Fitters connect sockets in different ways, is it the right one?

Hello, I am not an electrician, but a person who undergoes a general renovation, including electrics - boxless installation. The installers laid the entire installation and will take measurements, but I noticed that each of them connects the sockets differently (mainly 2-4 sockets in a long box), can you help me verify that everything is ok?

However, before I posted the topic, I searched a bit on the Internet and rather everyone commented on the correct way, i.e. each of the three wagos connects two through cables (L/N/PE) and we also branch the wires to the sockets from each wago, i.e. if there are three sockets, then the wago should have 5 "ports" (this is what one electrician from the left in photo 1 did), the other one did differently, claiming that it was a pass-through socket (photo 2, a much older electrician and what seems to me to be a bad connection, but referred to the attached instructions on the socket (photo #3). I tried to find such a connection on the Internet, but I couldn't find it. As for photo No. 3, looking at the electrode forum and what I read, I would do the wago connector and only from the wago connector would I go to the sockets and connect them only as in photo No. 2, not directly / through. Am I wrong?

I am asking for help, because if they also measure, they can mask their mistakes, and I have no basis or knowledge to undermine someone else's work. I'm just afraid of problems when using this installation in the future.
Thank you very much in advance

The brown (phase) should be on the left. The use of WAGO is perfectly acceptable, as is the use of wire bridges. A matter of convenience/time/cost.

As long as the measurements come out OK and the appropriate cross-section is used, there is nothing to complain about.

Two wires can be screwed to one socket without any problems - three not necessarily, and if you don't need to use WAGO, there is no need. And if you need to use WAGO, you can use the appropriate WAGO and single bridges. At least when something doesn't work, you know where the problem is.

Neuromancer_Kathar wrote:

The brown (phase) should be on the left.

On what basis? The subject has been brought up many times, and there will always be someone who "orders".

Neuromancer_Kathar wrote:

The brown (phase) should be on the left.

Don't write nonsense, my friend.
Don't write nonsense.
The position of the phase as well as on the right side is correct.
Of course, it is advisable that the entire facility should be the same.

And it doesn't matter whether you use Wago in the case of through-sockets or connect the wires on terminals.
After all, the manufacturer of the equipment allowed the introduction of two wires.

It was invented by specialists from OHS.

The inventions are in PN-90E-01242

Identification markings of device terminals and cable terminations - Additional information point 6 with drawings of sockets attached therein"

In the drawings, L is on the left. So much for the topic.

adek- wrote:

I tried to find such a connection on the Internet, but I couldn't find it.

You searched hard.



Read it. Slowly and accurately.
Boxless installation of socket outlets, step by step

retrofood wrote:

adek- wrote:

I tried to find such a connection on the Internet, but I couldn't find it.

You searched hard.



Read it. Slowly and accurately.
Boxless installation of socket outlets, step by step

Without being picky about reading it carefully, I read this article and based on it, I described that everyone recommends doing it (photo 1), because it is correct, and the connection that I did not find and which I pick on was related to photo No. 2, i.e. without a cube - socket 1 comes from the switchgear, socket 3 comes out and goes to the wall. Isn't it so that if any of these sockets in this variant burns out or is damaged, the circuit is interrupted? However, in this better situation, when the scale is on, the current goes along the line of least resistance through the scale, without engaging the sockets (of course, if nothing is turned on and does not consume power)?

Please correct me if I'm wrong and tell me if this socket is good (photo 2), because that's all I care about. Do you guys install like this?

PS when it comes to phase and side, there are markings and cables on the terminals according to of this socket are properly plugged in, assuming that brown is phase and blue is N.

adek- wrote:

However, in this better situation, when the scale is on, the current goes along the line of least resistance through the scale, without engaging the sockets (of course, if nothing is turned on and does not consume power)?

Misconception. In the case of direct connection, only the terminals of the socket participate in the current flow, and their construction allows it.
Of course, the version with wago strips and terminal blocks has the advantage that after the socket is damaged, the circuit is not interrupted.

elpapiotr wrote:

In the case of direct connection, only the terminals of the socket are involved in the current flow, and their construction allows it.
Of course, the version with wago strips and terminal blocks has the advantage that after the socket is damaged, the circuit is not interrupted.

Thank you for the information, and is such a connection justified and will it be better in something, e.g. the circuit will not be interrupted, and only the sockets from the damaged one will not work, or is this "my" logic invention from outer space? Sorry for the very amateur drawing and for the stupid question of a dilettante, but how did I get here .

adek- wrote:

Please correct me if I'm wrong and tell me if this socket is good (photo 2), because that's all I care about. Do you guys install like this?

We assemble at home as in the picture I attached. That is, the wires are connected with connectors, and it goes to the socket only one set of them!!! Regardless of how many of these sockets there will be!
Do not make connections on the terminals of the socket, this is not a good idea.

Added after 1 [minutes]:

adek- wrote:

Thank you for the information, and is such a connection reasonable and will it be better in something,

It doesn't make sense and it won't get better.
That's all. If you want it, listen to it, if you don't want it, do what you want.

He's not from outer space.
This drawing shows a mixed connection.
A better solution is the combination presented by a colleague retrofood in post #6
P.S. You beat me to it

Just as a curiosity. In England the phase must be connected to the left. This is because UK plugs always have a fuse on this pin.

So please make a final decision:
either both methods are ok or not,
if one is not prohibited, it is allowed, but generally it should be the same throughout the premises. So set the author as you want and period.
It's like with the phase wire on the left side: it doesn't have to be, but nothing prevents it from being there.
This burned socket argument makes no sense to me: I'm excited about socket ico? I don't care and repost to the next one because the second one is good, I don't delete it right away, only later?

Both methods are correct, and the method without WAGO has only one advantage - it is cheaper and this is where the advantages end. WAGO, on the other hand, ultimately gives a more secure connection - because not everyone tightens the screws with the recommended NM.

So there is nothing to crush the copy - the author as an investor should make a decision as he wants, which is very strange that he has several electricians and everyone does as he sees ...

Waski85 wrote:

Just as a curiosity. In England the phase must be connected to the left. This is because UK plugs always have a fuse on this pin.

Are you sure?

The standard does not specify the "only correct" method of connection, it certainly does not prohibit connection in the manner provided for in the construction of the device (here sockets with terminals for two wires)
- so all the rest is the pious wishes of people such as the founder of the topic (I don't know, but I'm making a fuss) and poetry written by electricians who want to be above all regulations,
who think that their opinion is the truest truth of all truths.

How to make such connections without Wago? Simply, by all other means available before Wago was launched on the market.
Wago is just a product like any other; with the freedom to choose to use it or not.
However, it is characterized by one detail - aggressive expansion into the market.
Let me remind you that the certificate of this product is not an obligation to use it in every situation without exception, it is also not a norm that absolutely requires its use. The use of a Wago connector at one point does not prohibit the use of another connection method at another point.

Therefore, statements about unprofessional connection, because it was made on the terminals of the socket - should be treated as mere gibberish, these statements are even harmful to those who do not use Wago in their installations, using other ways/methods of connection.

pikarel wrote:

Therefore, statements about unprofessional connection, because it was made on the terminals of the socket - should be treated as mere gibberish, these statements are even harmful to those who do not use Wago in their installations, using other ways/methods of connection.

This statement is, to use your words, "gibberish" and "the pious wishes of people like you who want to be above the rules of all, who think that their opinion is the truest truth of all truths".
Make some electrical installations, try to bend three 2.5 mm2 wires at once, checking their position all the time, and compare it with bending 6 (six!) 2.5 mm2 wires at the same time, without seeing their location in the box, without seeing whether the wire does not slip out of the clamp, at the same time pressing the socket into the box, which still needs to be firmly and permanently attached.

Then you won't write nonsense.

adek- wrote:

elpapiotr wrote:

In the case of direct connection, only the terminals of the socket are involved in the current flow, and their construction allows it.
Of course, the version with wago strips and terminal blocks has the advantage that after the socket is damaged, the circuit is not interrupted.

Thank you for the information, and is such a connection justified and will it be better in something, e.g. the circuit will not be interrupted, and only the sockets from the damaged one will not work, or is this "my" logic invention from outer space? Sorry for the very amateur drawing and for the stupid question of a dilettante, but how did I get here .

Yes, your layout is OK. It makes the most sense, because disconnecting the socket does not break the circuit, and the through-connection of subsequent sockets within one box (when using 5-pole WAGO) simplifies stuffing the wires in the box.
However, through-connection of the entire circuit (without WAGO, as in the second photo from the first post) is not prohibited and is used. But I do not recommend.
PS The connectors you have used are "WAGO type" connectors, not WAGO. It can make a difference though. Pointless savings.

Erbit wrote:

Neuromancer_Kathar wrote:

It was invented by specialists from OHS.

The inventions are in PN-90E-01242
...

Show it to the health and safety men and ask why a product that does not comply with their standards is allowed on our market and has a safety certificate.

Do you mean absolute positioning relative to the pin? My guess is that the purpose of the standard was not absolute alignment but relative.

Here is the factory socket for the TH bus from ETI with the N terminal marked on the left side:

And how does someone mount such a double socket horizontally?

This phase must be at the top Relatively, of course.

Łukasz-O wrote:

Here is the factory socket for the TH bus from ETI with the N terminal marked on the left side:

You should add "looking at the socket so that the N terminal is on the left".

stomat wrote:

This phase must be at the top Relatively, of course.

Łukasz-O wrote:

Here is the factory socket for the TH bus from ETI with the N terminal marked on the left side:

You should add "looking at the socket so that the N terminal is on the left".

Schuko sockets need not be subject to PN How will it be subject to some DN ;)


Practically, it does not matter where which page is, but if there is a PN, it is for something.

Neuromancer_Kathar wrote:

... but if there is any PN, it is for something.

There is no standard regulating this issue.

There used to be Legrand sockets available in this country where the terminals were described.
The L terminal was on the right.

kkas12 wrote:

Neuromancer_Kathar wrote:

... but if there is any PN, it is for something.

There is no standard regulating this issue.

There used to be Legrand sockets available in this country where the terminals were described.
The L terminal was on the right.

And PN-90E-01242?

Okay, I see, the standard has been withdrawn. You will have to take a look at PN-EN 60445:2018-01

quote please.