IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Quickwire lighting junctions
Topic Summary: Any views?
Created On: 23 May 2017 08:28 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - Zs - 23 May 2017 08:28 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - AJJewsbury - 23 May 2017 10:03 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - dustydazzler - 23 May 2017 10:54 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - mapj1 - 23 May 2017 10:57 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - Cremeegg - 24 May 2017 10:38 AM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - dustydazzler - 24 May 2017 11:56 AM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - Alcomax - 24 May 2017 12:32 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - mapj1 - 28 September 2017 08:52 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - AJJewsbury - 29 September 2017 09:58 AM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - tomgunn - 29 September 2017 10:48 AM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - OlympusMons - 30 September 2017 12:02 AM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - leckie - 30 September 2017 08:01 AM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - OlympusMons - 30 September 2017 04:07 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - sparkingchip - 01 October 2017 12:14 AM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - Zoomup - 01 October 2017 10:48 AM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - sparkingchip - 01 October 2017 02:03 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - sparkingchip - 01 October 2017 06:56 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - AJJewsbury - 01 October 2017 07:21 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - OlympusMons - 01 October 2017 08:13 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - sparkingchip - 01 October 2017 09:23 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - mapj1 - 01 October 2017 09:55 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - RB1981 - 03 October 2017 06:48 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - AJJewsbury - 02 October 2017 10:01 AM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - OlympusMons - 02 October 2017 08:02 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - AJJewsbury - 03 October 2017 09:02 AM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - sparkingchip - 03 October 2017 06:54 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - RB1981 - 03 October 2017 07:11 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - sparkingchip - 03 October 2017 07:57 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - RB1981 - 03 October 2017 08:30 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - sparkingchip - 03 October 2017 08:47 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - RB1981 - 03 October 2017 08:53 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - AJJewsbury - 03 October 2017 10:17 PM  
 Quickwire lighting junctions   - RB1981 - 03 October 2017 10:34 PM  
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 23 May 2017 08:28 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zs

Posts: 3814
Joined: 20 July 2006

https://www.quickwire.co.uk/

I like the look of these 'coming soon' says the email thingy I received.

I wonder if it is OK not to cover them in a choc box or similar.

Nonetheless, I like.

Zs
 23 May 2017 10:03 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 15838
Joined: 13 August 2003

Interesting. I can see it being popular both with the 'quickest is best' house bashers and the DIY brigade (no need to work out what wire goes where).

Looks to have a couple of limitations though - looks like it'll only work with T&E (so I won't be using any at home as I'm all BS 8436 cable) nor where you're doing anything slightly unusual - e.g. with triple & E switch drops or flex to a pre-wired downlighter (which is a bit of an oversight since they've obviously designed it to fit through downlighter holes).

Also it looks to be dead easy to put a cable in 'upside down' (reversing L & N) with no obvious way of double checking - so no skimping on polarity checks. (Maybe they'll start producing T&E with the core colours marked on the outside of the sheath?)

I hate needing a special tool to undo it - unless they become ubiquitous, you never have the right one when you need it, so any maintenance/alterations will become 'chop off the cables and throw it away' and then in the tightest situations the cables will always then be just too short.

Looks like it's its own case - so no need for chock box I reckon - although I've not idea what the IP rating "IPTX" is.

- Andy.
 23 May 2017 10:54 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dustydazzler

Posts: 1341
Joined: 19 January 2016

As above , diyer sparkles will Like this. Coming to a diy shed near you kinda product
 23 May 2017 10:57 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mapj1

Posts: 9366
Joined: 22 July 2004

I've Emailed them to ask that very question,IPTX is not one in my books of standard ratings. I'll report back if I get an answer.

-------------------------
regards Mike
 24 May 2017 10:38 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Cremeegg

Posts: 675
Joined: 13 July 2007

1.5mm2 max, 16A max, solid cores only, special tool needed, dubious IP rating, no testing facility - kinda limits its use for me.

A small Wago lever of 2,3 or 5 holes and a small Wagobox seems far better to me - small lever Wagos will take 2.5mm2 (maybe 4mm2 need to check) are good for 32A, no special tools needed, no need for two different types of connector.

Any idea of price? - a wagobox set up with connectors is going to be under £2.

I await their appearance at Elex or similar and will pick my wholesalers brain.
 24 May 2017 11:56 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dustydazzler

Posts: 1341
Joined: 19 January 2016

This product seems to be targeting the diy market. But I can still see diyer electricians getting into a pickel trying to pull the cables out if they have made a mistake and put in the wrong way round and then having to cut the thing off and re do with a new one.
Where as a lever or even a good old screw can be quickly undone
 24 May 2017 12:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Alcomax

Posts: 231
Joined: 12 November 2009

Will be popular with house badgers
 28 September 2017 08:52 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mapj1

Posts: 9366
Joined: 22 July 2004

Update, well they got back to me, after my enquiries asking in May, and they now have put their guide pricing on the web, yes it is dearer than a wago box, but faster, so it is that time/money trade off, and the IP rating has been corrected to what it always should have been, IP30.
I presume someone had spider handwriting and a crackly phone line when they gave the web designers the spec to type in

-------------------------
regards Mike
 29 September 2017 09:58 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 15838
Joined: 13 August 2003

If wonder if you can still claim BS 7671 compliance when using ordinary brown/blue T&E for the switch drop as there doesn't seem to be any room to oversleeve the SL in brown. I'm guessing the L making on the case isn't sufficient (if it was we'd no have to bother oversleeving at switches where it goes into a terminal marked L something or other). The higher price of twin brown will tilt the balance for many I suspect.

- Andy.
 29 September 2017 10:48 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



tomgunn

Posts: 3916
Joined: 25 May 2005

Don't like it... don't like 'clip' in connections... what about removing the cables at a later date? I guess they have that covered but for multiple uses??

I'll stick to the good ole JB's... I have always thought I could come up with a better design for the standard JB - make life easier for us!

regards

-------------------------
Tom.... (The TERMINATOR).

handyTRADESMAN

Castle Builders
 30 September 2017 12:02 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OlympusMons

Posts: 50
Joined: 05 February 2016

Originally posted by: AJJewsbury

If wonder if you can still claim BS 7671 compliance when using ordinary brown/blue T&E for the switch drop as there doesn't seem to be any room to oversleeve the SL in brown. I'm guessing the L making on the case isn't sufficient (if it was we'd no have to bother oversleeving at switches where it goes into a terminal marked L something or other). The higher price of twin brown will tilt the balance for many I suspect.



- Andy.

paraphrasing 514.3.1 -cable cores shall be identified by (i) colour and/or (ii) letters. The made joint would be identified by letters, in this case (L or) Ls.

It is not clear to me whether the joint once made is able to be disconnected, inspected and re-made. The fitting is apparently re-useable, but the copper wires, after disconnection, might not be.

no g/y on the earth either
 30 September 2017 08:01 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



leckie

Posts: 4323
Joined: 21 November 2008

I had a look at this product at Elex recently. It looks very neat and well made, and is super quick to install. But I can't think of many occasions I would use it. The obvious use for these sort of devices is on installing downrights, but as AJ said, it appears not to be compatible with flex so it's not really much use for that.

Also the lack of the ability to fit sleeving concerns me. The regulation requires the cores to be identified. Now you could take a view that the labelling on the device indicates the core function, but you wouldn't accept that in a ceiling rose or other light fitting would you? Ceiling roses indicate switch live, but we are still required to use an indication by colour or numbering on the cable core. However, it would seem strange that the company has made what is obviously a large investment on the product without checking that it would be considered compliant. I'm sure someone like wago will come up with a similar product that has clamp connectors in a preconfigured enclosure so it can be used for flex, then it would be a neat solution. Or has someone else already done this?

This looks a bit better (link below) , I'll get some and try them out. These have cores that can be sleeved, solid cores or flex, and you can unplug the output. So you can leave the fitting off to IR test and you could make up a linked connector to carry out R1+R2 tests. These look to be a more flexible product to me.

http://www.jcc.co.uk/levlink/#switched-live-connector

Edited: 01 October 2017 at 02:37 AM by leckie
 30 September 2017 04:07 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OlympusMons

Posts: 50
Joined: 05 February 2016

Originally posted by: leckie
...
but we are still required to use an indication by colour or numbering on the cable core. .. [/L]

i still can't see how this doesn't comply. It would be acceptable to surround the core with a bit of insulating plastic sleeving with the letter L on it, the terminal enclosure is also a bit of insulating plastic with the letter L on it surrounding the core.
There is a difference between this fitting and a ceiling rose, with a ceiling rose you can remove a cover and inspect the cores without electrically disconnecting anything (apart from switching off the mcb). With this fitting you would have to disconnect the joint to be able to see the colour of the cores, which would/could be impracticable.
I found a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Io_AyRDHc which shows the joint being disconnected (at 8mins 45secs) with a tool. The wires do look a slightly dented and splayed, so not sure how many times you could unmake and make the same terminations. I wonder why the manufacturers didn't get it certified as a maintenance free fitting?
 01 October 2017 12:14 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 9953
Joined: 18 January 2003

 01 October 2017 10:48 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zoomup

Posts: 3274
Joined: 20 February 2014

My limitation, after looking at the picture of the stripped ends of the T&E would be in producing the same quality of preparation of the cable. The stripped copper ends are all parallel, as are the lengths of the stripped inner insulation. And aren't those stripped ends short? Could I do that neatly and consistently? I am not sure. With my big fingers I may prefer the big round junction box method. or terminate at ceiling roses. I think that accessible terminals are better for fault finding.

Z.
 01 October 2017 02:03 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 9953
Joined: 18 January 2003

There's a gauge on the wire stripping tool.

Andy B.
 01 October 2017 06:56 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 9953
Joined: 18 January 2003



TLC

Andy B
 01 October 2017 07:21 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 15838
Joined: 13 August 2003

OK, I'll see your twin brown and raise you twin brown with insulated earth


Twin Brown & Insulated Earth
 01 October 2017 08:13 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OlympusMons

Posts: 50
Joined: 05 February 2016

Originally posted by: AJJewsbury

OK, I'll see your twin brown and raise you twin brown with insulated earth


I was thinking of the exemption in 514.6.1 (iii) for sleeving the cpc in this fitting, but I think you just made it practicable.
 01 October 2017 09:23 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 9953
Joined: 18 January 2003

Maybe too much thinking and not enough doing?

Is the end result a good standard of installation?

Andy B.
 01 October 2017 09:55 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mapj1

Posts: 9366
Joined: 22 July 2004

Its clearly intended for use with T and E and no further effort, and the addition or omission of sleeving is a not really an issue, as the cores is totally enclosed.
On a slightly off-beat note as it is the Eire version of T and E that is sleeved, I assume it wont have the reduced CPC.
I cant really see a problem (except perhaps rarity and cost) for using it in the UK too, but I assume for now, no one does.

-------------------------
regards Mike
 03 October 2017 06:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



RB1981

Posts: 484
Joined: 16 September 2007

Originally posted by: mapj1

On a slightly off-beat note as it is the Eire version of T and E that is sleeved, I assume it wont have the reduced CPC.

I cant really see a problem (except perhaps rarity and cost) for using it in the UK too, but I assume for now, no one does.


My understanding is that I.S. 201 cable is not a recognised cable type within BS7671 and therefore shouldn't be used. Unfortunately this means for me that I have a stock of both cable types depending whether I am working near home or a whopping mile-and-a-half away over in the European Union.

-------------------------
Walsh Electrical Services
http://www.walshelectrical.ie/
RECI REC & NICEIC Approved Contractor
 02 October 2017 10:01 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 15838
Joined: 13 August 2003

Is the end result a good standard of installation?

I agree there's probably not a physical problem (other than perhaps not being able to visually verify correct polarity) - but it's difficult to claim BS 7671 compliance given the regs are worded as they are (both 514.3 and last paragraph of 543.3.201). BS 7671 does of course allow for 'new innovations' but the requirement for the designer to vouch for the departure on the certificate is likely to be off-putting to many.

I suspect the best solution would be an amendment to 543.3.201 and perhaps 514.3 - I wonder if quickwire took the opportunity to suggest something suitable under the 18th DPC?

- Andy.
 02 October 2017 08:02 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OlympusMons

Posts: 50
Joined: 05 February 2016

re 543.3.201 last para, where is the sheath removed ADJACENT to the joint or termination?
 03 October 2017 09:02 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 15838
Joined: 13 August 2003

re 543.3.201 last para, where is the sheath removed ADJACENT to the joint or termination?

er, yes?
- Andy.
 03 October 2017 06:54 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 9953
Joined: 18 January 2003

It will only get worse!
 03 October 2017 07:11 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



RB1981

Posts: 484
Joined: 16 September 2007

LOL. Well I suspect that over time it may become a recognised cable. But then again I may be wrong. I can assure you that you wouldn't want to be paying for it - it's around 30% dearer than BS T&E.

-------------------------
Walsh Electrical Services
http://www.walshelectrical.ie/
RECI REC & NICEIC Approved Contractor
 03 October 2017 07:57 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 9953
Joined: 18 January 2003

More copper, more plastic, but surely it has a larger market?

Andy
 03 October 2017 08:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



RB1981

Posts: 484
Joined: 16 September 2007

Originally posted by: sparkingchip

More copper, more plastic, but surely it has a larger market?



Andy


No - it has a tiny market. Irish Standard 201 cable is, to my knowledge, not the same as any other cable type now. (That said I am sure there are very similar cable constructions in some other countries.)

-------------------------
Walsh Electrical Services
http://www.walshelectrical.ie/
RECI REC & NICEIC Approved Contractor
 03 October 2017 08:47 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 9953
Joined: 18 January 2003

I thought it was a European product used throughout the EU, apart from the UK with its inferior twin and earth.
 03 October 2017 08:53 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



RB1981

Posts: 484
Joined: 16 September 2007

Originally posted by: sparkingchip

I thought it was a European product used throughout the EU, apart from the UK with its inferior twin and earth.


NYM-J and similar would be a commonly used product throughout Europe, but I'm not sure about any T&E variant. (NYM-J is widely used in the south of Ireland as well.) Singles in kopex is another common continental method I'm led to believe.

-------------------------
Walsh Electrical Services
http://www.walshelectrical.ie/
RECI REC & NICEIC Approved Contractor
 03 October 2017 10:17 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 15838
Joined: 13 August 2003

My understanding is that I.S. 201 cable is not a recognised cable type within BS7671 and therefore shouldn't be used.

BS 7671 recognises the use of equipment that complies with the appropriate standards of another country where no BS or EN applies - see reg 133.1.1.
- Andy.
 03 October 2017 10:34 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



RB1981

Posts: 484
Joined: 16 September 2007

Originally posted by: AJJewsbury

My understanding is that I.S. 201 cable is not a recognised cable type within BS7671 and therefore shouldn't be used.


BS 7671 recognises the use of equipment that complies with the appropriate standards of another country where no BS or EN applies - see reg 133.1.1.

- Andy.


Yes, indeed I am aware of that. However, let's not forget the controversy over whether SY, CY and YY cables are permissible within a BS7671 installation as they are to VDE (I think) standards. In fact, even some IET guidance suggests that they are not.

-------------------------
Walsh Electrical Services
http://www.walshelectrical.ie/
RECI REC & NICEIC Approved Contractor
Statistics

New here?


See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2017 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.

..