I have posted a piece here which is also on the TT topic, but is more general and I think a new thread would be better. Your voice is heard. See below.
Your voice is heard! In fact, you may have much more support than you think, it is one of the reasons why this forum is so good. People on JPEL/64, The IET policy committee etc. regularly read this, and some write on it too. That is why I ask for evidence of certain things, but unfortunately, that is not very forthcoming, and I need documented incidents, with pictures if possible, to pass to the relevant people who can make a difference. This is your voice, and it is quite powerful!
The point of this is to make your lives easier, and safer for everyone. It should not be necessary to read a set of manufacturers' instructions which try to change the way the regulations are designed to be applied or to make new ones to suit marketing policies. This thing about RCDs and current ratings is very difficult to implement in existing installations and even more difficult to inspect because at the time of installation these instructions were not written at the time of installation!
Manufacturers instructions are a very bad idea, because they change with time and cannot be referenced to the actual installation. The only way to do this is very bureaucratic and would be a "Technical construction file" or TCF, which contained all the design data in minute detail, including the manufacturers' instructions used for installation. If such a file were not present the installation would have to be condemned as dangerous for continued use, or inspected to the latest instructions for each product, which may well not exist anyway. This is the route used for complex products in other areas, for safety and EMC for example, but it is very expensive. It provides a method that single products need not be inspected and tested to every detail of regulations, when they are one-off or low volume manufacture.
I think that 75% of domestic installations would immediately fail completely, although not damaged and perfectly safe. Manufacturers would rub their hands with glee, and look for a sales bonanza as all these installations were "updated". It would increase costs considerably and many installations would have to be replaced completely. But why, we don't really have a problem do we? The size of the main fuse up to 100A has always been considered safe and satisfactory for CUs, and there is no evidence that it is not. These new regulations in the 18th (which slipped in as UK only) have very far-reaching consequences which may not have been foreseen by the members of JPEL/64, at least not enough to have stopped it in a vote. You may say "conspiracy theory" but the result is not is it?
Regards to everyone, and please send any evidence, davezawadi (at) yahoo.co.uk.
Your voice is heard! In fact, you may have much more support than you think, it is one of the reasons why this forum is so good. People on JPEL/64, The IET policy committee etc. regularly read this, and some write on it too. That is why I ask for evidence of certain things, but unfortunately, that is not very forthcoming, and I need documented incidents, with pictures if possible, to pass to the relevant people who can make a difference. This is your voice, and it is quite powerful!
The point of this is to make your lives easier, and safer for everyone. It should not be necessary to read a set of manufacturers' instructions which try to change the way the regulations are designed to be applied or to make new ones to suit marketing policies. This thing about RCDs and current ratings is very difficult to implement in existing installations and even more difficult to inspect because at the time of installation these instructions were not written at the time of installation!
Manufacturers instructions are a very bad idea, because they change with time and cannot be referenced to the actual installation. The only way to do this is very bureaucratic and would be a "Technical construction file" or TCF, which contained all the design data in minute detail, including the manufacturers' instructions used for installation. If such a file were not present the installation would have to be condemned as dangerous for continued use, or inspected to the latest instructions for each product, which may well not exist anyway. This is the route used for complex products in other areas, for safety and EMC for example, but it is very expensive. It provides a method that single products need not be inspected and tested to every detail of regulations, when they are one-off or low volume manufacture.
I think that 75% of domestic installations would immediately fail completely, although not damaged and perfectly safe. Manufacturers would rub their hands with glee, and look for a sales bonanza as all these installations were "updated". It would increase costs considerably and many installations would have to be replaced completely. But why, we don't really have a problem do we? The size of the main fuse up to 100A has always been considered safe and satisfactory for CUs, and there is no evidence that it is not. These new regulations in the 18th (which slipped in as UK only) have very far-reaching consequences which may not have been foreseen by the members of JPEL/64, at least not enough to have stopped it in a vote. You may say "conspiracy theory" but the result is not is it?
Regards to everyone, and please send any evidence, davezawadi (at) yahoo.co.uk.
