Wiki entry on Junction Boxes

[mikhailfaradayski]

. All I can say is that I have not seen such advice being given in the 6 months or whatever that I've been around here (nor in other forums I've monitored)

I do recall discussion about them in the 2 or 3 years i have been lurking around

Oh, even in the few months I've been around, I've seen previous discussions about them. What I haven't seen (and frankly doubt has ever happened - so I'm not terribly motivated to look back before 'my time'!) is a poster being given advice (or even suggestion) that they should use one of these things in an inaccessible place.

Kind Regards, John.

I think we have equal apathy toward searching for examples, you can form your own opinion on whether you feel such examples exist or not. ( I dont make a habit of generating fictional claims)

 

[JohnW2]

I agree, they seem very secure and give a sound connection. When you tried to pull the termination apart, did you have the strain relief correctly fitted? When fully fitted, i imagine the joint is near impossible to pull apart by hand

In fact, even without using the strain relief, I found it near impossible to pull the conductors out by hand, although I could with appreciable 'mechanical assistance'. However, I don't think one should read too much into that, since much the same is true when I do bench experments with screw-terminal JBs.

Have you seen one fail?

Not really applicable, in my case. To be fair, I haven't seen a screw-terminal JB 'fail', either - although I imagine that's probably a function of my limited exposure.

fair enough. Somewhat similar to your position on exposure to crimping

I don't think that's very fair; it's totally different from the discussion about crimping. Far from expressing any doubts about the 'maintenance-free' products 'based on no experience' (which I assume is what you're suggesting), I have more than once expressed my view that they look pretty good and that they might even be sufficiently good that the authors of a future edition of BS7671 will decide that they are acceptable for use in inaccessible places. The discussion is specifically about whether the current BS7671:2008 allows their use in inaccessible locations - and I personally have my doubts.

Not really possible, since it's not a compression joint - it's a spring one., which isn't really the same thing.

Are you suggesting that these terminals are not exerting some kind of compressive force upon the conductor and that that force is not appropriate for the task? It looks like they are.

No, I'm not suggesting that, but I think we need some basic common sense here. Of course there is a compressive force applied to the conductor with these connectors. Similarly, there is a compressive force applied by a screw terminal, and you might even argue that a screwdriver becomes an "appropriate compression tool" in that context. However, if you went down that path, I'd probably conclude that you were arguing for argument's sake - since I think it perfectly clear to most people that the regs did not intend that "a joint made with an appropriate compression tool" would include screw-terminal joints. The Ashley/Hager connections are made without use of an actual tool (in the generally accepted meaning of the word) of any sort.

I dont really wish to go down this well-trodden, never ending path on who complies with who.

That's up to you, but if that's how you feel, then I would suggest that you would probably be more comfortable not attempting to contribute to this thread - which I started specifically and exclusively because of the question of the compliance (or otherwise) with BS7671 of these Ashley/Hager connectors in inaccessible locations.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

I think we have equal apathy toward searching for examples, you can form your own opinion on whether you feel such examples exist or not. ( I dont make a habit of generating fictional claims)

I can't speak for you, but for me it's lack of need, not apathy.

What happened more than 6 months ago is of no real intereest or importance to me. My point is perfectly well made by the fact that in the last 6 months, during which time countless posters have been told/reminded that "JBs must be accessible", not once have I seen anyone advising them to consider one of these Ashley/hager connectors.

Kind Regards, John

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

I agree, they seem very secure and give a sound connection. When you tried to pull the termination apart, did you have the strain relief correctly fitted? When fully fitted, i imagine the joint is near impossible to pull apart by hand

In fact, even without using the strain relief, I found it near impossible to pull the conductors out by hand, although I could with appreciable 'mechanical assistance'. However, I don't think one should read too much into that, since much the same is true when I do bench experments with screw-terminal JBs.

Have you seen one fail?

Not really applicable, in my case. To be fair, I haven't seen a screw-terminal JB 'fail', either - although I imagine that's probably a function of my limited exposure.

fair enough. Somewhat similar to your position on exposure to crimping

I don't think that's very fair;

Oh? I think it is very fair, you haven't seen one of these M/F boxes fail, you haven't seen a crimp fail.

it's totally different from the discussion about crimping. Far from expressing any doubts about the 'maintenance-free' products 'based on no experience' (which I assume is what you're suggesting), I have more than once expressed my view that they look pretty good and that they might even be sufficiently good that the authors of a future edition of BS7671 will decide that they are acceptable for use in inaccessible places. The discussion is specifically about whether the current BS7671:2008 allows their use in inaccessible locations - and I personally have my doubts.

No need to be upset, John, and i would have thought a person of your mental ability would have refrained from making assumptions. If you spend a bit of time looking at my earlier comment 'is it beyond the realms of possibility....'. It seems as though you may have missed my point.

Not really possible, since it's not a compression joint - it's a spring one., which isn't really the same thing.

Are you suggesting that these terminals are not exerting some kind of compressive force upon the conductor and that that force is not appropriate for the task? It looks like they are.

No, I'm not suggesting that, but I think we need some basic common sense here. Of course there is a compressive force applied to the conductor with these connectors. Similarly, there is a compressive force applied by a screw terminal, and you might even argue that a screwdriver becomes an "appropriate compression tool" in that context.

No i wouldn't argue that at all. A screwdriver is designed to rotate screws, not to be a compression tool.

However, if you went down that path, I'd probably conclude that you were arguing for argument's sake

lol, pot/kettle ?

- since I think it perfectly clear to most people that the regs did not intend that "a joint made with an appropriate compression tool" would include screw-terminal joints.

there is a distinct difference between a screw joint and one made by a spring loaded terminal. Over a period of time, due to possible thermal cycling, the screw could work loose and have no means of re-setting itself, the spring terminal is clearly quite different.

The Ashley/Hager connections are made without use of an actual tool (in the generally accepted meaning of the word) of any sort.

as it has previously been discussed in other threads, who is to define what is appropriate? Does the BRB make allowance for new or innovative products?

I dont really wish to go down this well-trodden, never ending path on who complies with who.

That's up to you, but if that's how you feel, then I would suggest that you would probably be more comfortable not attempting to contribute to this thread

I'm quite comfortable with my input, thanks for your concern. Its just that this subject has been discussed before. It may be new to you with your cut off of 6 months of history here, but for those who have been here longer, or have chosen to use the search facility, it is today's chip wrapping

- which I started specifically and exclusively because of the question of the compliance (or otherwise) with BS7671 of these Ashley/Hager connectors in inaccessible locations.

Kind Regards, John.

I thought the thread was to do with editing the wiki on this subject, which i believe (some time ago) sheddy suggested that you could do this yourself

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

I think we have equal apathy toward searching for examples, you can form your own opinion on whether you feel such examples exist or not. ( I dont make a habit of generating fictional claims)

I can't speak for you, but for me it's lack of need, not apathy.

Nobody need do anything here, but given your apparent quest for knowledge, i thought you may have searched the forum to see if this subject has been thrashed out previously, prior to starting a new topic.

What happened more than 6 months ago is of no real intereest or importance to me.

not even if there were a thread posted, lets say 7 months ago, which was pretty much the same as this thread?

My point is perfectly well made by the fact that in the last 6 months, during which time countless posters have been told/reminded that "JBs must be accessible", not once have I seen anyone advising them to consider one of these Ashley/hager connectors.

Have you read every thread posted in this forum over the last six months? Are readers here to take your isolated experience to be gospel?

Kind Regards, John

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

John, BTW, if you have some time to spare, you could try using the search facility here to find 'maintenance free'. I just tried it and it brings back a lot of results. It seems as though you may not be the first to consider this issue.

GtG, sun is shining, wires need terminating......

 

[riveralt]

What happened more than 6 months ago is of no real intereest or importance to me. My point is perfectly well made by the fact that in the last 6 months, during which time countless posters have been told/reminded that "JBs must be accessible", not once have I seen anyone advising them to consider one of these Ashley/hager connectors.

Kind Regards, John

//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2008091#2008091

I use Ashley/Hagar jbs for a lot of work (though not to everyones agreement).

 

[JohnW2]

I use Ashley/Hagar jbs for a lot of work (though not to everyones agreement).

Thanks. Does that include installing them in inaccessible places?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

- which I started specifically and exclusively because of the question of the compliance (or otherwise) with BS7671 of these Ashley/Hager connectors in inaccessible locations.

I thought the thread was to do with editing the wiki on this subject, which i believe (some time ago) sheddy suggested that you could do this yourself

The thread was to do with the fact that many/most people reading the wiki will probably take it to be advising that it's OK to use the Ashley JBs in inaccessible places. Since it seemed to me to be far from certain that this is compliant with BS7671:2008 (look at all the debate in this and many other electricity forms), this seemed a little unwise and I was suggesting that perhaps at least some reference to this uncertainty should be included in the wiki. I thought that it would be most appropriate that the person who wrote it should do that - but, as you say, he suggested that I should. I'm not clear as to whether or not that means he is comfortable with it as it is (I'm pretty sure that I've seen him voicing doubts about their compliance in the past)

Whatever, the degree of resultant argument has changed the situation. I thought it was going to be very straightforward, and that there would be something approaching a consensus - but, given that it hasn't proved to be like that, I don't really think it would be appropriate for me to 'unilaterally' edit the wiki.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

John, BTW, if you have some time to spare, you could try using the search facility here to find 'maintenance free'. I just tried it and it brings back a lot of results. It seems as though you may not be the first to consider this issue.

I'm well aware of that, and if you look around the forums or Google the phrase, you'll find a vast amount of additional debate - with opinions on both sides of the fence.

I had assumed that 'everyone' would be aware of the existance of this debate/uncertainty. As I've just written to you elsewhere, the question is whether, in view of all that debate, those in this forum are comfortbale with the wiki as it is. Since no-one has said that they aren't, I can but presume that everyone is happy with the wiki essentially advising DIYers that it's OK to use these JBs in inaccessible locations

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

maybe the wiki should be at least annotated to that effect?

DIYnot.com WikiWhat is a Wiki?
A wiki is a website where users can add, remove, and edit every page using a web browser. It is like an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and contribute towards.

I've just realised that I lied ! It's not a wiki at all but, rather, a sticky post from you (BAS) - hence you are the only person who could edit it, if editing was to be done.

As you will have seen, the thread has not evolved as I expected. No-one (apart from me) has expressed any concern that your post will probably be taken by many/most DIYers to be saying that it is acceptable to use the Ashley/Hager JBs in inaccessible locations. Hence, if that situation doesn't change, and if you're comfortable for your post to be seemingly supporting that view, then I guess that change may not be required.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[JohnW2]

Fact 1. Reg 134.1.1 states... Electrical equipment shall be installed in accordance with the instructions provided by the manufacturer of the equipment.
Fact 2. The manufacturer (Ashley) states that their connectors are maintenance free and therefore don't need to be accessible.
There can only be one conclusion, Ashley must be correct.

Very many thanks. Despite the length of this thread, you are the first person who has has provided an unequivocal statement of their opinion as to whether or not use of these JBs in inaccessible locations is compliant with BS7671. Hopefully others will have the courage of their convictions to follow suit. If not, I may have to try to put some people 'on the spot'!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[JohnW2]

you are the first person who has has provided an unequivocal statement of their opinion as to whether or not use of these JBs in inaccessible locations is compliant with BS7671.

I was'nt the first person, on the first page in the 7th post ericmark said;

134.1.1 .....Electrical equipment shall be installed in accordance with the instructions provided by the manufacturer of the equipment. If the manufacturer says it's maintenance free then it is maintenance free. Simple.

Apologies, I'd forgotten that he had said exactly the same as you, several pages before in the thread. That makes two people who have so far expressed opinions, then. Let's hope the number now increases.

Kind Regards, John.