jason1969

Posts: 26
Joined: 09 January 2015
|
Product technical description is governed by law & trading standards.
If the product does NOT meet its claimed specification, it needs to be recalled.
Just like the MG recall c.2003/04 re some RCBO not tripping, they sent a bod out.
All was fine, until I saw the 960 degree plastic rejected.
We are now in the land of FBU/ESC solving a problem that does not exist.
They could NOT get this change through the EU, so they had to get it UK-only.
Any CU which DOES comply is absolutely fine.
The reason is the millions installed EU wide, and even the statistics admit it is a RECENT problem, claiming the rise in statistics is non-sequitor and would not stand up in court.
It is the install, stupid, and that is down to pathetic enclosure design.
Aside: Part P SI2006 used to allow enclosure changed (even CU), but NOT addition of new final circuits.
I think SI2010 and SI2013 retain this, so it is possible to change it yourself IF competent.
To me competent means a) not breaking 1mm conductors in the neutral bar b) tightening the damn NEUTRAL and most of all c) making sure cables & bus-bar & line/neutral correct in their cage clamps.
I have had to replace a REC2 after the meter-chimp broke a terminals, breaking one, and the **smell**. Ridiculous.
I should also add that there is NOTHING here to say the CU are at fault... so any future would be coding is a case of not to current standard and not unsafe per se. The EXCEPTION is where a CU is made of a material that it claims to be made of, re fire retardent flame existinguishing (eg, UL94V0 V1 etc) and is not re trade description.
I bet someone never checked the plastic rating and just bought cheaper, literally, because I have seen that happen SO MANY TIMES right across the industry. So there may be dates that do comply and dates that do not... but lets brush that under the JPEL64 carpet as they might have to sell their shirts.
|