Wago type connectors.

[plugwash]

On a completely unrelated note would you like to impart your views on the compatibility of stranded conductors with Wago type connectors?

I don't think a general statement can be made about "wago type connectors"

Wago say their 773 push-in terminals are suitable for "solid" and "stranded", the newer/smaller 2273 series only mention "solid". The 221 and 222 lever terminals are listed as suitable for "solid", "stranded" and "fine stranded". I tend to trust Wago and the approvals bodies they work with to know what they are doing and only approve combinations that are safe and functional.

I interpret their use of "Stranded" as meaning condutors with a small number of coarse strands as would be found in conduit singles or old imperial T&E and "Fine stranded" as meaning things like trirated or flex.

 

[JohnW2]

Wago say their 773 push-in terminals are suitable for "solid" and "stranded", the newer/smaller 2273 series only mention "solid". The 221 and 222 lever terminals are listed as suitable for "solid", "stranded" and "fine stranded". I tend to trust Wago and the approvals bodies they work with to know what they are doing and only approve combinations that are safe and functional. .... I interpret their use of "Stranded" as meaning condutors with a small number of coarse strands as would be found in conduit singles or old imperial T&E and "Fine stranded" as meaning things like trirated or flex.

All agreed, and it's surely just common sense, isn't it. The 'lever' terminals will clearly work satisfactorily with any conductor that will comfortably fit in, even if they are 'fine stranded and very flexible', since there is no resistance to inserting the conductor. On the other hand, 'push-in' terminals require appreciable force to be applied by the conductor to the sprung mechanism, so the conductor has to be reasonably 'rigid' - I would guess requiring that each strand be at least about 0.5mm² (as per the larger sizes of T+E).

If winston is thinking about 'finely stranded' conductors (e.g. flex), one suspects that he has probably never tried to do that!

Kind Regards, John

 

[plugwash]

Well I don't think it's "just common sense" that the 773 accepts stranded (but not fine stranded) conductors and the 2273 makes no mention of them. it's not clear to me at all whether they just did not bother testing the 2273 with stranded conductors or if the 2273s have terminals that are in some way different (maybe higher insertion force).

I also think the fact that "stranded" presumablly means coarse stranded (IEC class 2) not fine stranded (IEC class 5) is not obvious to the uninitated looking at a single product in isolation.

 

[JohnW2]

Well I don't think it's "just common sense" that the 773 accepts stranded (but not fine stranded) conductors and the 2273 makes no mention of them.

I wasn't at all clear. What I was trying to say (as indicated by my final comment about winston Risteard) was "common sense" is that 'fine stranded' conductors clearly (at least, to me!) aren't suitable for 'push terminals' (of any sort).

it's not clear to me at all whether they just did not bother testing the 2273 with stranded conductors or if the 2273s have terminals that are in some way different (maybe higher insertion force).

Indeed. Intuitively, I don't think that it's really a very good idea to try to push any stranded conductor, even a ('fairly rigid') 'coarse stranded' one, into a 'push terminal' - so it's far from impossible that, as you suggest, they decides/discovered that insertion force needed with the smaller connectors (or some other difference) made them too iffy with stranded conductors, whereas the larger ones have been reasonably OK.

I also think the fact that "stranded" presumablly means coarse stranded (IEC class 2) not fine stranded (IEC class 5) is not obvious to the uninitated looking at a single product in isolation.

I total agree, but maybe that ceases to be an issue with the 2273s, if they are regarded as 'not suitable' for any sort of multi-stranded conductor.

Kind Regards, John

 

[winston1]

If winston is thinking about 'finely stranded' conductors (e.g. flex), one suspects that he has probably never tried to do that!

Kind Regards, John

John I’ve not made any comment about this. It was Risteard.

 

[Risteard]

I don't think a general statement can be made about "wago type connectors"

Wago say their 773 push-in terminals are suitable for "solid" and "stranded", the newer/smaller 2273 series only mention "solid". The 221 and 222 lever terminals are listed as suitable for "solid", "stranded" and "fine stranded". I tend to trust Wago and the approvals bodies they work with to know what they are doing and only approve combinations that are safe and functional.

I interpret their use of "Stranded" as meaning condutors with a small number of coarse strands as would be found in conduit singles or old imperial T&E and "Fine stranded" as meaning things like trirated or flex.

It's a question specifically to Winston. Long story.

 

[JohnW2]

If winston is thinking about 'finely stranded' conductors (e.g. flex), one suspects that he has probably never tried to do that! John I’ve not made any comment about this. It was Risteard.

Yes, my apologies (now corrected). I can't imagine why I sometimes get the two of you confused! However, in this case the fact that Risteard had raised this issue with you made it even easier for me to get confused!

 

[winston1]

However, in this case the fact that Risteard had raised this issue with you made it even easier for me to get confused!

And I still don't know why. As I said I've not made any comment about this.

 

[JohnW2]

And I still don't know why. As I said I've not made any comment about this.

Goodness. I've admitted that I made a mistake, apologised for it and corrected it, and I have even explained one possible explanation of why I made the mistake. What more do you want/need? !!