Doepke board - can Protek be fitted in them?

[JohnW2]

John, consumer units are type-tested to BS EN 60439-3 (soon to become BS EN 61439-3). Each reputable manufacturer knows what his own manufacturing tolerances are and does enough testing to ensure that any of his MCBs will meet the performance and heat rise requirements when fitted to any of his enclosures. When another manufacturer copies either the enclosure or the MCB, or both, there is no assurance that the tolerances are met, and no type testing is done on the combination of products from different manufacturers. It is not a restrictive practice, it is simply good engineering.

I understand those principles, but I'm suggesting that is seems (to me) to be taking the concept of type testing to somewhat of an extreme.

To a large extent, the issue seems to arise because standards clearly do not result in compulsory 'standardisation' of MCBs. If (as I naievly would have expected to be the case) relevant standards defined the dimensions and heat generation of MCBs (I can't really think of any other relevant considerations), MCB-make-specific type testing would surely become an irrelevance.

Where does one stop? What would you feel if a manufacturer of accesories 'type tested' them with one make of cable, and produced instructions indicating that they should only be used with that make of cable? - or if a manufacturing of light fittings 'type tested' them with one make of lamps etc. etc.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[sparkybird]

mind you, one reason I don't mix and match if I can possibly help it is that I think it looks really unprofessional to see a range of breakers in the board - one board I saw recently had 3 different brands and it looked so messy!

SB

(Maybe that's just a bird thing though.....)

 

[JohnW2]

mind you, one reason I don't mix and match if I can possibly help it is that I think it looks really unprofessional to see a range of breakers in the board - one board I saw recently had 3 different brands and it looked so messy!

Sure, it can be aesthetically unpleasing - just as can a row of sockets or switches of different makes/designs - but it obviously would not be appropriate for regulations/MIs to compel use of a particular make for that reason!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

To a large extent, the issue seems to arise because standards clearly do not result in compulsory 'standardisation' of MCBs. If (as I naievly would have expected to be the case) relevant standards defined the dimensions and heat generation of MCBs (I can't really think of any other relevant considerations), MCB-make-specific type testing would surely become an irrelevance.

But they don't define the dimensions John, and so there's no guarantee that an MCB will fit another manufacturer's board, let alone function correctly in it.

Where do you think it should stop? Would you expect all manufacturer's overloads to fit all manufacturer's contactors, all shunt trips to fit all manufacturer's MCCBs, etc?
Accessories and cable is a bit of an extreme example, and also most if not all cable manufacturers don't manufacture cable. Actually some luminaires do specify the make of lamp that is intended to be used.

 

[JohnW2]

But they don't define the dimensions John, and so there's no guarantee that an MCB will fit another manufacturer's board, let alone function correctly in it.

I acknowledged that it is a the lack of proper standardisation which allows this to be a debatable issue, but I still believe that it is verging on taking the concept of 'type testing' to a silly extreme. Perhaps it's just me!

Whatever, it would surely make more sense if things as ubiquitous as MCBs were properly standardised, in which case we would not need to be having this discussion.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[stillp]

But they don't define the dimensions John, and so there's no guarantee that an MCB will fit another manufacturer's board, let alone function correctly in it.

I acknowledged that it is a the lack of proper standardisation which allows this to be a debatable issue, but I still believe that it is verging on taking the concept of 'type testing' to a silly extreme. Perhaps it's just me!

Whatever, it would surely make more sense if things as ubiquitous as MCBs were properly standardised, in which case we would not need to be having this discussion.

Kind Regards, John.

John, you're confusing standardisation and specification! This isn't a "lack of proper standardisation", quite the opposite since the issue is type testing, i.e. verification that the provisions of the standard have been met. There are no requirements relating to interchangeability or interoperability between different manufacturers so such interoperability cannot be verified. To include such requirements, e.g. dimensional standardisation, would inhibit new designs and so would go against the principles of standardising something's function and performance, rather than it's design.
MCBs are properly standardised. So are consumer units, or more correctly "low-voltage switchgear and controlgear assemblies intended to be installed in places where unskilled persons have access for their use". Their interchangeability is not standardised, properly or otherwise.

 

[riveralt]

I acknowledged that it is a the lack of proper standardisation which allows this to be a debatable issue, but I still believe that it is verging on taking the concept of 'type testing' to a silly extreme. Perhaps it's just me!

It is just you and it is not really a debatable issue. Standards are set by BS & EN - manufacturers are required to meet those standards and once done so can make their MCB's any size shape or colour they wish. The fact that you want MCB's to be a standard size and shape, perhaps not colour, is just not part of the capitalist system.

Whatever, it would surely make more sense if things as ubiquitous as MCBs were properly standardised, in which case we would not need to be having this discussion.

Indeed we would be living in a Stalinist state, where discussion would not be allowed. You WILL have this MCB otherwise you will have NOTHING!!!!!

 

[JohnW2]

John, you're confusing standardisation and specification! .... To include such requirements, e.g. dimensional standardisation, would inhibit new designs and so would go against the principles of standardising something's function and performance, rather than it's design.

I suppose I was using 'standardisation' in the everyday, rather than technical, sense, and I would not want a situation which inhibited true design innovation.

However, I think that some things are so ubiquitous that they should really be 'generic' and interchangeable. This not only enhances convenience and 'consumer choice', but (in the real, imperfect, world) can often also enhance safety. Imagine the hypothetical situation in which BS1363 plugs were allowed to contain fuses with subtly different dimensions - than would cause both chaos and hazards. One could cite countless other situations in which non-interchangeabily would be a nightmare.

In terms of MCBs, whilst I'm sure that some are of superior design, particularly in relation to reliability and durability (they presumably all have to achieve certain standards in relation to functionality), such differences would not be precluded by having interchaneability. Again, I have to ask whether it is 'just me' - but do people believe that there is some legitimate explanation for the subtle differences in terminal arrangements other than a deliberate attempt to prevent interchangeability?

Nor does a system which is one of interchaneability for the mass market necessarily preclude a manufacturer from producing non-interchageable designs/products. That's quite a common situation in a wide range of fields. For example, the requirement for interchangeabily of generic medicines does not in any way inhibit the development and sale of innovative ones.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

It is just you and it is not really a debatable issue. Standards are set by BS & EN - manufacturers are required to meet those standards and once done so can make their MCB's any size shape or colour they wish. The fact that you want MCB's to be a standard size and shape, perhaps not colour, is just not part of the capitalist system.

'Standardisation', in the everyday sense of 'interchangeability', is a widely-accepted concept within a capitalist system, and does not preclude innovation and design variations.

Indeed we would be living in a Stalinist state, where discussion would not be allowed. You WILL have this MCB otherwise you will have NOTHING!!!!!

That's a rather odd thing to say, since the main argument for physical interchangeability is that it would facilitate competition and consumer choice.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[stillp]

[do people believe that there is some legitimate explanation for the subtle differences in terminal arrangements other than a deliberate attempt to prevent interchangeability?

Nor does a system which is one of interchaneability for the mass market necessarily preclude a manufacturer from producing non-interchageable designs/products. That's quite a common situation in a wide range of fields. For example, the requirement for interchangeabily of generic medicines does not in any way inhibit the development and sale of innovative ones.quote]
What would be wrong with a deliberate attempt to prevent interchangeability? The incentive for a manufacturer to design MCBs that are not interchangeable with other makes comes from the need for type testing and the manufacturers' willingness to stand by the performance of their type-tested assemblies. Even in the days of rewireable fuses in conumer units, the fuse carriers weren't interchangable between different makes. When you fit a Hager MCB in a Doepke board, who will you blame if it overheats or doesn't work?
The same in other fields. Just try claiming under your car's warranty for a brake failure if you use replacement brake pads from Halfords!

I don't work in the pharmaceutical field, but I have a close relative who works in drug development who tells me that the need for interchangeable 'generic' dugs has a huge effect by limiting the income of the big pharms companies and therefore restricting research in those fields that are not likely to reap huge rewards, such as drugs used for treating the more unusual diseases.

 

[JohnW2]

What would be wrong with a deliberate attempt to prevent interchangeability? The incentive for a manufacturer to design MCBs that are not interchangeable with other makes comes from the need for type testing and the manufacturers' willingness to stand by the performance of their type-tested assemblies.

It seems to be a circular argument. As I said, if dimensions and heat production were dictated by the relevant standards, then the need for manufacturer-specific type testing (hence the 'incentive' for deliberately creating non-interchangeability) would not really exist, would it?

The same in other fields. Just try claiming under your car's warranty for a brake failure if you use replacement brake pads from Halfords!

That's a somewhat different issue, and a somwhat different situation. In that situation, the consumer at least has to option to use the Halfords' product if they so wish.

I don't work in the pharmaceutical field, but I have a close relative who works in drug development who tells me that the need for interchangeable 'generic' dugs has a huge effect by limiting the income of the big pharms companies and therefore restricting research in those fields that are not likely to reap huge rewards, such as drigs used for treating the more unusual diseases.

Well, it is, for my sins, one of the fields in which I work. What you say is, in itself, partially true, but it's not really relevant to the discussion we're having here. You're now really talking about Intellectual Property Protection (patents etc.), and the balance between that and the capitalist desire for competition, 'consumer choice' and 'public interest'. The analogy might be if, say, Hager had invented and patented the MCB and expected everlasting exclusivity in terms of manufacture and supply of all MCBs, arguing if they were not allowed to profit (some would say excessively) from that monopoly, charging whatever they liked (such is a monopoly!) they would be less able to invest in the development of new innovative products.

My point was simply that, given that generic drugs exists (for better or worse), it is clearly essential that they are 'standardised and interchanable', since it would be unacceptable if Boots' paracetamol was different from Tesco's paracetamol, BUT that the existence of those interchangeable generics in no way prevents any company from developing 'paracetamol plus', and then marketing it in competition with paracetamol.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[stillp]

The analogy might be if, say, Hager had invented and patented the MCB and expected everlasting exclusivity in terms of manufacture and supply of all MCBs, arguing if they were not allowed to profit (some would say excessively) from that monopoly, charging whatever they liked (such is a monopoly!) they would be less able to invest in the development of new innovative products.

My point was simply that, given that generic drugs exists (for better or worse), it is clearly essential that they are 'standardised and interchanable', since it would be unacceptable if Boots' paracetamol was different from Tesco's paracetamol, BUT that the existence of those interchangeable generics in no way prevents any company from developing 'paracetamol plus', and then marketing it in competition with paracetamol.

Kind Regards, John.

No, I'm talking about the ability of a manufacturer to recoup the costs of development and to protect themselves against generic competition from the Chinese and Indian copyists who copy the designs but probably don't do the same extent of testing.
I don't see that it would be unacceptable if Boots' paracetamol was different from Tesco's. My point was that the existence of generic paracetamol means that the market price will drop to something close to the lowest price supplier, so if Tesco choose to market their parcetamol as a loss leader, that will bring down the market price, reducing Boots' profit to the point where they can no longer afford to do the research into new drugs, or more accurately they can't afford to get the approvals and licenses for new drugs.

 

[JohnW2]

I think I should start by apologising for the thread drift so severe that much of it has moved away from anything electrical The principle being discussed is, however, still roughly on-topic ).....

No, I'm talking about the ability of a manufacturer to recoup the costs of development and to protect themselves against generic competition from the Chinese and Indian copyists who copy the designs but probably don't do the same extent of testing.

As I said, that’s what patent protection is for. If a company develops a truly innovative (hence patentable) product, they get exclusivity for up to 20 years. That’s probably plenty for an electrical product (which can be got to market quite quickly, and most of which will be obsolete before the patent expires). There’s more of a problem in the pharmaceutical industry, because the very long timescale of pharmaceutical product development and licensing is such that the products are lucky if they’ve got much more than 10 years patent protection left by the time they get to market.

Of course, there is one way in which ‘the world’ suffers from this system (in addition to suffering from the high price which comes with a monopoly supplier). As well as preventing poor Asian copies appearing, it also prevents better versions of the product being developed by competitors, unless the change is conceptually so great that it does not infringe the original patent.

I don't see that it would be unacceptable if Boots' paracetamol was different from Tesco's.

Oh dear What you have to understand is that developing a new drug and testing it to establish its quality, safety and efficacy (and then securing a licence for it) takes a decade or so and costs a ‘nine figure’ sum. The only way in which generic copies are allowed to exist (after patent expiry) without going through the same expenditure of time and money is by demonstrating that they are identical to the established and licensed product. If Tesco, or anyone else, wanted to produce a ‘sort-of-paracetamol’ (even a 'better-than-paracetamol'), they are free to do so, but they’d need to start from scratch and spend that decade and lots and lots of money – but, even then, they would not be allowed to call it paracetamol. That would be the pharmaceutical equivalent of calling something a ‘Type B MCB’ even though its operating characteristics were totally different from those you would expect of a Type B MCB! Drug names are ‘standardised’, just as electrical products have to comply with relevant Standards - so that, in both cases, one knows that it will do 'what it says on the tin'.

My point was that the existence of generic paracetamol means that the market price will drop to something close to the lowest price supplier, so if Tesco choose to market their parcetamol as a loss leader, that will bring down the market price, reducing Boots' profit to the point where they can no longer afford to do the research into new drugs, or more accurately they can't afford to get the approvals and licenses for new drugs.

You’ve got the facts slightly wrong. Both Tesco’s and Boots’ paracetamol products (as well as dozens of other ‘paracetamols’) are generic copies of paracetamol originally sold under the proprietary name ‘Panadol’, first marketed in 1955 – i.e. 56 years ago. After a series of takeovers and mergers, the owner of Panadol (which they still market) is GSK, one of the largest pharma companies in the world. Do you think that they should still be enjoying ‘paracetamol exclusivity’ after those 56 years, and probably charging the public 10, 20 or more times more than the current price of paracetamol? You may feel (as the pharma industry obviously does) that the 10 or so years of patent-protected marketing they usually get is not enough to support their R&D of new products, but I think most people would agree that such a monopoly is not needed, and should not be allowed, for 56 or more years.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

If a company develops a truly innovative (hence patentable) product, they get exclusivity for up to 20 years.

That's correct in theeory, but enforcing that 'exclusivity' is hugely expensive and the outcomes often disappointing.

The patentable aspects of many electrical products have market lifetimes of around 20 years or even much longer, althought the designs might change.

As you point out, I'm not familar with the pharms industry, and hadn't appreciated that drugs have to be identical, rather than 'at least equivalent', to meet the licence requirements. I think I'm now beginning to understand why you sometimes have unrealistsic expectations of standardisation in the electrical industry.
I do understand the costs and timescales of drug testing and approvals, hence my comment that those costs act as a barrier to the development of the more specialist drugs, since those costs are unlikely to be recoverable.
Your comparison of generic MCBs with generic paracetamol is interesting, and illustrates the difference between drug licensing and electrical standardisation quite well. I can well imagine that someone could make a better MCB, in that it held more closely to the trip curves than the standard required, perhaps by better control of manufacturing tolerances, but without any alteration to the patentable principles of operation.
The difference is that drug licences seem to specify the exact chemical/molecular content of e.g. paracetamol, rather than their effect, whereas the standard for MCBs treats them as 'black boxes', and specifies their performance with little if any interest in how those performance objectives are achieved.

 

[JohnW2]

If a company develops a truly innovative (hence patentable) product, they get exclusivity for up to 20 years.

That's correct in theeory, but enforcing that 'exclusivity' is hugely expensive and the outcomes often disappointing.

That’s true, but there are really no ways of trying to enforce exclusivity that do not involve very expensive recourse to the law – and, as you say, not necessarily with good outcomes. However, recalling how this discussion started, attempting to maximise one’s sales by ‘recommending’ that only one’s own MCBs be used in a CU is hardly a very enforceable technique. The bit I didn’t really like is the fact that BS7671 to some extent gives some small ‘teeth’ to that ‘recommendation’ – which I don’t think is what it really intended to (or should) do.

[quote As you point out, I'm not familar with the pharms industry, and hadn't appreciated that drugs have to be identical, rather than 'at least equivalent', to meet the licence requirements.

There isn’t really any choice with drugs. The amount of work involved in establishing (to the satisfaction of a very demanding society) that a drug is effective and safe is enormous, and the only way of avoiding having to go through all that for a ‘generic copy’ is to show that it is absolutely identical to an established product which has been through that assessment process.

Nor is this just hypothetical. The current stringency arose out of events back in the 60s/70s, when tens or hundreds of thousands of patients suffered (and a substantial number died) as a result of ‘non-identicalness’. Generic versions of the widely-used heart drug digoxin began to appear, all of which, on the face of it were ‘essentially identical’ to the original product; the tablets certainly contained the same amount of digoxin. However, it transpired that, because of very subtle differences in the ‘recipe’ and manufacturing methods, swallowing some of these generics resulted in more digoxin being absorbed into the body than was the case with original drug. Countless patients were therefore unwittingly ‘overdosed’, very many became ill and a good few died.

I think I'm now beginning to understand why you sometimes have unrealistic expectations of standardisation in the electrical industry.

Maybe, but pharmaceutical products have been but one part of my life. Another relevant part has been medical electronic devices, which are obviously much closer to the electrical industry. I was also brought up with a father who was a Standards Engineer in the aeronautical industry (‘obsessed with screw threads;’ was the way I viewed it at the time!), so I had a lot of the concepts of Standards in mechanical engineering drummed into me over the years

Your comparison of generic MCBs with generic paracetamol is interesting, and illustrates the difference between drug licensing and electrical standardisation quite well. I can well imagine that someone could make a better MCB, in that it held more closely to the trip curves than the standard required, perhaps by better control of manufacturing tolerances, but without any alteration to the patentable principles of operation.

Exactly – and in that situation, the inventor of that ‘better’ MCB would not be allowed to exploit it, or make it available to the world, unless they entered into some licensing or other deal with the patent holder. That is arguably not ‘in the public interest’, even in a capitalist society.

The difference is that drug licences seem to specify the exact chemical/molecular content of e.g. paracetamol, rather than their effect, whereas the standard for MCBs treats them as 'black boxes', and specifies their performance with little if any interest in how those performance objectives are achieved.

The ‘standard’system for licensing of (new, not generic copy) drugs is not much different from the situation with electrical items. They are treated as ‘unknown black boxes’ and are assessed in relation to their performance (safety and efficacy), without much concern as to how that performance is achieved. The difference is that assessing performance may only takes days, weeks or months of bench testing for an electrical product, but years and a king’s ransom for a drug. As I’ve said, if one has a generic copy of an established drug, one has to either go through that standard procedure, or else demonstrate that it is absolutely identical to something which has been so assessed.

Kind Regards, John.