have it configured as two single sockets (each with its own terminals), with a jumper to join them together for 'normal' use. Is that what you mean?

What I illustrated wasn't that - it simply has pairs of commoned terminals on an 'ordinary' double socket.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh, I see (I think!) - do you mean have it configured as two single sockets (each with its own terminals), with a jumper to join them together for 'normal' use. Is that what you mean?

Yup.

What I illustrated wasn't that - it simply has pairs of commoned terminals on an 'ordinary' double socket.

I know.

 

[JohnW2]

Oh, I see (I think!) - do you mean have it configured as two single sockets (each with its own terminals), with a jumper to join them together for 'normal' use. Is that what you mean?

Yup.

OK. Fair enough, a clever idea, but the additional complexity associated with the jumpers (there would have to be three of them) would probably make them unnecessarily expensive for routine use, since it would only be very very occasionally that anyone would want to take advantage of your 'ring extending' idea that it facilitated.

As an alternative, one might suggest that double sockets configured as two single should be available. Then, if one had a ring with conventional sockets that one wished to extend, one could swap the double socket for one of these 'twin singles' and then wire as you suggested.

What I illustrated wasn't that - it simply has pairs of commoned terminals on an 'ordinary' double socket.

I know.

What do you think of it - and do you (or anyone) have any idea whether such things exist these days?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Paul_C]

I'm pretty sure that nearly all of the Imperial PVC T&E I've seen has been bare copper.

Most of it that I've seen has been tinned.

Such a design obviously would need the internal connection between terminals to be able to carry 32A, but that didn't ought to be a problem for a solid bit of brass or copper. Are there reasons against this idea (other than cost) which I haven't thought of?

That would effectively be the arrangement found on duplex receptacles in North America, assuming that you mean each set of terminals would be connected to one of the sockets. Normal North American 120V duplex outlets have two sets of terminals for the two outlets, but are supplied with solid straps in place between them. So you can feed in on one set of terminals and then continue to the next outlet from the other set if you wish. Or you can remove one or both straps to separate the two sockets for independent use, the most common residential applications being to remove the strap on just the "hot" side side, either to allow one socket to be controlled from a wall switch for a bedside light, or where the outlet is provided for heavier kitchen appliance loads with the two sockets fed from opposite poles of the 120/240V supply but with a common neutral. The feed-through straps need only be rated for 20A, since that's the maximum branch circuit rating allowed for 15 & 20A receptacles. No rings involved at all, of course.

What would be useful would be twin sockets with 1 terminal per conductor (each would have to have room for two though for spurs and for my wheeze)..

.. with ..

.. jumper bars between them (present by default so that you needn't use both sets of terminals if you didn't want to).

That would certainly make our double sockets more versatile in other ways, also allowing for one half to be controlled independently if desired.

 

[Paul_C]

the additional complexity associated with the jumpers (there would have to be three of them)

Only two would be needed; there's no reason why all the earths can't be combined.

 

[JohnW2]

the additional complexity associated with the jumpers (there would have to be three of them)

Only two would be needed; there's no reason why all the earths can't be combined.

If the earths were combined and one extended the ring in the manner BAS has suggested, the CPC would change from being a ring to being a figure-of-eight.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

That would effectively be the arrangement found on duplex receptacles in North America, assuming that you mean each set of terminals would be connected to one of the sockets. Normal North American 120V duplex outlets have two sets of terminals for the two outlets, but are supplied with solid straps in place between them. So you can feed in on one set of terminals and then continue to the next outlet from the other set if you wish.

That's functionally like the piccie I posted and ....

Or you can remove one or both straps to separate the two sockets for independent use ....

...which is what BAS was hypothesising. However, as I said, I don't think the additional cost would be justified for routine use, although the (my!) idea of have 'twin single' sockets available would facilitate the occasional need to do what BAS was suggesting (or, as you've said, if one wanted to have independend control {or supply} of one half of a double socket).

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Paul_C]

If the earths were combined and one extended the ring in the manner BAS has suggested, the CPC would change from being a ring to being a figure-of-eight.

It would, but that would be no different from the same figure-of-eight arrangement which could result from extending a ring with metallic conduit (albeit that the c.s.a. of the conduit will be much larger than the circuit conductors).

 

[JohnW2]

If the earths were combined and one extended the ring in the manner BAS has suggested, the CPC would change from being a ring to being a figure-of-eight.

It would, but that would be no different from the same figure-of-eight arrangement which could result from extending a ring with metallic conduit (albeit that the c.s.a. of the conduit will be much larger than the circuit conductors).

True but, in either of those cases, there is potential for confusion of testing (e.g. tests of ring CPC continuity at the origin of the circuit would be misleading.

Kind Regards, John.