Wagos on Final Ring Circuits

[John-SJW]

If you are adding a new spur, could you not simply run 2 * 2.5mm to it and make it part of the ruin at that JB?

That would be the best solution of course. But that is not the point of the thread. Wagos can (some cannot) have two spurs off them, which makes matters very easy in some situations.

 

[pc1966]

Two spurs from the same point is against the design rational for the ring (that you don't have a high concentration of loads at some point). Otherwise you are not sure to get good balance between the two legs and the use of, say 32A MCB for overload protection on 2.5mm is getting a little dodgy.

 

[John-SJW]

I do like Wago terminal strips.

 

[John-SJW]

Two spurs from the same point is against the design rational for the ring (that you don't have a high concentration of loads at some point). Otherwise you are not sure to get good balance between the two legs and the use of, say 32A MCB for overload protection on 2.5mm is getting a little dodgy.

For e.g, A wall mounted TV and sound bar. Take spurs off a local socket (using Wagos to maintain the ring), with two spurs off the Wago in the backbox to two single sockets, one for the TV and one for the sound bar. Depending on the shape of the back of the TV, with the mounting brackets there, a double socket may be unsuitable of one spur, with two singles the way (the case with mine). Then two 1.5mm cables off a Wago inside the local socket's backbox on the ring will be suitable. The 13A fuse protects the 1.5mm cable.

Also the load on thes two sockets is minimal.

 

[MrMan1O1]

In a ring if there is a 30A screw terminal junction box in the ring one spur can be taken off this. The j box terminals have three cables in them.

Exactly, you wouldn't take two spurs from a single point on a ring whether it be a screw terminal JB or a socket, so why think it's ok to take two spurs from one point on the ring just because the multiple connection ports on WAGO terminals make it convenient? A spur from a ring equals three cables, end of.
No matter how many connector ports a WAGO terminal has got it surely should be treated as a replacement for a screwed terminal and the cable configuration should be no different to a conventional ring circuit. No matter how long the WAGO is I don't buy into the idea that the ring terminals go in at each end and the spur from the centre....it simply doesn't matter.... it's a connector, not part of the ring in the way that a cable is. My rationale is that even if the WAGO "mini busbar" is 2 or 3cm long, all connection points on it are at the same potential, ie there's no voltage drop along it in the same way you will get over a long length of cable.
I think anyone using Wagos or similar should be careful not to compromise the design convention of a circuit just because it's easy/convenient/possible.

 

[John-SJW]

No matter how long the WAGO is I don't buy into the idea that the ring terminals go in at each end and the spur from the centre....it simply doesn't matter.... it's a connector, not part of the ring in the way that a cable is.

Thanks.
Look at a Wago, a 4 or 5 connector version. The mini bus bar in the Wago IS a part of the ring, like a cable. It just is, it is not open to opinion. This may be inside a product whose target market is making connections, but that does not dissolve the fact that the mini bus bar is a part of the ring, taking the full current of the ring when full current is drawn. And that a connection taken off the Wago is an individual connection taken off the ring. Very different to three wires touching each other taken off one brass screwed terminal.

A normal screwed j box does not operate like a Wago in current transport, especially with 4 or 5 connector Wagos.

Let's take a scenario. A 35mm deep box with socket on the front and spurs taken of the back existing via the back.
1) ring cable in to the 1st connection on a 3 connector Wago (a);
2) ring cable out on the last (3rd) connector;
3) then a wire out of the 2nd connector to the front socket (which is a spur);

4) Then another 3 connector Wago (b) inside (enough space);
5) the ring wire out of Wago (a) connector then into Wago (b) connector 1st;
6) ring cable out of last connector 3rd on Wago (b);
7) then a wire out the middle 2nd connector on Wago b) to a spur;

Two Wagos in a ring with a spur off both.
The two Wagos take the full current of the ring - it runs right through the two of them. This is all as we understand taking spurs of rings. All legal as we know it.

Inside the 35mm box there is a ring wire that may be only 2 inches long that joins the two Wagos effectively joining the mini bus bars inside the Wagos.

Having one 4 connector Wago, with the ring in the 1st and out of the 4th connectors with the socket and spur off the two middle connectors does the same thing, with less connectors, which mean less resistance, etc. And looks safer. But some may say that is illegal, even though it is better all around. I say there is nothing wrong with that being a superior solution.

 

[DPG]

Thanks.
Look at a Wago, a 4 or 5 connector version. The mini bus bar in the Wago IS a part of the ring, like a cable. It just is, it is not open to opinion. This may be inside a product whose target market is making connections, but that does not dissolve the fact that the mini bus bar is a part of the ring, taking the full current of the ring when full current is drawn. And that a connection taken off the Wago is an individual connection taken off the ring. Very different to three wires touching each other taken off one brass screwed terminal.

A normal screwed j box does not operate like a Wago in current transport, especially with 4 or 5 connector Wagos.

Let's take a scenario. A 35mm deep box with socket on the front and spurs taken of the back existing via the back.
1) ring cable in to the 1st connection on a 3 connector Wago (a);
2) ring cable out on the last (3rd) connector;
3) then a wire out of the 2nd connector to the front socket (which is a spur);

4) Then another 3 connector Wago (b) inside (enough space);
5) the ring wire out of Wago (a) connector then into Wago (b) connector 1st;
6) ring cable out of last connector 3rd on Wago (b);
7) then a wire out the middle 2nd connector on Wago b) to a spur;

Two Wagos in a ring with a spur off both.
The two Wagos take the full current of the ring - it runs right through the two of them. This is all as we understand taking spurs of rings. All legal as we know it.

Inside the 35mm box there is a ring wire that may be only 2 inches long that joins the two Wagos effectively joining the mini bus bars inside the Wagos.

Having one 4 connector Wago, with the ring in the 1st and out of the 4th connectors with the socket and spur off the two middle connectors does the same thing, with less connectors, which mean less resistance, etc. And looks safer. But some may say that is illegal, even though it is better all around. I say there is nothing wrong with that being a superior solution.

I don't really see your argument that it's ok as long as you use the outer terminals if the Wago. In reality the difference between one terminal and the next is tiny and wouldn't really make a difference.

 

[dodger421]

Thanks.
Look at a Wago, a 4 or 5 connector version. The mini bus bar in the Wago IS a part of the ring, like a cable. It just is, it is not open to opinion. This may be inside a product whose target market is making connections, but that does not dissolve the fact that the mini bus bar is a part of the ring, taking the full current of the ring when full current is drawn. And that a connection taken off the Wago is an individual connection taken off the ring. Very different to three wires touching each other taken off one brass screwed terminal.

A normal screwed j box does not operate like a Wago in current transport, especially with 4 or 5 connector Wagos.

Let's take a scenario. A 35mm deep box with socket on the front and spurs taken of the back existing via the back.
1) ring cable in to the 1st connection on a 3 connector Wago (a);
2) ring cable out on the last (3rd) connector;
3) then a wire out of the 2nd connector to the front socket (which is a spur);

4) Then another 3 connector Wago (b) inside (enough space);
5) the ring wire out of Wago (a) connector then into Wago (b) connector 1st;
6) ring cable out of last connector 3rd on Wago (b);
7) then a wire out the middle 2nd connector on Wago b) to a spur;

Two Wagos in a ring with a spur off both.
The two Wagos take the full current of the ring - it runs right through the two of them. This is all as we understand taking spurs of rings. All legal as we know it.

Inside the 35mm box there is a ring wire that may be only 2 inches long that joins the two Wagos effectively joining the mini bus bars inside the Wagos.

Having one 4 connector Wago, with the ring in the 1st and out of the 4th connectors with the socket and spur off the two middle connectors does the same thing, with less connectors, which mean less resistance, etc. And looks safer. But some may say that is illegal, even though it is better all around. I say there is nothing wrong with that being a superior solution.

That logic applies to screwed metal earth terminal blocks too, (which is effectively what a Wago is in a smaller, insulated and easier to use form). Nobody sane would argue you could take multiple spurs off one of those as long as you’ve got the ring conductors in either end (and somehow suitably insulated the block etc etc...).

As Lucien and many others have pointed out this is a very literal reading of the regs to try and bypass their intentions whilst utterly missing the point.

 

[telectrix]

either extend the ring or sort your spurs out. Yee Hah!.

 

[MrMan1O1]

For e.g, A wall mounted TV and sound bar. Take spurs off a local socket (using Wagos to maintain the ring), with two spurs off the Wago in the backbox to two single sockets, one for the TV and one for the sound bar. Depending on the shape of the back of the TV, with the mounting brackets there, a double socket may be unsuitable of one spur, with two singles the way (the case with mine). Then two 1.5mm cables off a Wago inside the local socket's backbox on the ring will be suitable. The 13A fuse protects the 1.5mm cable.

Also the load on thes two sockets is minimal.

The regs allow only one unfused spur off the ring socket not two. The unfused spur would have to be in 2.5mm cable not 1.5mm. If you are saying that you've used wagos to expand the ring then I suppose you could take one spur cable from the socket and another from the wagos (which are acting as a 3 terminal JB), but I doubt there will be room in the backbox for 3 X 3-port wagos and five 2.5mm t&e cables. The spurs must be 2.5mm the same as the ring to ensure they're protected by the CU overcurrent device (30A or 32A). You can use 1.5mm cable to supply the two single sockets in series only if you replace your ring socket with a FCU, or wire in the FCU as a spur from your ring socket. The 13A fuse (I assume you mean one in the TV plug) does not protect the 1.5mm cable supplying it; it ruptures for a fault on the load side, not supply.
I know that you are saying that the load is only minimal, but design principles should not be compromised and what you have described is outwith the wiring regulations I'm afraid.
Hope this helps.

 

[westward10]

You can spur from a ring final in 1.5 (1.0 if it is MI) providing circuit protection is not compromised.

 

[Lucien Nunes]

I'm beginning to wonder whether the OP works for Wago. We agree that Wagos are versatile, reliable and practical. The premise of this thread is that if, and only if, you use Wagos, you can argue that multiple spurs taken from one point are actually from separate points. On this we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[telectrix]

I'm beginning to wonder whether the OP works for Wago. We agree that Wagos are versatile, reliable and practical. The premise of this thread is that if, and only if, you use Wagos, you can argue that multiple spurs taken from one point are actually from separate points. On this we will have to agree to disagree.

agree. the wago, no matter which way it's connected, is still a single point on the ring.

 

[John-SJW]

agree. the wago, no matter which way it's connected, is still a single point on the ring.

That is my argument. Looking at the Wago, which has a mini bus bar inside, it is not an interpretation, it is multiple point connections from the ring, not a single point. Look, do not take my word or it. The clear connectors clearly shows the bus bar with the multiple, connections. The mini bus bar charges matter from a normal screwed connection j box. Wago types of connectors add so much more value.

BTW, I do not work for any manufacturer.

 

[DPG]

That is my argument. Looking at the Wago, which has a mini bus bar inside, it is not an interpretation, it is multiple point connections from the ring, not a single point. Look, do not take my word or it. The clear connectors clearly shows the bus bar with the multiple, connections.

BTW, I do not work for any manufacturer.

I think we all understand how a Wago is constructed, but you are making rather wild claims about the function of a cm of copper!