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 2789 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
    Manufacturers of things that must meet the European machinery directive are required to be able to create a technical file on demand, but don't need one initially.

    http://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/technical-file.htm


     As far as I am aware however, this does not apply to things where just the LVD applies, like switch gear- there a file must exist before CE marking and placing on the market.

    However for a small product, a TCF need not be particularly arduous typically a few sides of A4, maybe less for a box with a switch in it.
    • Description ( may be combined with a labelled sketch and the circuit diagrams)

    • General Arrangement drawing (if complex enough to need one and a photo won't do.)

    • List of standards that apply

    • Records of any risk assessments and assessments to standards - may include the fact that some parts are already meeting some other standards, and have been tested by makers in similar containment structures. Now for something complex, this part may include loads of tests and a full fault tree exploring all failure modes,  but for a switch in a box, it is more of a looking at datasheet values and verifying safe operational area is not exceeded.

    • Description of the logic for any controls with interlocks or relays. (if this occurs, then that happens.. Again, this can expand into a whole chapter if it is a controller for a chemical plant or something.)

    • Datasheets for all critical sub-assemblies - especially those that are bought in as meeting other standards.

    • Part list

    • Copies of any markings and labels

    • Copy of any instruction leaflet  or handbook  you create to go with it, (user, maintenance, installation)

    • Test results, and descriptions of method of test if not obvious, and any QA commissioning procedures


    Then the killer for the indemnity insurance is the signed  bit of paper saying I (name) hereby certify that (thing) described in this file meets the requirements of the relevant directives which are .. (list)


    and then for the next decade you need to be able to produce that file again on demand.

    Which almost never happens, which is good, as I am sure a great many things exist for which the TCF would not stand up to scrutiny.







Reply
  • 0
    Manufacturers of things that must meet the European machinery directive are required to be able to create a technical file on demand, but don't need one initially.

    http://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/technical-file.htm


     As far as I am aware however, this does not apply to things where just the LVD applies, like switch gear- there a file must exist before CE marking and placing on the market.

    However for a small product, a TCF need not be particularly arduous typically a few sides of A4, maybe less for a box with a switch in it.
    • Description ( may be combined with a labelled sketch and the circuit diagrams)

    • General Arrangement drawing (if complex enough to need one and a photo won't do.)

    • List of standards that apply

    • Records of any risk assessments and assessments to standards - may include the fact that some parts are already meeting some other standards, and have been tested by makers in similar containment structures. Now for something complex, this part may include loads of tests and a full fault tree exploring all failure modes,  but for a switch in a box, it is more of a looking at datasheet values and verifying safe operational area is not exceeded.

    • Description of the logic for any controls with interlocks or relays. (if this occurs, then that happens.. Again, this can expand into a whole chapter if it is a controller for a chemical plant or something.)

    • Datasheets for all critical sub-assemblies - especially those that are bought in as meeting other standards.

    • Part list

    • Copies of any markings and labels

    • Copy of any instruction leaflet  or handbook  you create to go with it, (user, maintenance, installation)

    • Test results, and descriptions of method of test if not obvious, and any QA commissioning procedures


    Then the killer for the indemnity insurance is the signed  bit of paper saying I (name) hereby certify that (thing) described in this file meets the requirements of the relevant directives which are .. (list)


    and then for the next decade you need to be able to produce that file again on demand.

    Which almost never happens, which is good, as I am sure a great many things exist for which the TCF would not stand up to scrutiny.







Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines