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

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

  • AJJewsbury:




    because from what you say it seems to imply that if any work is done then everything must be brought up to current Regs



    I don't think it's quite as bad as that - by my reading at least it's only when you're adding devices not specified by the original assembly manufacturer - if you could find an MCB that was officially compatible then you're fine (and the assembly only needs to remain compliant with its original standard). As I read it it's just saying that if you add in "wrong" devices today, you need to ensure that the overall result complies with today's standards.


      - Andy.

     




    I think so too.  What I was meaning is that I could see someone trying to argue that making any changes in the board means that what ever is done meets todays Regs (inc. assembly, selection standards and so forth).  At the least, I am happy that changing a device or adding a new device in an old board is fine so long as the original manufacturer supports/approves/confirms/whatever , 'it'. 

Reply

  • AJJewsbury:




    because from what you say it seems to imply that if any work is done then everything must be brought up to current Regs



    I don't think it's quite as bad as that - by my reading at least it's only when you're adding devices not specified by the original assembly manufacturer - if you could find an MCB that was officially compatible then you're fine (and the assembly only needs to remain compliant with its original standard). As I read it it's just saying that if you add in "wrong" devices today, you need to ensure that the overall result complies with today's standards.


      - Andy.

     




    I think so too.  What I was meaning is that I could see someone trying to argue that making any changes in the board means that what ever is done meets todays Regs (inc. assembly, selection standards and so forth).  At the least, I am happy that changing a device or adding a new device in an old board is fine so long as the original manufacturer supports/approves/confirms/whatever , 'it'. 

Children
No Data