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 33 subscribers
  • Views 3555 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 ?




  • 0

    psychicwarrior:

    @Zoom - I agree.  Note 2.   Though getting an  OEM to specify I think very difficult.



    [edited ... words again]




    Of course Bright Sparks Manufacturing makes no profit if we fit A.N. Others equipment in its boards. It's all down to profits.


    Z.

  • 0
    @Zoom - I agree.  Note 2.   Though getting an  OEM to specify I think very difficult.



    [edited ... words again]
  • 0

    psychicwarrior:

    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 ?




    I don't think that 536.4.203 gives you any wriggle room. So either it's a whole new CU,;or a separate enclosure for an RCD which has been declared to be compatible with it.

  • 0
    536.4.203.


    Note 2. Allows components inside the assembly to be from a different manufacturer than the original. This refers to BS EN 61439 series, e.g. consumer units, dis. boards etc.


    BUT we need a note form the original manufacturer stating that the new components are acceptable and are compatible with the original equipment. If we assemble or add our own equipment and mix and match, the person introducing the deviation becomes the original manufacturer with the corresponding obligations, as has already been stated here.


    Z.
  • 0
    But if the 'additional/replacement' mcbs meet the latest standards and are equal in physical measurements so they are to all intents and purposes equal (if a different manufactureer) then if we are not careful we will be replacing whole boards for no reason other than paperwork (and my recent experience of qualified sparks is anything to go by - whats paperwork or certificates?)
  • 0

    Zoomup:




    mapj1:

    About 5 years ago I wanted a C type RCBO for a Volex board, and they did not seem to make them.

    However, I rang them up to check and was told that, no they didn't but all their MCBs and so forth used the same internals and metalwork as the Wylex ones, only using a  cheaper printed plastic process, and that it would be fine to fit the Wylex one.

    And indeed it fitted perfectly, and as far as I know it is still in service. If I'd known it would be useful, I'd have asked for it in writing.

     




    ...They are all interchangeable.


    Z.


     




    physically/technically I believe you. Regulatory it would seem not from what is being suggested.

  • 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]

  • 0

    mapj1:

    About 5 years ago I wanted a C type RCBO for a Volex board, and they did not seem to make them.

    However, I rang them up to check and was told that, no they didn't but all their MCBs and so forth used the same internals and metalwork as the Wylex ones, only using a  cheaper printed plastic process, and that it would be fine to fit the Wylex one.

    And indeed it fitted perfectly, and as far as I know it is still in service. If I'd known it would be useful, I'd have asked for it in writing.

     




    Niglon consumer units, M.C.B.s, R.C.D.s and R.C.B.O.s. all appear to come out of the same factory as C.P.C's Pro-Elec range if compared side by side. Just slightly different badging and pricing. They are all interchangeable.


    Z.

  • 0
    About 5 years ago I wanted a C type RCBO for a Volex board, and they did not seem to make them.

    However, I rang them up to check and was told that, no they didn't but all their MCBs and so forth used the same internals and metalwork as the Wylex ones, only using a  cheaper printed plastic process, and that it would be fine to fit the Wylex one.

    And indeed it fitted perfectly, and as far as I know it is still in service. If I'd known it would be useful, I'd have asked for it in writing.

  • 0

    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 of standards even when putting devices into an "existing low voltage assembly" (last bit of the 1st paragraph) - so my implication including those to earlier (possibly incompatible) standards. Doesn't sound too practical does it?

       - Andy.

Community Rules & Guidelines