IET Forums - Have I gone mad or did i just hear that right ? No plastic fuseboards.

Head of New Business - Synthetic Environments
- Stevenage
- Competitive
Together. For the future of defence. The Opportunity We have an exciting new opportunity for a proactive and passionate system of systems thinker t...
- Recruiter: MBDA
Apply for this job
Head of Design / Design Manager
- Central South Coast
- £60-70k depending on experience (plus benefits)
We need a dynamic hands-on leader for our design team to deliver exciting new technical solutions for mission critical applications.
- Recruiter: STS Defence
Apply for this job
Lead EDU Systems Engineer
- Whitley
- To define
Job description: WHAT TO EXPECT We are searching for a Lead EDU Systems Engineer to be responsible for the definition, development and delivery of h
- Recruiter: Jaguar Land Rover
Apply for this job

More jobs ▶

17 December 2014 12:10 PM
Zoro Posts: 300 Joined: 31 July 2011	Keeping to the facts When five current CU's were tested four out of five did not meet BS/EN 60947-1: 2007 + A1:2011, on the 650C hot wire test, they are required to meet this standard and they did not. They claim to meet this standard, anyone got a compliance certificate for a current CU? This should be a recall of the non compliant equipment, but the vested interest has decided that they need to shift the existing non compliant stock first, then get the public to pay for the replacements. Will steel CU's stop fires, have they been tested? No, why not? The cause of the fires, non compliant installation, is also ignored by the Scams, who deem people Competent that have never terminated tails in their lives. Working on singles in conduit wiring systems on a short course, does not equate to a 100A termination. The DNO's/Suppliers have also stopped inspecting their equipment, presumably on safety grounds not financial, a shame really when around 40% of the fires are in their equipment. So the solution from the vested interest, to the 50% increase in fires from 2004/5 to September 2014, in CU's, Service Cut-out and Meter's is steel, non fire proof consumer units. For safety reasons or financial. . Edited: 17 December 2014 at 12:19 PM by Zoro
Top : Bottom

19 December 2014 05:43 PM
SandyBoiler Posts: 263 Joined: 02 October 2008	Originally posted by: Zoro When five current CU's were tested four out of five did not meet BS/EN 60947-1: 2007 + A1:2011, on the 650C hot wire test, they are required to meet this standard and they did not. They claim to meet this standard, anyone got a compliance certificate for a current CU? This should be a recall of the non compliant equipment, but the vested interest has decided that they need to shift the existing non compliant stock first, then get the public to pay for the replacements. . Been digesting this thread over the last 24 hours and the point above was one of the things that jumped out at me the most....Of course for a fire to start in the first place, there has to have been a degree of installer error. But you'd like to think that the equipment would be designed and rated in such a way that a loose or dodgy termination wouldn't result in the whole house burning down. This is where the manufacturers need to step up. They are stating that their current products meet current standards (including fire standards) but when tested they simply do not meet those product standards. It seems these companies are clever/powerful enough to be above the law and so the response from the LFB and the IET (seemingly working in partnership) is to write something into the wiring regulations and force the hand of the manufacturers that way. I tend to agree with others that the drive to manufacture these products cheaply has resulted in a race to the bottom in terms of build quality. Also agree that the terminals on some mcbs/rcbos and especially main switches, don't seem fit for purpose (read: "they're s**"). Tend to think the poor/dangerous build-quality issues are probably the key reason for the increase in these bigger, more destructive fires originating at the electrical intake, rather than the number of dodgy terminations being made. (i.e. even current CUs are not allowed to go up in flames as easily as they do, according to their product standard). Of course the LFB stats may have been fiddled a bit to make the point (shock horror), but it seems like it's a point that's worth making, it's just a shame (read: "travesty") that although it's largely a manufacturer issue, they are going to get away scot-free, and in fact will probably profit from it. So, if you don't want to let them get away with it, rather than condemning the CU during a EICR, check and tighten its terminations instead. Of course you may find that this approach jars somewhat with your business model... Capitalism - don't you just love it! -------------------------** Andy B
Top : Bottom

	Technical discussion forums
·	Wiring and the regulations
·	Other and general engineering discussions
	Archived categories

New here?

See Also:

Head of New Business - Synthetic Environments

Head of Design / Design Manager

Lead EDU Systems Engineer

On this site

Shop

Contact us

Membership

Your career

Electrical

Sectors

IET.tv

E&T Magazine

Shop

Policy

Publishing

Education

IET Venues

Communities and networks

Contact us