Mixed brand MCBs and EICR coding

[stillp]

Seems to fit though, so it must be OK...

 

[Iggifer]

Must be fine! Just don't tell Kai. shhhh

 

[kai]

Well today I found the solution to the photo I posted earlier in the thread. The opposite way around though, Eaton into a Wylex board.

Gotta give the guy points for thinking outside of the box

View attachment 94628

That looks like a DIY bodge job to me! - I thought a key feature of the din-rail-mount-system fusebox, was to enable the easy identification of attempted DIY or other subsequent modifications to installations, after their original installation date!

 

[JohnW2]

In any case, history is not a guide to probability.

Hmmm. I can't actually think of any way in which one could obtain an estimate of the probability of these sort of events occurring other than on the basis of 'historic data'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

What sort of events?
How many fatal incidents are you aware of that are due to undersized shower cables? Probably none. Does that prove that it's OK to install too small a cable? (Or too big a shower?)

 

[JohnW2]

What sort of events? How many fatal incidents are you aware of that are due to undersized shower cables? Probably none. Does that prove that it's OK to install too small a cable? (Or too big a shower?)

Are you deliberately trying to introduce confusion and 'tie me in knots'?

I was talking about the theoretical possibility and incidence of 'incidents' (not necessarily fatal ones) caused by mixed-make devices in a CU, and it was you who responded:

OK, what about the known (perhaps not to you) facts?

I then said that I would be very interested to hear of any facts about the issue (which, I agree, certainly aren't currently known to me) I'd been discussing, and you have since been evasive about what those facts are, or even what they relate to.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Iggifer]

Well today I found the solution to the photo I posted earlier in the thread. The opposite way around though, Eaton into a Wylex board.

Gotta give the guy points for thinking outside of the box

View attachment 94628

That looks like a DIY bodge job to me! - I thought a key feature of the din-rail-mount-system fusebox, was to enable the easy identification of attempted DIY or other subsequent modifications to installations, after their original installation date!

How does the DIN rail system tell you whether it was a DIYer or a rough spark that did it?

I would put my weeks wages on the fact that was not done by a DIY guy - ignoring what I know about the installation, as that's unfair

1. Wylex breakers are sold off the shelf at almost all DIY stores - Eaton are not
2. An Eaton C16 would be a wholesaler breaker, as would the one to its immediate right
3. Not sure a DIYer would've even thought to put it upside down

True, he could have got the breaker off eBay/from a wholesalers but if he was going to that much trouble I suspect they would have got the correct breaker

It's much more likely that it was the only 16a the guy had on his van at the time - maybe he intended to go back one day and change it, we'll never know

 

[kai]

The trouble is that the lever will be Down for On, which is both dangerous and confusing for the layman, hence the DIY suggestion, and of course against the Type A board Din-Rail-Mount system standards, where UP is ON and Down is Off. This standard is internationally recognised, even in Mainland China (look at Alibaba and the circuit breaker pages!).

 

[Iggifer]

The trouble is that the lever will be Down for On, which is both dangerous and confusing for the layman, hence the DIY suggestion, and of course against the Type A board Din-Rail-Mount system standards, where UP is ON and Down is Off. This standard is internationally recognised, even in Mainland China (look at Alibaba and the circuit breaker pages!).

I realise this, as I've already mentioned. Still doesn't mean it was done by a DIYer

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The facts I would be interested in seeing would be those relating to the incidence of serious problems due to mixed-make devices (which 'fit') in a CU.

Applying the highest standards of professional responsibility and duty of care, do you KNOW that they fit properly and do you KNOW that there CANNOT EVER BE ANY problems from mixing?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I was waiting for that, and almost pre-empted it! I'm talking about 'common sense identical'.

Applying the highest standards of professional responsibility and duty of care, do you KNOW that they fit properly and do you KNOW that there CANNOT EVER BE ANY problems from mixing?

 

[stillp]

Are you deliberately trying to introduce confusion and 'tie me in knots'?

No, that's just a side benefit! I was trying to demonstrate that a history of incidents is not necessary in order to know something is potentially dangerous.

I then said that I would be very interested to hear of any facts about the issue (which, I agree, certainly aren't currently known to me) I'd been discussing, and you have since been evasive about what those facts are, or even what they relate to.

I don't think I've been evasive. I was pointing out that there are facts about the possible dangers of mixing products from different manufacturers, that are known to engineers in the business of design and manufacture of MCBs and CUs. I have no doubt you would be interested in those facts, but I'm not going to post any further information, one reason for which is that I'm currently advising on a legal issue resulting from the supply of mismatched protective devices.

 

[333rocky333]

The trouble is that the lever will be Down for On, which is both dangerous and confusing for the layman, hence the DIY suggestion, and of course against the Type A board Din-Rail-Mount system standards, where UP is ON and Down is Off. This standard is internationally recognised, even in Mainland China (look at Alibaba and the circuit breaker pages!).

I realise this, as I've already mentioned. Still doesn't mean it was done by a DIYer

I proberly see at least 1 a week fitted backwards like that, even entire 3 phase boards with the correct make but all the breakers reversed, all places were done and maintained by so called tradesman

 

[JohnW2]

The facts I would be interested in seeing would be those relating to the incidence of serious problems due to mixed-make devices (which 'fit') in a CU.

Applying the highest standards of professional responsibility and duty of care, do you KNOW that they fit properly and do you KNOW that there CANNOT EVER BE ANY problems from mixing?

Of course I don't. Why on earth do you think that (as I said above) I would be interested in seeing "the facts" (which stillp rightly indicated I am unaware of) about the incidence (whether zero or greater) of any such problems?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I was trying to demonstrate that a history of incidents is not necessary in order to know something is potentially dangerous.

Not if the danger really is a demonstrable fact. If it is known that a cable of a certain CSA will definitely overheat seriously if a certain current passes through it, then one doesn't need any in-service data to know that such use of such a cable would be dangerous. Similarly, if it were known that a certain combination of devices of different makes in a CU would definitely (at least, commonly) result in serious overheating, or other malfunction, of one or more of the devices, then one would not need any in-service data to know that that combination of devices (and maybe other mixed-make combinations) was dangerous. However, if all one has is a theoretical argument as to the mechanism whereby a certain set of circumstances could/might result in some danger, then one needs data in order to quantify the risk of that 'potential danger'.

I was pointing out that there are facts about the possible dangers of mixing products from different manufacturers, that are known to engineers in the business of design and manufacture of MCBs and CUs.

Maybe I am wrong. If these engineers really do have 'facts', then I might change my views. In other words, if they could show me empirical evidence that a certain combination of different brands of devices in a CU resulted fairly consistently in something dangerous happening, then I would certainly take notice of that.

However, although I may be wrong, I suspect it's not like that. I suspect that what they know is a theoretical mechanism whereby mixed-make devices could/might result in a danger, without ever having demonstrated that it actually happens (at all, let alone consistently) in practice.

I don't think I've been evasive. I was pointing out that there are facts about the possible dangers of mixing products from different manufacturers, that are known to engineers in the business of design and manufacture of MCBs and CUs. I have no doubt you would be interested in those facts, but I'm not going to post any further information ....

Fair enough. Needless to say, without those facts, whether they come from you or elsewhere, I really cannot discuss this topic very intelligently.

Kind Regards, John