Maintenance Free vs Maintained Junction Boxes?

[sergeantash]

Surely we do have to take the word of manufacturers. Hager are reputable.

It would be like buying a switch rated at 100 amp, then saying 'what if it isn't'.

I too would be happier though if the MF stuff had some further approval, as there is still some uncertainty.

I guess the key here is, where would you stand in a court of law? - the legal act/building regulation that requires compliance would always without question override the manufacturers instructions, I would assume?

 

[JohnW2]

I too would be happier though if the MF stuff had some further approval, as there is still some uncertainty.

I don't think that, in terms of officialdom, there is any longer any 'uncertainty'. Amendment 1 of BS7671 specifically authorises the use of these JBs in inaccessible places, and introduced the (MF) symbol which they now bear. I don't pretend to be personally all that comfortable with the concept of any sort of inaccesible JB (or that problems with 'MF' ones will prove to be any less than with those with screw terminals), but that's just me - as far as BS7671 is concerned, the use of these MF JBs in inaccessible locations is now compliant.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[sergeantash]

I too would be happier though if the MF stuff had some further approval, as there is still some uncertainty.

I don't think that, in terms of officialdom, there is any longer any 'uncertainty'. Amendment 1 of BS7671 specifically authorises the use of these JBs in inaccessible places, and introduced the (MF) symbol which they now bear. I don't pretend to be personally all that comfortable with the concept of any sort of inaccesible JB (or that problems with 'MF' ones will prove to be any less than with those with screw terminals), but that's just me - as far as BS7671 is concerned, the use of these MF JBs in inaccessible locations is now compliant.

JohnW2 waffle translation - BS7671 approves JB's with the MF symbol for inaccessible locations, but johnny waffle doesn't like them and can't explain why.

I could'nt be bothered to count the words but I've reduced his 8 lines of waffle to 2, what a waste of space.

Just the sort of pathetic, childish and frankly embarrassing type of post that I mentioned above. A true professional would be ashamed to post such a response, grow up holmslaw or f*ck off because John is far more constructive, respectful, friendly and helpful than you ever could wish to be...pr1ck

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[JohnW2]

... he hides his profile but you can still do a "JohnW2" search.

For the record, my profile has never been hidden. It has always been accessible by 'All Registered Users', which is the forum's default.

Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It would be like buying a switch rated at 100 amp, then saying 'what if it isn't'.

No it wouldn't be. (Or, more accurately, wouldn't have been). Until 526.3 (vi) there was no exemption for maintenance free junction boxes. What there was were makers claiming that their product was exempt on the basis of an extraordinarily spurious interpretation of 526.3 (v).

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No you cannot, the regs state MI's must be obeyed without any conditions, laughable but a fact.

Why do you persist in making that claim?

Why, if there's a conflict between that one sentence in 134.1.1 and any other part of the Regulations, do you claim that that one sentence has absolute priority over everything else in the book, and must be followed no matter what other contraventions doing so creates?

Could it be because of your long-running and pathetic campaign to discredit the Wiring Regulations because you don't like them?

 

[sparkwright]

So do we think the MF symbol we have been hearing about is good enough to fit such a product in an inaccessible place?

And do we think fitting such a product in an inaccessible place is better or worse than a traditional screw terminal one?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So do we think the MF symbol we have been hearing about is good enough to fit such a product in an inaccessible place?

We are told that is is, but we are not compelled to use it.

And do we think fitting such a product in an inaccessible place is better or worse than a traditional screw terminal one?

We are told that it is better, but we are not compelled to fit any.

 

[JohnW2]

So do we think the MF symbol we have been hearing about is good enough to fit such a product in an inaccessible place?

BS7671 Amendment 1 (aka the IET) clearly now thinks so.

And do we think fitting such a product in an inaccessible place is better or worse than a traditional screw terminal one?

Personal opinions/intuitions clearly vary - with, I suspect, a good few in the "don't know" category.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[sergeantash]

Interesting thread here that is semi-related to what you're discussing:

The problem with the connector used by Ashley MF is that it fails to meet the requirements of
BS5733:2010
"14.3.6:
Screwless terminals which are intended to be used for theinterconnection of two or more conductors shall be so designed that:
a) during the insertion, the operation of the clamping part of one
of the conductors is independent of the operation of that of the
other conductor(s)"

Source: http://www.electriciansforums.co.uk...771-wagos-they-really-maintenance-free-2.html

 

[JohnW2]

Interesting thread here that is semi-related to what you're discussing:

The problem with the connector used by Ashley MF is that it fails to meet the requirements of BS5733:2010
"14.3.6:
Screwless terminals which are intended to be used for theinterconnection of two or more conductors shall be so designed that:
a) during the insertion, the operation of the clamping part of one
of the conductors is independent of the operation of that of the
other conductor(s)"

That is, indeed, very interesting. They certainly bear a BS5733 marking but they also certainly don't comply with what is quoted above. Mind you, whilst that appears to represent a technical violation of the Standard (i.e. naughty, perhaps even illegal!), if one is careful when inserting the conductors, to ensure that all remain inserted correctly, that violation shouldn't really affect their long-term performance.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If their claim of BS 5733:2010 compliance is false then they lose the exemption in 526.3 (vi).

 

[JohnW2]

If their claim of BS 5733:2010 compliance is false then they lose the exemption in 526.3 (vi).

They would indeed.

Kind Regards, John.