Another BS 5733 "not quite"?

[ban-all-sheds]

Indeed it is - and, in turn, I am saying that I am far from sure that is the place of a BS to 'require' that, in order to conform with itself, a product which conforms to some other technical Standard has to be marked in some particular way to indicate its conformation with that other Standard.

There is no difference between that, and a BS requiring that, in order to conform with itself, a product which conforms to some other technical Standard has to have any additional features.

You agree that BS 7671 is NOT saying that an MF accessory does not conform with BS 5733 unless it has some sort of marking. So what are you objecting to which you consider is "not the place" of BS 7671 to require wrt conformance with itself?

There are no standards which require a mixed-colour warning notice apart from BS 7671. Is it "not the place" of BS 7671 to require one for conformance with BS 7671?

Are you claiming that BS 7671 should not require anything which is not already required by other standards?

 

[JohnW2]

... this is from BS 1363:1984 Incorporating Amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6: ...

As I've said, I may be wrong, and we need stillp, or someone with similar knowledge, to advise us.

Quite frankly, I cannot get in any way excited about the question of whether or not 'MF' junction boxes are bureaucratically 'required' to bear an 'MF' symbol. I am far more interested/concerned about the long-term behaviour of the sort of connections we are talking about, since 'accelerated testing' can never be guaranteed to properly mirror the true passage of time.

A friend of mine is a restorer of old clocks and watches. Albeit we're talking about the materials of yesteryear, he tells me that it's surprising how much the 'springiness' of springs can sometimes deteriorate over time, sometimes only a decade or three.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Quite frankly, I cannot get in any way excited about the question of whether or not 'MF' junction boxes are bureaucratically 'required' to bear an 'MF' symbol.

Well you were excited enough to go on about it at length here. In fact to actually introduce the question. And now that it looks like you might be wrong you are exhibiting the sort of behaviour you have done before, which is to suddenly declare that you don't actually care.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

A friend of mine is a restorer of old clocks and watches. Albeit we're talking about the materials of yesteryear, he tells me that it's surprising how much the 'springiness' of springs can sometimes deteriorate over time, sometimes only a decade or three.

TBF those springs are being continually "worked".

 

[JohnW2]

Well you were excited enough to go on about it at length here. In fact to actually introduce the question.

You were the one who raised the question, initially suggesting (in my thread about Wago 221s) that appropriate Wagos could not be acceptable as 'MF', then resurrecting an old thread on the subject and now starting this new thread.

And now that it looks like you might be wrong you are exhibiting the sort of behaviour you have done before, which is to suddenly declare that you don't actually care.

Indeed, I don't really care about the 'bureauracy', and certainly was not the one who raised the issue. What matters more to me is how well these connectors perform in the long-term.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Dick Dastardly]

A long time lurker. I deal with standards daily so I may be able to help here...

BS 5753 does not require maintenance free accessories to be marked with any additional marking. What it does state is that if a symbol for maintenance free is used on the accessory, it should take a particular form ie the letters MF contained within a circle

 

[EFLImpudence]

I wouldn't be surprised if the authors of BS7671 just thought that MF boxes would have the symbol marked on them and just wrote that so that we thickies could tell if they were MF more easily.

To satisfy BS7671 requirements, can we just write the symbol on any BS5753 box which is not so marked?

 

[JohnW2]

A long time lurker. I deal with standards daily so I may be able to help here... BS 5753 does not require maintenance free accessories to be marked with any additional marking. What it does state is that if a symbol for maintenance free is used on the accessory, it should take a particular form ie the letters MF contained within a circle

Thanks very much for clarifying.

What is your view about BS 7671 requiring that a maintenance free junction box should comply with BS 5733 and have the symbol (as defined, seeming as 'optional' from what you say, by BS 5733)? Is that a reasonable thing for a Standard to say?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I wouldn't be surprised if the authors of BS7671 just thought that MF boxes would have the symbol marked on them and just wrote that so that we thickies could tell if they were MF more easily.

I wouldn't be surprised, either.

To satisfy BS7671 requirements, can we just write the symbol on any BS5753 box which is not so marked?

Very good question. Given that BS 5733 apparently does not require it, and that BS7671 does not say who has to 'put' the symbol on a product which conforms to the requirements of BS 5733 (or how it should be 'put on'), one might well argue that one could do just as you say, and then, for what it's worth, be in conformity with BS7671!

Anyway, from my personal viewpoint, if I'm concerned about any of this it is in relation to whether the product conforms with BS 5733, regardless of what markings it does or does not have.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

So standards can, and do, require markings as part of conformance requirements.

Interesting, and contrary to what I thought. However, in terms of what Standards are meant to achieve, it would seem very trivial to say that something did not conform only because it was not marked with an indication that it did conform.

mfarrow says that BS 5733 does, which means that:...

What mfarrow wrote now seems to be in doubt and, if it is not correct, then what you've written about the consequences would obviously no longer be applicable.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You were the one who raised the question, initially suggesting (in my thread about Wago 221s) that appropriate Wagos could not be acceptable as 'MF', then resurrecting an old thread on the subject and now starting this new thread. Indeed, I don't really care about the 'bureauracy', and certainly was not the one who raised the issue.

I posed the question about whether BS 5733 requires enclosures to be marked MF, or if that is an extra added by BS 7671. It is an important question, as it might/might not invalidate claims of BS 5733 compliance by some manufacturers, and thus

What you raised, and remained "excited" about enough to wilfully misinterpret what the word "and" means was the principle of whether any standard should or could require markings or could or should require other standards to do so. A subject still exercising you:

However, in terms of what Standards are meant to achieve, it would seem very trivial to say that something did not conform only because it was not marked with an indication that it did conform.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What is your view about BS 7671 requiring that a maintenance free junction box should comply with BS 5733 and have the symbol (as defined, seeming as 'optional' from what you say, by BS 5733)? Is that a reasonable thing for a Standard to say?

Is it reasonable for it to say that within domestic (household) premises, consumer units and similar switchgear assemblies shall comply with BS EN 61439-3 and shall have their enclosure manufactured from non-combustible material?

Is it reasonable for it to say that within domestic (household) premises, consumer units and similar switchgear assemblies shall comply with BS EN 61439-3 and shall have their enclosure manufactured from non-combustible material and shall have a notice warning of mixed colour conventions in the wiring?

 

[JohnW2]

I posed the question about whether BS 5733 requires enclosures to be marked MF, or if that is an extra added by BS 7671.

That's quite recent. You started all this discussion about BS 5733 when, in the thread I started to ask whether I should be changing from Wago 222a to 221s, you wrote:

As an aside - I hope people who use Wago connectors do not do so in inaccessible locations (or, if they do, they do not then claim compliance with BS 7671), because they are not Maintenance Free in the context of 526.3 (vi).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

To satisfy BS7671 requirements, can we just write the symbol on any BS5753 box which is not so marked?

Very good question. Given that BS 5733 apparently does not require it, and that BS7671 does not say who has to 'put' the symbol on a product which conforms to the requirements of BS 5733 (or how it should be 'put on'), one might well argue that one could do just as you say, and then, for what it's worth, be in conformity with BS7671!

Anyway, from my personal viewpoint, if I'm concerned about any of this it is in relation to whether the product conforms with BS 5733, regardless of what markings it does or does not have.

And if, as seems might be the case, BS 5733 affords a degree of flexibility in assembling a complete MF "accessory" (The coffin-shaped Wagoboxes are not made by Wago, nor are the Wagobox XL or XLA, and those are not made by the manufacturer of the first), why should someone not use MF connectors (e.g. Ideal), in an enclosure of their own choice and deem it an MF accessory?

Clearly that the box be purpose designed for the connectors and have to house them tightly cannot be a requirement (despite Connexbox wanting to sell adapters to allow the use of 221s and 2273s in boxes designed for 222s and 773s), or the Wagobox Light wouldn't comply, as photos show the connectors lying fairly haphazardly inside

Who, I wonder, is the arbiter of compliance? The maker of the connectors or the maker of the enclosures?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's quite recent. You started all this discussion about BS 5733 when, in the thread I started to ask whether I should be changing from Wago 222a to 221s, you wrote:

As an aside - I hope people who use Wago connectors do not do so in inaccessible locations (or, if they do, they do not then claim compliance with BS 7671), because they are not Maintenance Free in the context of 526.3 (vi).

Indeed I did, because 526.3 (vi) requires the accessory to carry the MF mark, and at the time my belief was that Wagoboxes did not carry it. If the mark was not a requirement of BS 5733 then a claim of BS 5733 compliance would not be false because the mark was missing, but a claim of BS 7671 compliance would be, irrespective of which of the two standards required the mark. I was questioning BS 7671 compliance, not 5733.

As you must have seen when you removed it in that quote, I subsequently applied an edit to that post in light of information received.