MSF100 Switch fuses and amended regs

[EFLImpudence]

Just because I could eat something, that does not make it edible.

Not according to the definitions:

 

[JohnW2]

But that's the point. As there is no specific definition, the only thing which we can do is to use the "everyday" definitions of the words used.

As I said, you can argue that. However, even the 'everyday' definition of "easily" cannot quantify its meaning, and therefore down to a (probably context-dependent) judgement on the part of the person using the word.

In context, I suspect that many people's everyday use of the phrase "not easily burned" would probably embrace materials which few of us would regard as satisfying the spirit of the assumed intention of the regulation concerned.

I really don't think much is to be gained by debating this issue at the present time - with the current regulation, few, if any, electricians are going to install CUs in a domestic environment other than ferrous metal ones, regardless of any 'academic' discussions about the wording, and possible interpretations, of the regulation. We really need to wait until the DPC of BS7671:2018 is published, ascertain whether the proposed changes make the situation any more sensible/clear and, if not, make our representations.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Because there is a product standard that defines precisely what is required, which in the opinion of those who were 'sure', was sufficient.

But does that allow one to ignore another Standard (BS7671) which requires, in certain circumstances (the product standard is presumably 'generic'), compliance with that product Standard and something else (that 'something else' being ill-defined)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Are you being deliberately obtuse John? I'm saying that many people felt that the imprecise requirement in Amdt 3 was met by using a CU conformant to BS EN 61439-3. However the marketplace, some trade associations, and many people employed in the electrical industry did not agree, and felt that a ferrous metal enclosure was necessary.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Not according to the definitions:

You've just proved my point.

Look at the definition of edible which you have quoted, and consider whether something suddenly fits that definition just because someone does eat it.

 

[stillp]

does that allow one to ignore another Standard (BS7671)

No of course it doesn't. No standard can mandate ignoring another standard.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Are you being deliberately obtuse John? I'm saying that many people felt that the imprecise requirement in Amdt 3 was met by using a CU conformant to BS EN 61439-3. However the marketplace, some trade associations, and many people employed in the electrical industry did not agree, and felt that a ferrous metal enclosure was necessary.

How authoritative are those people?

Do they have the power to impose their beliefs on peers who feel that the requirement in Amendment 3 is met by using a CU conformant to BS EN 61439-3?

 

[stillp]

Well, they clearly have that power de facto.

 

[JohnW2]

No of course it doesn't. No standard can mandate ignoring another standard.

Indeed - so what was your point? The fact that a product complies with the (general) product standard surely does not alter the fact that one has to comply with (if one can understand it!) BS7671's requirement that, in certain circumstances (domestic installations), there are requirements in addition to those in the product standard, does it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Are you being deliberately obtuse John?

No.

I'm saying that many people felt that the imprecise requirement in Amdt 3 was met by using a CU conformant to BS EN 61439-3.

I realise that's what you're saying. I am saying that, although that might be some people's personal view, the imprecise nature of the reg in BS7671 means that it's quite impossible for anyone to know whether that view is correct.

However the marketplace, some trade associations, and many people employed in the electrical industry did not agree, and felt that a ferrous metal enclosure was necessary.

As I said, I don't think that they necessarily "did not agree" (indeed, I suspect that most did agree), but they wanted to 'play it safe' and use the one material that no-one was ever going to claim was non-compliant with BS7671.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

The fact that a product complies with the (general) product standard surely does not alter the fact that one has to comply with (if one can understand it!) BS7671's requirement that, in certain circumstances (domestic installations), there are requirements in addition to those in the product standard, does it?

Of course not. Where did I suggest that? I'm trying to explain that many people felt that the requirement in BS7671 was met by products conforming to 61439-3. Many of them have now been persuaded to change their minds.

 

[EFLImpudence]

You've just proved my point.

I may have done - but was trying to show the (in my mind obvious) flaw in the definition.

Some things definitely are eatable whilst not conforming to that definition, so - is it wrong?
Or - do we not call ingesting materials which clearly are not food, eating - or do we have another word for it?


Does eatable (or edible) apply only to that we can eat easily?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Of course not. Where did I suggest that? I'm trying to explain that many people felt that the requirement in BS7671 was met by products conforming to 61439-3.

... but, as John said, it clearly states that and non-combustible.

 

[JohnW2]

Of course not. Where did I suggest that? I'm trying to explain that many people felt that the requirement in BS7671 was met by products conforming to 61439-3. Many of them have now been persuaded to change their minds.

You never suggested that, but I don't really think that the point you're making is either surprising or particularly relevant.

I think that not only 'many' but, rather, the great majority of, people (including most of us here) believe that compliance with 61439-3 ought to be adequate, in domestic, as well as other, environments. However, none of us can be sure that that would (in a domestic environment) be considered to be compliant with BS7671 - hence everyone is 'playing safe' by going for ferrous metal. I feel sure, for example, that many EICRs would have something to say about non-metal CUs, particularly if installed after 1st Jan 2016 - and people just don't want the hassle created by all this uncertainty.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

I am feeling increasingly attracted to the idea of putting a metal cabinet round the whole lot.

Possibly with a lift-off door, but even better with the "door" fixed to the wall and the "cabinet" hinges or lifts off it for easiest access.

 

[JohnW2]

I am feeling increasingly attracted to the idea of putting a metal cabinet round the whole lot. ... Possibly with a lift-off door, but even better with the "door" fixed to the wall and the "cabinet" hinges or lifts off it for easiest access.

It's definitely tempting. Also, don't forget that the metal enclosure doesn't have to be particularly 'clever'. All that the regs appear to require is that it is made of a "non-combustible" material (say metal), without any requirement as regards 'fire containment' etc. It would therefore seem that it would be technically compliant even if it were full of holes (and there would not even be a requirement as regards IP rating if, as would be the case, it was not 'enclosing' any live parts)!

Kind Regards, John