CU change pricing?

[EFLImpudence]

I would have thought that they are probably quite pleased that they can use an abomination of a regulation as a means of increasing their profits!

http://www.ewnews.co.uk/index.php/hamilton-takes-a-fresh-look-at-circuit-protection/

 

[JohnW2]

Anyway - does this mean an end to the good old 800KMF?

In domestic property certainly.

Maybe - but as I've just written, I wonder what they are made out of.

... and, although we've not discussed this much, what about the vague term "...and similar switchgear assemblies"? If it catches a 800KMF, it would only be a small step from there to bring FCUs, and maybe even high current switches (as in showers and cooker controls) etc. into the melting pot!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I would have thought that they are probably quite pleased that they can use an abomination of a regulation as a means of increasing their profits!

http://www.ewnews.co.uk/index.php/hamilton-takes-a-fresh-look-at-circuit-protection/

They look/sound nice and cheap

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Untitled

• flameport
• 25 Jan 2015
• 2

No point quoting that - it is meaningless.

They might just as well have said that the CUs etc have to be installed by someone who arrives riding a unicorn - that would be no harder to comply with than 421.1.201.

As far as I am concerned, if they create a regulation which is impossible to comply with one is perfectly entitled, in fact one has no choice but to, ignore it.

 

[JohnW2]

As far as I am concerned, if they create a regulation which is impossible to comply with one is perfectly entitled, in fact one has no choice but to, ignore it.

That would be reasonable were it not for the fact that they make it explicitly clear that, as far as they are concerned (and hence as far as the reg is concerned), ferrous metal "is" (although we all know that it isn't!) "an example of a non-combustible material". That being the case, it is possible to comply with what they have written (in the regulation) by using a CU with a ferrous metal enclosure.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That would be reasonable were it not for the fact that they make it explicitly clear that, as far as they are concerned

I'm afraid that "as far as they are concerned" does not have the right magic powers to change the physical properties of materials, the laws of physics etc.

(and hence as far as the reg is concerned), ferrous metal "is" (although we all know that it isn't!) "an example of a non-combustible material".

But they are wrong, and therefore everything predicated on that mistaken belief is also wrong. 421.1.201 is invalid.

That being the case, it is possible to comply with what they have written (in the regulation) by using a CU with a ferrous metal enclosure.

No it is not.

It does not matter what they say in the note - using ferrous metal does not give you an enclosure which is manufactured from non-combustible material. They cannot deem themselves into changing the nature of materials, it doesn't work like that.

 

[davelx]

Now, if Note 1 had said "Until specific standards are identified, enclosures contructed of Ferrous metal, e.g. steel, are deemed to meet the requirements of 421.1.201(i)", I think we'd all know where we were.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Adding "until specific standards are identified" does not magically change the properties of materials.

 

[davelx]

Adding "until specific standards are identified" does not magically change the properties of materials.

I'm not saying it does. If you read what I wrote again, you'll see that my wording DOES NOT deem non-ferrous metals to be non-combustible. They cannot do that - as you say, they don't own the laws of physics. They CAN however, deem a CU made of non-ferrous metal to meet the requirements of a specific regulation which they DO own.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not saying it does. If you read what I wrote again, you'll see that my wording DOES NOT deem non-ferrous metals to be non-combustible. They cannot do that - as you say, they don't own the laws of physics. They CAN however, deem a CU made of non-ferrous metal to meet the requirements of a specific regulation which they DO own.

Indeed - and, as I've said, I believe that is the effect of the wording they have used. They have made it very clear that a ferrous metal CU would be compliant with their new regulation, but have left it anything-but-clear as to what other materials would also be compliant (although they at least imply that some other materials would be compliant).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

They cannot deem themselves into changing the nature of materials, it doesn't work like that.

They can't. However, they can deem that a CU made of a particular material would be compliant with their regulation - and I would imagine that any Court would conclude that such is the effect of what they have written (in relation to ferrous metal).

Kind Regards, John

 

[skenk]

So, BAS, if steel is combustible, what's the ignition temperature? And how would you expect to reach that temperature in a fire?

(cue a load of rubbish about the wording of the regs but no actual answers)

 

[JohnW2]

So, BAS, if steel is combustible, what's the ignition temperature?

A quick bit of Googling suggests that it may be around 816°C.

And how would you expect to reach that temperature in a fire?

I would imagine that 816°C (if that's the correct figure) is far from unknown in domestic fires.

However, as I've said, I don't think there is any doubt that even the wording of the regulations makes it clear that a CU made of ferrous matter would be regarded as (deemed to be) compliant with the new regulation, regardless of arguments about the impossibility of literal 'non-combustibility'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

They CAN however, deem a CU made of non-ferrous metal to meet the requirements of a specific regulation which they DO own.

No, they can't, because they have said "non-combustible". Once having said that they do not have the power to magically declare something non-combustible when it is not. Science and engineering do not work like that.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

They can't. However, they can deem that a CU made of a particular material would be compliant with their regulation

No, they can't, because they have said "non-combustible". Once having said that they do not have the power to magically declare something non-combustible when it is not. Science and engineering do not work like that.