Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 27 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 2776 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Older boards and availability/compatibility of devices

psychicwarrior
I know, I know, its been a subject of many threads over the years...but I am bringing it up again.  More a moan I think over the inflexibility (perhaps with good reason I accept sometimes) at times.


Old Volex board - not even split load...all MCB.   In good order, all aspects look lovely.   Ideally, time for a board change....well if you think so ;-)


Now then,  some minor works (circuit extension) would dictate  the requirement for RCD protection.   Solutions, shift the circuit to small outboard BS61008 enclosure; new board...or source and fit RCBO, which seems perfect and is the most cost-effective and simplest...other than...it seems that using another manufacturer RCBO is seriously frowned on... by Volex at least (and I am sure others).   Well I've known this for a while, but never faced a situation where doing so would be the most feasible option.


Is it really that bad to fit another brand device into an old board...what really are the *real* safety risks if the thing is secure and fits.  I cant really think of any other than fluff - assuming its same rating etc and sits nice.


I've heard the phrase type tested and I take it that means that everything in a consumer unit was tested to perform to standards etc when it was made up.  Then putting in a different RCBO means that is now 'broken' as such.


My question and I am just trying to understand the technical and regulatory issues here:  is it not possible at all, to issue a MEIWC to current Regs as a result of putting in a different branded RCBO (I cannot re-do the type testing etc of course!) and where might/is that prohibition backed up in the 'frustrating' Regs Book please ?




Parents
  • 0

    AJJewsbury:




    Im presuming though that its about ensuring compliance with the standard in force at the time it was made up, not the latest (when altering things)



    That sounds sensible, but if my reading of 536.4.203 is correct, I think the actual wording of the requirement is to meet the current BS EN 61439 series ... so my implication including those to earlier (possibly incompatible) standards. Doesn't sound too practical does it?

       - Andy.

     




    No it does not sound practical; It sounds...[insert assessment here] :-)    I will look up that Reg soonest, because from what you say it seems to imply that if any work is done then everything must be brought up to current Regs.   Perhaps an ideal, but not always the most feasible or sensible especially in terms of, if the work does not detriment the safety of the installation from what it was before the alterations, then there really is no issue.   Of course, if substancial work is taking place it may make sense to do a board change etc (then must comply with the standars in force etc) and I suppose catering for all grey areas is not what BS7671 is trying to do.  


    If one could show the work done was *electrically* safe, perhaps to previous Regs even, (not focusing on using different brand devices which may never have been an approved approach it seems) and create a  non-compliant-with today certificate, then what's the issue.  Only kidding of course.


    [edited again - when i press delete, words I'm not deleting disappear sometimes and cursor jumps around a bit oddly]

Reply
  • 0

    AJJewsbury:




    Im presuming though that its about ensuring compliance with the standard in force at the time it was made up, not the latest (when altering things)



    That sounds sensible, but if my reading of 536.4.203 is correct, I think the actual wording of the requirement is to meet the current BS EN 61439 series ... so my implication including those to earlier (possibly incompatible) standards. Doesn't sound too practical does it?

       - Andy.

     




    No it does not sound practical; It sounds...[insert assessment here] :-)    I will look up that Reg soonest, because from what you say it seems to imply that if any work is done then everything must be brought up to current Regs.   Perhaps an ideal, but not always the most feasible or sensible especially in terms of, if the work does not detriment the safety of the installation from what it was before the alterations, then there really is no issue.   Of course, if substancial work is taking place it may make sense to do a board change etc (then must comply with the standars in force etc) and I suppose catering for all grey areas is not what BS7671 is trying to do.  


    If one could show the work done was *electrically* safe, perhaps to previous Regs even, (not focusing on using different brand devices which may never have been an approved approach it seems) and create a  non-compliant-with today certificate, then what's the issue.  Only kidding of course.


    [edited again - when i press delete, words I'm not deleting disappear sometimes and cursor jumps around a bit oddly]

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines