Repairing insulation

I think you are hopelessly confused Andy. There is no mention of the fire rating of the enclosure even if it is made of standard building materials, say wood. As wood has been used in electrical systems for many years, as back boxes, patresses, etc which contain connections, not usually joints I agree but the difference is surely minor, as the other terminals or connections could cause ignition, given a bad set of circumstances. Are you really suggesting that crimped connections are a fire risk? What or who suggests the box or whatever is for fire protection anyway, it is usually considered to protect from direct contact, and provide for mounting of accessories. I would point out that a standard junction box is far from fireproof, it is to protect against direct contact. The enclosure idea surely comes from inspection, which is a requirement of some kinds of joint, not a fire one. The fire rating of a Schnider joint box, for example, being made of plastic is similar to a plastic CU. It may have fire retardant but one cannot tell, many CUs didn't although marked as meeting the specification. By PVC I was really referring to the cables, particularly sheaths, which are inflammable if PVC.


If you really wish to decry jointed cables you need to define why. Those regulations do not specify the "containment" which could be resin in a joint or self-amalgamating tape, they do not specify IP rating which for both these methods is at least IP67. If one took those regulations at face value as you have, resin joints would not be permitted, fire information is in section 527 which says nothing about joints. 526.3 (ii) and (iv) specifically allow encapsulated or resin joints, which does appear somewhat at odds with 526.5 I agree, this probably needs correction. Encapsulation in self-amalgamating tape is common for many services to provide waterproofing and insulation, as is adhesive heat shrink.

I think you are hopelessly confused Andy. There is no mention of the fire rating of the enclosure even if it is made of standard building materials, say wood. As wood has been used in electrical systems for many years, as back boxes, patresses, etc which contain connections, not usually joints I agree but the difference is surely minor, as the other terminals or connections could cause ignition, given a bad set of circumstances. Are you really suggesting that crimped connections are a fire risk? What or who suggests the box or whatever is for fire protection anyway, it is usually considered to protect from direct contact, and provide for mounting of accessories. I would point out that a standard junction box is far from fireproof, it is to protect against direct contact. The enclosure idea surely comes from inspection, which is a requirement of some kinds of joint, not a fire one. The fire rating of a Schnider joint box, for example, being made of plastic is similar to a plastic CU. It may have fire retardant but one cannot tell, many CUs didn't although marked as meeting the specification. By PVC I was really referring to the cables, particularly sheaths, which are inflammable if PVC.


If you really wish to decry jointed cables you need to define why. Those regulations do not specify the "containment" which could be resin in a joint or self-amalgamating tape, they do not specify IP rating which for both these methods is at least IP67. If one took those regulations at face value as you have, resin joints would not be permitted, fire information is in section 527 which says nothing about joints. 526.3 (ii) and (iv) specifically allow encapsulated or resin joints, which does appear somewhat at odds with 526.5 I agree, this probably needs correction. Encapsulation in self-amalgamating tape is common for many services to provide waterproofing and insulation, as is adhesive heat shrink.