To JP -

I apologise if I have personally offended you in some way. I get exasperated with the changes to the wiring regulations where a cynic might rightfully suggest that some such changes appear to be driven in pursuit of profit rather than enhanced safety. Take arc fault protection devices for example, which from what I have gathered, do not actually work, other than to enhance the bottom lines of the vendors. Surge protection devices are another example, a couple of jelly bean components in a plastic enclosure which may or may not function, yet priced more expansively than saffron on a per-gram bases. Where are these surges emanating from? Supply-side switching rather than customer side?


As for LFB lobbying the IET for metal consumer units, it would have been much simpler if the IET/JPL et al had conducted some independent studies of their own.

A far better and more pragmatic solution might have been to specify non-flammable consumer units where the mains supply intake is situated under a wooden staircase, which is especially common in terraces.

This would have made sense and would have added a little more credence to the argument, since a staircase is an escape route.

One thing I never found was any evidence where a fire was started as a consequence of maintenance neglect of the supplier's equipment.

Was there no evidence available as to how many badly maintained supply intakes had been the root cause of at least some of these fires?

Why were consumer units on the customer side targeted instead?

I hope you can now begin to see why I posted what I did - and when you look at the make-up of the wiring regs committee you can see why one might wonder as to how and why some of the changes are driven.

I support the IET, or rather, supported the IEE as was, but I do struggle to muster up enthusiasm for an organisation which appears to do itself no favours when it comes to it's own reputation, but then again, I suppose that's my problem again, after all, I am but a mere consumer.

To JP -

I apologise if I have personally offended you in some way. I get exasperated with the changes to the wiring regulations where a cynic might rightfully suggest that some such changes appear to be driven in pursuit of profit rather than enhanced safety. Take arc fault protection devices for example, which from what I have gathered, do not actually work, other than to enhance the bottom lines of the vendors. Surge protection devices are another example, a couple of jelly bean components in a plastic enclosure which may or may not function, yet priced more expansively than saffron on a per-gram bases. Where are these surges emanating from? Supply-side switching rather than customer side?


As for LFB lobbying the IET for metal consumer units, it would have been much simpler if the IET/JPL et al had conducted some independent studies of their own.

A far better and more pragmatic solution might have been to specify non-flammable consumer units where the mains supply intake is situated under a wooden staircase, which is especially common in terraces.

This would have made sense and would have added a little more credence to the argument, since a staircase is an escape route.

One thing I never found was any evidence where a fire was started as a consequence of maintenance neglect of the supplier's equipment.

Was there no evidence available as to how many badly maintained supply intakes had been the root cause of at least some of these fires?

Why were consumer units on the customer side targeted instead?

I hope you can now begin to see why I posted what I did - and when you look at the make-up of the wiring regs committee you can see why one might wonder as to how and why some of the changes are driven.

I support the IET, or rather, supported the IEE as was, but I do struggle to muster up enthusiasm for an organisation which appears to do itself no favours when it comes to it's own reputation, but then again, I suppose that's my problem again, after all, I am but a mere consumer.