Re: What's a Small Round Thing Placed on a Pair of Phone Wires?

[jaykchan@hotmail.com]

> There are several configurations of Scotchlok connectors. One type
let's
> you insert the ends of 2 or 3 wires and connects them like a wire nut

Mine seems to serve this purpose. Good to know this. This means I can
get rid of it when I replace the old wire. Thanks for the confirmation.

By the way, is using this type of connectors a good way to connect two
sections of phone line. I am trying to find a good and low cost way to
extend existing phone lines. Thanks in advance for any info.

Jay Chan

[BruceR]

Scotchlok connectors are designed for that application as they provide a
tight, static free connection that won't deteriorate over time and the
insulation does not have to be stripped. I would NOT use wire nuts on
phone lines as they tend to weaken the condutors and break off.

From:jaykchan@hotmail.com
jaykchan@hotmail.com

>> There are several configurations of Scotchlok connectors. One type
>> let's you insert the ends of 2 or 3 wires and connects them like a
>> wire nut
>
> Mine seems to serve this purpose. Good to know this. This means I can
> get rid of it when I replace the old wire. Thanks for the
> confirmation.
>
> By the way, is using this type of connectors a good way to connect two
> sections of phone line. I am trying to find a good and low cost way to
> extend existing phone lines. Thanks in advance for any info.
>
> Jay Chan

[jaykchan@hotmail.com]

Thanks for the explanation. Now, I have one additional viable option
if I need to extend a phone line.

Jay Chan

[Dan]

BruceR wrote:
> Scotchlok connectors are designed for that application as they provide a
> tight, static free connection that won't deteriorate over time and the
> insulation does not have to be stripped. I would NOT use wire nuts on
> phone lines as they tend to weaken the condutors and break off.
>
> From:jaykchan@hotmail.com
> jaykchan@hotmail.com
>
>
>>>There are several configurations of Scotchlok connectors. One type
>>>let's you insert the ends of 2 or 3 wires and connects them like a
>>>wire nut
>>
>>Mine seems to serve this purpose. Good to know this. This means I can
>>get rid of it when I replace the old wire. Thanks for the
>>confirmation.
>>
>>By the way, is using this type of connectors a good way to connect two
>>sections of phone line. I am trying to find a good and low cost way to
>>extend existing phone lines. Thanks in advance for any info.
>>
>>Jay Chan
>
>
>
I have 3 kinds in my tool chest, a wiretap kind (red), one which will
connect 3 wires, and a yellow one , which will connect 2 small wires.
These things works so well, it's the only thing I will use now. I just
have to figure out where I can get them the cheapest. I also have the
Dolphin connectors, but I do like the 3M ones better.

dan

[BruceR]

I bought an S-load of Scotchloks and Beans on ebay - by far the cheapest
place if you hit it right.

From:Dan
haguru@gmail.com

> BruceR wrote:
>> Scotchlok connectors are designed for that application as they
>> provide a tight, static free connection that won't deteriorate over
>> time and the insulation does not have to be stripped. I would NOT
>> use wire nuts on phone lines as they tend to weaken the condutors
>> and break off. From:jaykchan@hotmail.com
>> jaykchan@hotmail.com
>>
>>
>>>> There are several configurations of Scotchlok connectors. One type
>>>> let's you insert the ends of 2 or 3 wires and connects them like a
>>>> wire nut
>>>
>>> Mine seems to serve this purpose. Good to know this. This means I
>>> can get rid of it when I replace the old wire. Thanks for the
>>> confirmation.
>>>
>>> By the way, is using this type of connectors a good way to connect
>>> two sections of phone line. I am trying to find a good and low cost
>>> way to extend existing phone lines. Thanks in advance for any info.
>>>
>>> Jay Chan
>>
>>
>>
> I have 3 kinds in my tool chest, a wiretap kind (red), one which will
> connect 3 wires, and a yellow one , which will connect 2 small wires.
> These things works so well, it's the only thing I will use now. I
> just have to figure out where I can get them the cheapest. I also
> have the Dolphin connectors, but I do like the 3M ones better.
>
> dan

[jaykchan@hotmail.com]

> Yes they are.

Thanks for the confirmation.

> Alternatively, you can use B-connectors.

I am afraid I need to pass on this one. I cannot find any information
about B-connectors themselves, and a B-connector-crimper is very
expensive.

Jay Chan

[BruceR]

These are "B" aka "bean" connectors.
http://comcables.com/ProductDetail.asp?ProdID=259&CatID=2542
No special tool is required. Just squeeze them with pliers.

From:jaykchan@hotmail.com
jaykchan@hotmail.com

>> Yes they are.
>
> Thanks for the confirmation.
>
>> Alternatively, you can use B-connectors.
>
> I am afraid I need to pass on this one. I cannot find any information
> about B-connectors themselves, and a B-connector-crimper is very
> expensive.
>
> Jay Chan

[jaykchan@hotmail.com]

> These are "B" aka "bean" connectors.
> http://comcables.com/ProductDetail.asp?ProdID=259&CatID=2542
> No special tool is required. Just squeeze them with pliers.

Thanks for the link. Nice to know that we don't need any special tool
to put them in place.

One question: Do we need to put a heat-shrink-tube around the
connection after we have connected the wires using the bean-connectors?
Jay Chan

[BruceR]

No. Just slip the bean over the unstripped ends and squeeze. My diagonal
cutters (aka dikes) have ribbed surfaces inside the handles just inside
of the hinge which are perfect for squeezing them.

From:jaykchan@hotmail.com
jaykchan@hotmail.com

>> These are "B" aka "bean" connectors.
>> http://comcables.com/ProductDetail.asp?ProdID=259&CatID=2542
>> No special tool is required. Just squeeze them with pliers.
>
> Thanks for the link. Nice to know that we don't need any special tool
> to put them in place.
>
> One question: Do we need to put a heat-shrink-tube around the
> connection after we have connected the wires using the
> bean-connectors? Jay Chan

[jaykchan@hotmail.com]

> No. Just slip the bean over the unstripped ends and
> squeeze. My diagonal cutters (aka dikes) have ribbed
> surfaces inside the handles just inside of the hinge
> which are perfect for squeezing them.

Thanks for the instruction. Seem like using B-connectors is a low cost
alternative to my plan of using a jack-and-plug combo.

I will still use my jack-and-plug approach to connect two sections of
phone lines together because I want to connect all the wires in the
phone line. That would be too cumbersome to use B-connectors to connect
all the wires of a phone line. But I would have used B-connectors if I
only wanted to connect two wires in each phone line.

Jay Chan

[wkearney99]

> Scotchlok connectors are designed for that application as they provide a
> tight, static free connection that won't deteriorate over time and the
> insulation does not have to be stripped. I would NOT use wire nuts on
> phone lines as they tend to weaken the condutors and break off.

It's not so much 'static free' as being a gas-tight connection. Things that
crimp the lines together with a blade-like pinch provide a connection that
avoids letting air into it to cause corrosion. Wire nuts have little or no
chance to do this for the very thin gauge wire that's used for telco. When
handling the thicker gauge of AC voltage it's much less of an issue, that
and there's not a noise factor. Bearing in mind, of course, the troubles
seen with aluminum wire and failing connections (for AC voltage).

When a good connection is made and stays that way it ends up being
static-free, not the other way around. Sort of 6 of one, half-dozen of the
other but it sometimes helps to know the actual reasons.

Regardless of what connection style you use it's crtical to avoid
mishandling the wire. The copper in there doesn't lend itself to being bent
too many times before you start to either break it completely or seriously
compromise it's ability to carry a noise-free signal.

-Bill Kearney

[wkearney99]

> I will still use my jack-and-plug approach to connect two sections of
> phone lines together because I want to connect all the wires in the
> phone line. That would be too cumbersome to use B-connectors to connect
> all the wires of a phone line. But I would have used B-connectors if I
> only wanted to connect two wires in each phone line.

Not entirely. They do make telco wall boxes that have no jacks on them.
They're just a box and a mounting bracket. They're used for precisely this
sort of thing. Granted it's a tight fit but it would work better with beans
that scotchloks as the beans take up less space and fold together better.
The trick lies in making sure you trim the wire and crimp the splices with
as little extra line as is practical. It's when you have too much extra
wire being crammed into a little box that it becomes problematic.

-Bill Kearney

[BruceR]

I meant static (sound) free as the result. As you said, the gas tight
connection prevents corrosion which prevents the "frying" static sound
from showing up on a cable. The frying sound is often the result of
moisture in a splice. A few weeks ago I had to have the telco swap pairs
to clear that up.

From:wkearney99
wkearney99@hotmail.com

>> Scotchlok connectors are designed for that application as they
>> provide a tight, static free connection that won't deteriorate over
>> time and the insulation does not have to be stripped. I would NOT
>> use wire nuts on phone lines as they tend to weaken the condutors
>> and break off.
>
> It's not so much 'static free' as being a gas-tight connection.
> Things that crimp the lines together with a blade-like pinch provide
> a connection that avoids letting air into it to cause corrosion.
> Wire nuts have little or no chance to do this for the very thin gauge
> wire that's used for telco. When handling the thicker gauge of AC
> voltage it's much less of an issue, that and there's not a noise
> factor. Bearing in mind, of course, the troubles seen with aluminum
> wire and failing connections (for AC voltage).
>
> When a good connection is made and stays that way it ends up being
> static-free, not the other way around. Sort of 6 of one, half-dozen
> of the other but it sometimes helps to know the actual reasons.
>
> Regardless of what connection style you use it's crtical to avoid
> mishandling the wire. The copper in there doesn't lend itself to
> being bent too many times before you start to either break it
> completely or seriously compromise it's ability to carry a noise-free
> signal.
>
> -Bill Kearney

[wkearney99]

> I meant static (sound) free as the result. As you said, the gas tight
> connection prevents corrosion which prevents the "frying" static sound
> from showing up on a cable. The frying sound is often the result of
> moisture in a splice. A few weeks ago I had to have the telco swap pairs
> to clear that up.

Yep, figured that was the point you were making but it always helps to
clarify it for all the other readers (and search engines) too. Good point
about moisture and static. It always helps debug line problems with you
track them over different weather conditions. That and knowing if the telco
folks have been mucking about in the nearby boxes...