Plug socket with large terminals

[SUNRAY]

Lots of cheap and nasty sockets will not accommodate imperial cables, which those are.

Not a problem I've yet encountered

MK would be a sensible option

For what reason?
As I see it MK are cheap and nasty sockets made in the same oriental factories as all the other cheap and nasty sockets, the difference is MK used to be a better quality product and cost a lot more than other products, their reputation has somehow still continued as has their higher price structure.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

For what reason?

I assume because MK specify the size and quantity of wires they will accept.

 

[Sureitsoff?]

The MK rapidfix sockets (the ones with a wago connector glued on the back!) take 4mm stranded, so that could help the OP

 

[SUNRAY]

I assume because MK specify the size and quantity of wires they will accept.

OK...

IIUIC BS1363 requires a minimum requirement, which IIUIC is all MK state. I have not looked either of these up but only interpreted it from posts on the forum.

I personally have never encountered a 13A socket that I've struggled to get 3x 7/0.029 into, let alone 2 as it seems in OP pic.

 

[plugwash]

IIUIC BS1363 requires a minimum requirement, which IIUIC is all MK state. I have not looked either of these up but only interpreted it from posts on the forum.

My memory is that MKs specs substantially exceeed the minimums in BS1363.

IIRC the minimum in BS1363 is 3x2.5mm² or 2x4mm² while MKs spec for regular logic plus sockets is 3x2.5mm² or 3x4mm² or 2x6mm². For rapid fix IIRC it's 3x2.5mm² or 3x4mm² with no support for 6mm².

 

[SUNRAY]

My memory is that MKs specs substantially exceeed the minimums in BS1363.

IIRC the minimum in BS1363 is 3x2.5mm² or 2x4mm² while MKs spec for regular logic plus sockets is 3x2.5mm² or 3x4mm² or 2x6mm². For rapid fix IIRC it's 3x2.5mm² or 3x4mm² with no support for 6mm².

If that is correct then thank you for the update, as I said I've never looked it up myself, just relayed what I believe I've picked up on this forum.

Personally I don't recall ever having a problem with terminating any of the combinations you quote for MK in any other make.

 

[EFLImpudence]

We have done all this before, but:

My memory is that MKs specs substantially exceed the minimums in BS1363.

Ok.

IIRC the minimum in BS1363 is 3x2.5mm² or 2x4mm²

Why would there be a minimum?

while MKs spec for regular logic plus sockets is 3x2.5mm² or 3x4mm² or 2x6mm².

That must be just guidance (not related to the actual size) because if the (assuming round) terminals will take 2 x 6mm² or 3 x 4mm², then obviously they must take 4 x 2.5mm².

 

[JohnW2]

Why would there be a minimum?

I think this is just a 'language' issue. It's not the minimum of the conductors that 'have to be' connected to a terminal but, rather, the minimum number of conductors of a given CSA which can be accommodated in the terminal.

The actual capacity of the terminals may be greater than that 'minimum'. For example, in terms of the example you mention, although they might say that a terminal can accommodate (a "minimum of') 3 x 2.5mm² conductors", it will actually probably accommodate more than that 'minimum' (i.e. 4 x 2.5mm²).

I suppose it's analogous to saying that the 'minimum breaking strength' of something (e.g. a rope) is X. That means that it will not break with a load of X, but does not mean that one can't use it with loads less than X, nor that it will necessarily break with a load of X+Y.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Well, not quite.

It was stated that "the minimum in BS1363 is 3x2.5mm² or 2x4mm²".

That doesn't make sense.

If the standard in fact stipulates that the terminal must accommodate three 2.5mm² solid conductors, then obviously it will accommodate two 4mm² -and varying numbers of other sized conductors.

If the standard calls for a minimum terminal size so that a spur may be connected to a 2.5mm² ring circuit then why not a branch/spur to a 4mm² radial?

You would think manufacturers would make their products fit for that required in an ordinary installation.


I must say that I have never come across these tiny socket terminals that won't accommodate the number of conductors usually required for normal applications.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

If the standard in fact stipulates that the terminal must accommodate three 2.5mm² solid conductors, then obviously it will accommodate two 4mm² -and varying numbers of other sized conductors.

Rather depends what shape it is. At least in theory. This would be a spec trying to be clear about its intention.

 

[JohnW2]

It was stated that "the minimum in BS1363 is 3x2.5mm² or 2x4mm²". That doesn't make sense.

As I implied, I would personally regard it as making sense if one read it as "the minimum terminal capacity in BS1363 is 3x2.5mm or 2x4mm"

As I said, that's not really any different from saying that the "minimum breaking strength ('load capacity')" of a rope is, say, 100 kg - which means that it can tolerate at least 100 kg without breaking (but possibly a fair bit more).

You would think manufacturers would make their products fit for that required in an ordinary installation.

One would indeed think that - and, I suspect it's generally true, since, as you go on to say ....

I must say that I have never come across these tiny socket terminals that won't accommodate the number of conductors usually required for normal applications.

For what it's worth (given that I have much less experience than you), nor have I.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Rather depends what shape it is.

I did say "assuming round".

At least in theory.

Not sure how it works out with rectangular terminals.

This would be a spec trying to be clear about its intention.

Not sure what that means.

 

[JohnW2]

Not sure how it works out with rectangular terminals.

It obviously depends upon the shape of the rectangle. If it were 'long and thin', just wide enough for a 2.5mm² conductor (with three of them lined up 'side-by-side') then, without some 'crushing' you wouldn't be able to get even one 4mm² conductor in it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

As I implied, I would personally regard it as making sense if one read it as "the minimum terminal capacity in BS1363 is 3x2.5mm or 2x4mm"

As I asked: why would that be necessary - or needed?

As I said, that's not really any different from saying that the "minimum breaking strength ('load capacity')" of a rope is, say, 100 kg - which means that it can tolerate at least 100 kg without breaking (but possibly a fair bit more).

How is that relevant?

One would indeed think that - and, I suspect it's generally true, since, as you go on to say ....
For what it's worth (given that I have much less experience than you), nor have I.

Yes, and if what has been stated is correct, such sockets would not be BS1363.

 

[pete01]

Good God it's a socket, connect it up job done.