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 3 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 293 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

DPC. Is it commercially driven?

Jon Steward
We are not given any facts, statistics, evidence by the IET and expected to comment.

I'm no scientist but can apply some common sense.

Specifically AFDD, Foundation Earthing, Surge Protection.

I noticed that Kirsty from Surge Protective Devices Ltd is on the JPEL panel as an advisor. (No vested interest there!)

How many manufacturers are there in JPEL?

Can we have the facts please.
Parents
  • 0
    This is a hugely important question and probably needs a comprehensive response from someone who has experience in JPEl 64 and who is willing to be candid about the prevailing situation. I suspect that considerable weight is brought to bear by commercial interests but I would like to think that the IET and BSI are robust enough to remain impartial to any such pressures. Who knows what happens further upstream as the waters may have already been polluted at the IEC and CENELEC feeder rivers! Maybe some kind of investigation exercise is needed to reassure those of us who depend on the water quality in the lower reaches.

    What would perturb me is the possible diminution of respect that BS7671 has always seemed to be able to maintain. As the document’s scope is growing in perennial fashion, it seems to be straying in to areas that perhaps it has no business being, like energy efficiency, I would argue, so it is bound to run headlong in to obstinate and dissenting opinion which could lead to the evaporation of the wide support that it currently has.

    We are lucky as an industry that we have a single regulatory document that most people are happy to anchor to. I do hope that doesn’t change!
Reply
  • 0
    This is a hugely important question and probably needs a comprehensive response from someone who has experience in JPEl 64 and who is willing to be candid about the prevailing situation. I suspect that considerable weight is brought to bear by commercial interests but I would like to think that the IET and BSI are robust enough to remain impartial to any such pressures. Who knows what happens further upstream as the waters may have already been polluted at the IEC and CENELEC feeder rivers! Maybe some kind of investigation exercise is needed to reassure those of us who depend on the water quality in the lower reaches.

    What would perturb me is the possible diminution of respect that BS7671 has always seemed to be able to maintain. As the document’s scope is growing in perennial fashion, it seems to be straying in to areas that perhaps it has no business being, like energy efficiency, I would argue, so it is bound to run headlong in to obstinate and dissenting opinion which could lead to the evaporation of the wide support that it currently has.

    We are lucky as an industry that we have a single regulatory document that most people are happy to anchor to. I do hope that doesn’t change!
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines