Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • Replies 7 replies
  • Subscribers 30 subscribers
  • Views 997 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

How reliable are the Furse 415/M1R surge protection units?

AMK

I came across this report that claims that the Furse 415/M1R surge protection units are not suitable for the site I am working on as they do not comply with BSEN62305 or BS7671 standards. The report argues that the Furse M1 devices are not true Type 1 devices, as they are only rated to a maximum of 6.25kA per mode at 10/350. The report also shows a datasheet that supports this claim. The report concludes that all the devices have external or critical circuitry and therefore a true Type 1 device would be required.
What are your thoughts? Do you agree or disagree with its findings? Does anyone have any experience with the Furse 415/M1R units ? The Type 1 rating of SPDs according to BS EN 62305 & BS 7671 is based on the maximum surge current for the Lightning Protection Level (LPL) of the external Lightning Protection System (LPS) ( The current division concept) Do you agree with or disagree that the worst case scenario would be that the building has only 1 three phase incomer and the water and gas pipes are plastic.  However, if it can be confirmed that if there are multiple services then current can be split further. I.e., a building with an LPL IV LPS and two three phase incoming/outgoing lines. Then the M1 would be suitable ? 



Parents

  • In my opinion, the report appears to suffer from logical and empirical shortcomings in its claims and support. I wonder if the report may be applying a different standard and test waveform than the one that the Furse M1 devices are based on and evaluated against, and it may be overlooking the integrated and improved protection that the Furse M1 devices provide. The report also fails to present a lucid and thorough examination of the current division concept and the anticipated surge currents for the site.

Reply

  • In my opinion, the report appears to suffer from logical and empirical shortcomings in its claims and support. I wonder if the report may be applying a different standard and test waveform than the one that the Furse M1 devices are based on and evaluated against, and it may be overlooking the integrated and improved protection that the Furse M1 devices provide. The report also fails to present a lucid and thorough examination of the current division concept and the anticipated surge currents for the site.

Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines