Wiki entry on Junction Boxes

[JohnW2]

Equally simple is that 526.3 does not exempt "maintenance free" junction boxes.

Indeed. However, the one thing that the Ashley FAQ brought to my attention (which I'd never noticed before) is that Appendix 15 contains these little boxes which do seem to be 'allowing' "maintenance-free terminals" (without any definition thereof) in inaccessible locations, even though that is not mentioned in the body of BS7671. However, Appendix 15 is only 'informative' and, even if it were taken to be permitting such terminals, only applies to ring and radial final circuits - hence would not apply to lighting or other circuits.

IMO they do not comply, and were I ever to do a PIR and find them I'd code it accordingly.

Although my opinion doesn't really count for much in this field, it is exactly the same as yours.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

Thanks. I have to say that it sounds like very iffy wriggling to me....

Don't know what that means... me or Hager?

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I meant Hager. As BAS suggested, very clever marketing.

I think you missed out some key words "in addition"

I'm not sure you understand (Edit: Whoops - that should read "I'm not sure I understand". Apologies}. Are you referring to the last sentence of the FAQ? If so, I've already commented on the irrelevance of compliance with BS EN 60670-22.

I think if you are looking for a definitive standard you will be disapointed. However the regs do allow for new inventions; see 120.3 and 120.4. Hager have made what in my opinon is a good JB and issued a statement that satisfies me with regards to 526.3.

As I said, I am quite open to the possibility that it's an excellent product, and quite possibly so much better than screwed terminals that it is reasonable for it to be used in an inaccessible location. However, I still think that it's stretching things to argue that it is compliant with BS7671 as written. However, that is merely the opinion of someone whose opinion in this field doesn't count for much.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Adam_151]

IMO they do not comply, and were I ever to do a PIR and find them I'd code it accordingly.

But... If they were inaccessible maint-free joint boxes, you'd not find them on a PIR, and if you did find them on a PIR, then they arn't inaccessible...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ah...

Hmm...

Oh.

 

[JohnW2]

But... If they were inaccessible maint-free joint boxes, you'd not find them on a PIR, and if you did find them on a PIR, then they arn't inaccessible...

Yes, usually true - although it's not impossible that a PIR might be undertaken at a time when usually inaccessible JBs were actually accessible. Furthermore, one might 'become aware of' the existance, or probably existance, of inaccessible JBs (e.g. 'by enquiry' or if the arrangement of wiring indicated that there were inevitable inaccessible joints somewhere - e.g. if a spur appears 'from nowhere' in terms of inspectable accessories). Don't forget that if one believes that no JBs are allowed to be inaccessible, then all one needs to establish is that there are inaccessible JBs present, even if one hasn't seen them - the nature of them is irrelevant - although I admit that there is always the possibility that they have been soldered/brazed/welded.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Or crimped.

 

[JohnW2]

Or crimped.

I deliberately didn't include that, because the only types of joint that one could (usually**) become aware of by detective work without seeing it would be a 3-way (or more-way) joint - and if that were crimped, it's surely a red mark for the PIR again?

** just in case there are some nit-pickers around - if a cable disappeared somewhere and then re-appeared with different insulation and/or sheath colours (or different CSA), there would have to be a joint (perhaps with a compliant crimp) somewhere.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

Duplicate deleted

 

[JohnW2]

Another duplicate deleted. Apologies

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

only applies to ring and radial final circuits - hence would not apply to lighting or other circuits.

Pardon my ignorance of your language, but is not a lighting circuit also a radial final circuit?

 

[JohnW2]

only applies to ring and radial final circuits - hence would not apply to lighting or other circuits.

Pardon my ignorance of your language, but is not a lighting circuit also a radial final circuit?

Technically, yes, and I suppose I should have realised that someone would pick me up on this if I wasn't more explicit/long-winded!

Appendix 15 is clearly about 'socket circuits' (as it says in the first sentence) - and only relates to radial circuits wired in 2.5mm ² or 4mm² cable. The Appendix clearly does not have anything to do with lighting circuits.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[333rocky333]

** just in case there are some nit-pickers around - if a cable disappeared somewhere and then re-appeared with different insulation and/or sheath colours (or different CSA), there would have to be a joint (perhaps with a compliant crimp) somewhere.

Or wrong polarity

Untitled

• 333rocky333
• 20 Aug 2010
• 3

 

[JohnW2]

** just in case there are some nit-pickers around - if a cable disappeared somewhere and then re-appeared with different insulation and/or sheath colours (or different CSA), there would have to be a joint (perhaps with a compliant crimp) somewhere.

Or wrong polarity

Yep, or that

Kind Regards, John.

 

[sparkiemike]

I think you missed out some key words "in addition"

I'm not sure you understand (Edit: Whoops - that should read "I'm not sure I understand". Apologies}. Are you referring to the last sentence of the FAQ? If so, I've already commented on the irrelevance of compliance with BS EN 60670-22.

I don't have a copy of" BS EN 60670-22 Boxes and enclosures for electrical accessories for household and similar fixed electrical installations. Particular requirements for connecting boxes and enclosures", so do not know if they define what a terminal/termination point is. However as I read it Ashley are saying that the encloses meet the standard and they have also carried out additional testing, perhaps exceeding the standard.

 

[holmslaw]

..