different t splicing method

I don't know if this is old information, but I came up with this method of making t splices using a non-insulated crimp connector. https://picasaweb.google.com/112669300518977811960/TSplice?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCOi2_8uLy8_M7QE&feat=directlink Basically you cut off the spade and use the special crimping tool. In my car I have already seen many of those crimped connectors, however used with the spade :-). So it should be a reliable type of connection. What do you think? Lucas

Sorry, the link is: Link to Picasa Lucas

Cool splice

Very good. And quite solderable too. Thanks!

Bloody waste of time, sorry but 1" (25.4mm) of shrink plus solder will do a better job for less money and time.

Hmmm - I don't disagree... And I'll usually do just that - twist the wires (for physical strength) and solder, then insulate - these days with heatshrink! Sometimes I don't solder for various reasons - eg the classic intended "temporary install" or emergency fix. (And not that I recommend a twist-only join, but my temps and emergencies are still working fine even after a decade. Of course, being a professional I know how to twist with quality ) But IMO that splice "trick" is handy because it may be a better splice than mere twisting in emergency etc situations where soldering is impractical. And it looks more professional than a twist - even if it is soldered. Also I note that my vehicles have the same type of splice joins as OEM wiring - and no solder. Admittedly the OEM crimp U or ring may be stiffer than the type shown, but I have never had one of those OEM splices fail. And yes, my daily (and only!) drive for the past 13 years has been a 1965 ute, and it's been as bogged and abused as my 1964 competitive rally car. In fact the only problems I have had with the OEM wiring is connector corrosion (after say 20 years) and heat-hardening etc of terminal ends and insulation leading to eventual vibration breakage. However my vehicles predate modern low-current (hi impedance) circuits like sensors & ECUs etc, though I have added my own such circuits.   Nevertheless, it amazes me how well the mere physical electrical joints (crimps) have held! But I agree with Howard - a soldered join should be better and will be better if twisted (ie, physically stronger, especially if "soft" crimps are used), and is probably simpler and quicker. And for low-signal stuff like alarms, audio inputs or ECU sensors etc, to not solder is usually asking for trouble.

One more point. A good solder joint LOWERS the contact resistance at the joint.

Only if there is no solder between the copper to copper contact - ie, surrounding solder prevents oxidisation of that contact - and where whetted, the cu-solder-cu resistance remains less than an oxidised cu-cu contact. That's in cases where solder has worse conductivity than cu which is usually the case. Of course any solder provides conduction between the otherwise non-conducting inter-circle cu gaps. But a high-contact area (crushed) high pressure solderless crimp verses more circular soldered cu...? Alas I occasionally tease with the "why better conductivity" (lower resistance) if solder has a higher resistance than the copper? But I provided the main reason for that (ie, the non-contacting "raw" copper surfaces). But why should I provide such spoilers?

Isn't this where you poke and wrap... WB Howie... Missed ya man...M.E.C.P & First-Class

Go slow and drink lots of water...Procrastinators' Unite...Tomorrow!

Poke and wrap AND solder works for me, thank you Tommy.