?? why?

[Harry Bloomfield]

Yes I would wonder about that, likely track back thru moisture damp walls, wet tiles from a virtually non IP rated enclosure hiding under the plaster as opposed to if any a piece of undamaged insulated and sheathed cable would put me into a bit of a cringe, if it was in a safe zone as a pure cable or even perhaps a damage joint sufficiently repaired by solder/crimps

I personally, during my entire career in the industry, never once came across a soldered joint in small cables. I did once, in an emergency situation, far from supplies, make a soldered T joint, to tap into an existing T&E.

 

[EFLImpudence]

/crimps

That depends on the crimps.

Not solid-core conductors with the usual rubbish squash-flat crimps seen advertised.

 

[SUNRAY]

You wouldn't know it was there to code it, Would you?

Not if it was covered, but if I did know...

 

[ebee]

Sometimes you spot them half covered , a little hole as a witness, sometimes no proper lid just a piece of cardboard or hardboard, sometimes you look at the plaster and it is bowing/discoloured giving the look of a circle outline about the size of a junction box. In this job once you`ve seen a lot then a look can lead to many suspicions and very often they prove you were correct in that suspicion.
People often reckon you have a sixth sense or xray eyes, you do not but having sufficient experience teaches you some lessons that others have yet to learn. Probably the same in all the other trades I imagine.
One example - a mate of mine was doing a "Periodic" and we were in the kitchen, there were a few sockets and a CCU on surface pattresses and I asked him if this one twin socket was wired in as a spur from the CCU (Red Cooker switch and single socket on board), he said he would not expect it to be. I said I bet it is (It was just shouting at me "I wonder if that is what they might have done!") . He checked it, yes they had.
I called in a month later about something else, she told me she had mentioned this to the original electrician she had asked to do the job (he was too busy at the time so he sent her someone else to do it), apparently she had mentioned it the the original chap and he called round to have a look at what had been done, poo pooed what I had said in a mocking tone, plugged a radio into the twin socket I thought suspect then threw the cooker switch to off, radio still worked "There that proves that Ebee does not know what he is talking about!" He had said with a laugh so she told me.
I plugged in my tester to the CCU socket to show that it was live, took her to the consumer unit and removed the fuse marked cooker - both the twin and the CCU socket no function now - the suspect twin socket had been wired into the mains side of the cooker switch not the outgoing terminals from it - QED?
No sixth sense - just a feeling I got whilst glancing at it!

 

[morqthana]

Which thread are you reading?

The one which is as actually written, not the one which you have concocted in your imagination by assuming that people were talking about things which they had not put into any words whatsoever.

 

[morqthana]

Morph thinks it's perfectly OK to chuck anything in anywhere.

That's an outrageous lie.

Apologise.

 

[morqthana]

You wouldn't know it was there to code it, Would you?

No, but he's happy to lie.

 

[JohnW2]

Well for one I am making an assumption, when it was stated "junction box" I assumed it was a bog standard junction box rather than one deemed maintenance free such as a wago type set up.

Does not the whole concept of the requirement for ''maintenance free' JBs relate only to inaccessible joints in the conductors of cables - and hence not to situations in which the conductors of a single cable are simply terminated ('parked') in the terminals of some sort (any sort) of JB?

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

That's an outrageous lie.

Apologise.

I will happily continue this discussion with you, either privately if you start a PM with me or in another public thread if you start one. In both cases only after you remove your public accussations that I'm a liar.

 

[morqthana]

Remove the "accusation"?

Continue the discussion only if I don't remove it?

YOU WROTE THIS:

Morph thinks it's perfectly OK to chuck anything in anywhere.

Given that that is an utter lie, why should I not point out that you are a liar? What other term should be used for someone who tells lies?

How about you remove your lie, and that post where you stitched together fragments of what I wrote, glued together with words which weren't mine, so that the whole thing read like sentences expressing the opposite of what I actually wrote?

 

[JohnW2]

I will happily continue this discussion with you, either privately if you start a PM with me or in another public thread if you start one. In both cases only after you remove your public accussations that I'm a liar.

I generally try to keep out of this sort of thing, but on this occasion I have to sympathise with the view that there seems to be nothing which suggests that your assertion ...

.... Morph thinks it's perfectly OK to chuck anything in anywhere.

... is even remotely true. I presume you are referring to morqthana, and I can see nothing he's written (in this thread or elsewhere) which indicates, or even implies, that what you say/assert about him is true.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Does not the whole concept of the requirement for ''maintenance free' JBs relate only to inaccessible joints in the conductors of cables - and hence not to situations in which the conductors of a single cable are simply terminated ('parked') in the terminals of some sort (any sort) of JB?

Common sense, suggests so! The whole idea, is based on WAGO terminations, being self tightening should they become loose, so they do not suffer resistance, and become hot when carry current - a runaway situation. If they simple terminate, go no further, there can be no current flow, no resistance effect, no heat generated. Therefore no good reason to use a maintenance free JB.

I am not all that convinced, that maintenance free joints, are that much (or any more reliable) than a properly made off brown joint box of old.

 

[JohnW2]

Common sense, suggests so!

It's not just common sense - as I indicated, it's what BS7671 says. 'MF' JBs are, to the best of my knowledge, only mentioned in 526.3 which (indeed, all of 526) is only about "Electrical connections" ("between conductors or between a conductor and other equipment"). So, as I said, there's no requirement for 'MF' if the conductors of one cable are simply 'parked' in terminals (of whatever), and not 'connected' to anything else.

I am not all that convinced, that maintenance free joints, are that much (or any more reliable) than a properly made off brown joint box of old.

As you will be aware, the same here. A few decades after I am dead and gone we will have as long a period of experience of spring-loaded connections (in domestic installations) as we currently have of the traditional screwed ones - and then people may be able to make a judgement about the relative merits/performance

 

[Scally-Ho]

Common sense, suggests so! The whole idea, is based on WAGO terminations, being self tightening should they become loose, so they do not suffer resistance, and become hot when carry current - a runaway situation. If they simple terminate, go no further, there can be no current flow, no resistance effect, no heat generated. Therefore no good reason to use a maintenance free JB.

I am not all that convinced, that maintenance free joints, are that much (or any more reliable) than a properly made off brown joint box of old.

I prefer the old 'brown' JB's providing they are well made and substantial.

 

[JohnW2]

I prefer the old 'brown' JB's providing they are well made and substantial.

I have known very many properties that have had countless 'brown JBs' under the floorboards, and can't recall having personally ever been aware of any of them resulting in any problems - so I do have to wonder how common the perceived 'problem' actually is. Indeed, even if they are not particularly 'well made' or particularly 'substantial', I'm not sure that they would be likely to result in problems when left undisturbed under floorboards for a few decades!