Using none manufactures parts in CU's re (segregation of lighting circuits and rcd protection)

[Sidewinder]

This thread is an associated topic of debate originally started here:-

http://www.talk.electricianforum.co.uk/question-answer-board/19232-segregation-lighting-circuits-residual-current-device-bs-en-61008-protection.html

==================================================================================

I would bite the bullet and fit an rcbo. A 6A rcbo is part of my standard kit of parts I now carry for such situations. The cost of doing so is little different to the time it would take you to reconfigure the existing board, and it would be a much better solution.Of course there is the chance of uncovering a borrowed neutral can of worms, but you don't know until you try, or do some testing.

Dave,

How many 6A RCBO's do you have to carry to cover all the possible makes of board!

Remember the board makers have decreed that you may not mix makes of breaker and board!!! ]

 

[ProDave]

Dave,How many 6A RCBO's do you have to carry to cover all the possible makes of board!

Remember the board makers have decreed that you may not mix makes of breaker and board!!! ]

Well not the answer you want, but ONE.

If the busbar height is correct, I fit it. I don't go in for all this nonsense of can't mix different makes. :coat

 

[Sidewinder]

Dave,

I have taken this up with an MCB maker at "quite a high level" and, I have had a tangible explanation.

To be honest I could not find fault with their point of view.

I disagree with some of the reasons why this is the case, but, their case is watertight, and, it is deficiencies in the standards that result in this situation.

I feel that they are hiding behind standards, however, the standards require this.

So, please realise that, now, when you mix breakers YOU are taking on total liability not just for your work but, for the design of the board, and I MEAN FUNDAMENTAL design, based on information you will NOT have!

I don't feel it should be, but, this is the way it is and we can't avoid it, we are going to have to comply, or else we are going to have to ensure that we have Product Liability insurance as well as our PI & Public Liability.

The product insurance would be expensive as it would have to cover modifications to products which were not tested to the product standard undertaken by persons who did not have the product standards or the ability to test the product in line with these standards.

YES it is a PAIN, BUT, I can't see a way out, the manufacturers have it sown up!

 

[PC Electrics]

We used to have this problem in the auto industry, whereby manufacturers could reject warranty claims if the car was serviced anywhere other than an authorized dealer even if parts used met the necessary standards.

Laws were passed that ensured that the owner of a car may have the vehicle serviced and repaired at any outlet of his choice. Provided that the parts used meet the necessary testing requirements then the manufacturer cannot reject any warranty claim.

Seems this law needs expanding to cover other industries and products.

 

[Sidewinder]

Trouble is PC the standards that apply require the assembly (i.e. the assembled CU) to be tested with every allowable combination of MCB's fitted!

This is just not viable for any CU maker.

 

[steptoe]

what next,?

we have to use crabtree cable?

and MK LEDs?

where does it end? its yet another get out for the insurance companies,

are you allowed to use a different make of blank? and what about the tails?

so, if the DNO fits a WYLEX REC2 and we use DRAKA tails, are we allowed to fit a HAGER CU? (with MG blanks?)

next thing we know they'll be stopping RWB cables and dogcocks will be banned too!!!

headbang

 

[PC Electrics]

Do you not supose that auto makers said the same thing? Once the requirement was enshrined in law the standards were re-written. No need to test a Hager board with Wylex MCBs (as an example). Hager and Wylex MCBs are tested to the same standard and are therefore performance compatible.

The manufacturers are hiding behind the standards just like the auto makers did. The law simply breaks down the wall.

 

[Sidewinder]

Steps,

I DON'T LIKE it, but, it does follow from the standards they HAVE to meet to sell their products legally into the market.

To comply with the standard for an assembled CU, to allow them to sell this, they HAVE to test every one of their compatible MCB's in EVERY location in the CU and verify that the temperature rise is within that allowed by the standard, at FULL LOAD current.

There is NO WAY that ANY maker can do this with every combination of every makers MCB, as other makers could change their specs without the testing maker knowing.

Hence I feel that the standards are inadequate, however, the makers are within their rights and actually correct in their opinion, unfortunately.

 

[Sidewinder]

PC,

This was my argument with the manufacturer, however, the standards WILL require re-writing to meet such requirements, and the components will need subsequent re-testing to the new standards to allow compatibility.

HOWEVER, the existing standards do not cover sufficient grounds to allow this, we can only work with what we have.

There is NO chance of getting the standards re-written, the market is just too small in comparison to the auto repair market.

This industry can't even get its training in order FFS!

We will HAVE to comply with the makers instructions to comply with 7671 end of, until this and a raft of other standards are re-written by committees that include a majority of makers reps, like this will ever happen!

 

[steptoe]

I understand that SW,

but, they 'could' tell us only connections made using cable A are acceptable, could they not?

only fixings made by screwbobs plc are acceptable,

as for blanks, Im assuming the same as MCBs,

stuffing glands, grommet strip etc, all out there to void the warranty and help the insurance Cos not pay out.

 

[Doc Hudson]

Gents we need to be careful not to take freedomruns thread to much off topic. Possibly useful to open a new thread on the mix-n-match MCB's and put a link to this thread? I can move some of these posts over to a new thread.

Doc H.

 

[Sidewinder]

Not quite Steps.

They HAVE to certify their CU's to a certain standard.

That standard requires that they test them with every combination of mcb's for it to pass, there is no mention of cables, fixings, blanks etc. it is to do with Joule heating primarily within the CU.

 

[steptoe]

:Blushing

sorry

 

[Sidewinder]

Gents we need to be careful not to take freedomruns thread to much off topic. Possibly useful to open a new thread on the mix-n-match MCB's and put a link to this thread? I can move some of these posts over to a new thread.Doc H.

Carry on Doc if you wish.

 

[steptoe]

back on track,

SW, so then how do MCBs meet standards?

or are some manufacturers stating their products exceed the standard and therefore they cannot guarantee AN Others being used to drag their product down?

 

[Doc Hudson]

I think that worked, thread re-opened.

Doc H.

 

[Jono Pashley]

Im unsure that id lose any sleep over it personally...

 

[lkayelectrical]

I all ways keep a few rcbos in the van the pro elec ones from cpl seem pretty good and not a bad price fitted in quite a few boards with no issues

 

[Doc Hudson]

I would be inclined to think, looking at it as a risk assessment, taking into account the real world and some of the pick and mix domestic CU's already out there. The average domestic CU would be at far less risk than a large commercial installation where loads are proportionally much higher.

Doc H.

 

[Apache]

I've just spent a dull 20 minutes reading the MK technical brochure with installation instructions. At no point do the instructions say to only fit MK breakers in an MK board. The characteristics are given for the breakers, but at no point does it specify only to fit in an MK board

http://www.free-instruction-manuals.com/pdf/p3265650.pdf

Now I understand it would contravene the regulations if it did, but you find it written down in black and white for me!

The implication is the MCB would function as described in any environment, not just an MK enclosure