Commercial RCD protection for sockets

[Sidewinder]

I can assure you that my statements are correct and the reason for the omission.

I have copies of both standards.

I had a discussion with the Director of one of the companies that makes BS 7288 products accompanied by an IET representative from JPEL/64 where this was discussed in detail, and we were shown the timeline of emails discussing this with the committee responsible for the standard in question.

This occurred during Elex Sandown Park a few weeks ago.

I can assure you, that their use at this point in time for additional protection does not comply with the requirements of BS 7671, anyone is free to call the NICEIC and tell them to ring me & I'll explain it to them.

They won't, they don't like me it seems.

If the wording in BS 7288 is a mistake and a corrigendum is issued stating so, then this will open the flood gates for all of those designed into installations following the publication of the 18th to become legitimised.

If this is not so, and there is a genuine technical reason for the statement in BS 7288, and this remains, then they will become an irrelevant product.

The NICEIC will then have an issue on their hands as to the advice they have provided, hence why it is not given in writing.

 

[Murdoch]

Unfortunately I am going to stick my heels in and disagree with JPEL/64 etc all (not you Sidewinder) but this situation is clearly a mess with no clarity

II am of the opinion that a RCD socket or RCD FCU WILL make a situation safer than a circuit without RCD protection - it is our responsibility to make things safer and that as far as I am concerned is enough.

If the intention is to say you can't use these devices without a RCD at the CU, well then Billy the bathroom fitter, Kev the kitchen fitted and Paul the plumber won't bother at all ..........

What ever the manufacturers or JPEL/64 think, you can't force Joe Public to part with their money ............ and as far I see, there are more and more undocumented electrical works being done, by sparks and all other trades ..............

 

[Sidewinder]

Well Murdoch, it's not JPEL/64 who made the decision on whether these devices are suitable for additional protection or not.

The decision was made by the persons responsible for producing the product standard to which these devices are manufactured.

This would be PEL/23/1.

The issue is "supplementary protection" this is not allowed to be accomplished by RCD this is additional or reinforced insulation or supplementary bonding.

It may be an error in wording, it may be that there is something in the design of the products to the standard that will not meet the requirements for additional protection by RCD.

Either way, JPEL/64 are correct in their interpretation.

It is PEL/23/1 that need to review the wording.

We should not second guess, because there could be an issue identified that we are not aware of.

I agree it's a mess, but, it's a mess that we have to deal with.

If there is an issue with the design from a standards standpoint that does not offer the requirements for additional protection, then this could be serious as there are probably over 10k of thse being fitted per month, that is a lot of recalls, if, they are unsuitable.

If they are not, then once a statement & corrigendum are issued by Pel/23/1, then they can be used as intended, with a deviation until the next Amd of BS 7671.

The IET or JPEL/64, may be persuaded to issue a supplementary statement, they may not.

 

[Andy™]

They won't, they don't like me it seems.

there's probaly a long list of those who dont like you

 

[Phoenix]

@Sidewinder

1) Is there any reason an accessory manufacturer couldn't put out a product to BS1363 and BSEN61008? or is there something in these standards which would prevent them being used together in this way.

2) If an RCD socket was to claim it met both BS7288:2016 and the earlier BS7288:1990 I guess you could use it for additional protection?

3)Do you think someone on a commitee is trying to make a point about what quite a few of must have noticed, that these devices have quite a high in service failure rate

 

[Sidewinder]

@Sidewinder

1) Is there any reason an accessory manufacturer couldn't put out a product to BS1363 and BSEN61008? or is there something in these standards which would prevent them being used together in this way.

2) If an RCD socket was to claim it met both BS7288:2016 and the earlier BS7288:1990 I guess you could use it for additional protection?

3)Do you think someone on a commitee is trying to make a point about what quite a few of must have noticed, that these devices have quite a high in service failure rate

1) The product standard for 61008 excludes devices such as those in a  7288 device, thus can't do that.

2) Once a standard is replaced, the old one cannot be used to claim compliance with safety laws.

3) I don't know the reason, but I do know that BEAMA are involved and they are virtually the trade union for the manufacturers on the BSI committees, so if they have allowed this through it is either one big mistake or there genuinely is something in this.

 

[Murdoch]

Ah BEAMA ... the less said about that bunch the better.

 

[Sidewinder]

Ah BEAMA ... the less said about that bunch the better.

Remember, they are out to protect their members, this time the standard has hung them out to dry, so read into that what you will.