IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Application of the proposed regulation 542.1.201
Topic Summary:
Created On: 29 July 2017 12:35 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 12 August 2017 12:34 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 9836
Joined: 18 January 2003

I think this discussion has covered virtually every aspect of the proposed regulation, some particularly relevant and some less so.

Not one person has come out and said it is a viable option to leave this regulation in the bode of practice BS 7671 as it has been written. This begs the question, how did it make it into the draft as it is written at present?

It should be safe to assume that it won't stand up to scrutiny as a proposal as the engineering required is not practical from a installation or cost perspective. But the committee that has to do the final scrutiny are presumably the same committee that let it get into the draft in the first place.

I commented on the BSI website that it should be dropped as it is ridiculous. Presumably having seen a IET comment on how to submit your opinions, my comment that it is ridiculous will not be considered as it is not constructive.

However I am leaving it at that and not contacting them again, as I feel that my comment is justified and I should not as a local jobbing electrician have to explain the practicality of installing an earth electrode system to comply with the proposed regulation to the engineers on the JPEL64 committee.

If it is a practical solution to a problem electricians would have been doing it for many years.

So perhaps it is time to stand back and see what sort of a silk purse they can make out of a sows ear!

I await the first article in the IET and trade magazines telling us how to implement this regulation if it is brought in with great interest to see what compromises are made for the realities of life and electrical engineering.

Andrew Betteridge
 12 August 2017 01:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



weirdbeard

Posts: 3078
Joined: 26 September 2011

AndyB, looks like there was a Paul Cook wiring matters article in autumn 2002? on this topic, according to this past topic:

http://www.theiet.org/forums/f...tid=205&threadid=16985

-------------------------
:beer)
 12 August 2017 02:22 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



whjohnson

Posts: 908
Joined: 24 January 2009

It should be safe to assume that it won't stand up to scrutiny as a proposal as the engineering required is not practical from a installation or cost perspective.


Wholly agree - the cost/benefits do not stand up to scrutiny at any level, other than that of the DNOs divorcing the cost of responsibility for the maintenance of their earthing facilities.

It should be dropped forthwith, and the numpties who dreamed up the idea should be taken outside and beaten to death with a 'stupid-stick'!

-------------------------
Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
 12 August 2017 02:25 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dustydazzler

Posts: 1177
Joined: 19 January 2016

I would bury the stupid idea in a big hole along with every tin (sorry fire proof) domestic consumer boards and chuck partpee in the hole for good measure
All are a complete waste of time and money
Rant Over
 12 August 2017 04:13 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



weirdbeard

Posts: 3078
Joined: 26 September 2011

Originally posted by: dustydazzler

I would bury the stupid idea in a big hole along with every tin (sorry fire proof) domestic consumer boards and chuck partpee in the hole for good measure

All are a complete waste of time and money

Rant Over


It will probably just become a domestic only requirement, like the biscuit tin amd3 boards did after the DPC for that reprint, dumped on the shoulders of the small installers and end customers, with conflicting advice given in dribs and drabs from the various guidance experts, such as that given in the ESF BPG4 and the IETs own guide to consumer units :

http://electrical.theiet.org/b...no3/consumer-units.cfm

-------------------------
:beer)
 12 August 2017 04:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 9836
Joined: 18 January 2003

Originally posted by: weirdbeard

AndyB, looks like there was a Paul Cook wiring matters article in autumn 2002? on this topic, according to this past topic:



http://www.theiet.org/forums/f...tid=205&threadid=16985


I see the link no longer works, I assume it would be similar in content to the Article I referenced earlier in these discussions.

I saw a IET Wiring Matters article on Multiple earth rods for TT installations but they rely on a RCD for disconnecting the supply.

Andy B
 12 August 2017 07:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



geoffsd

Posts: 1601
Joined: 15 June 2010

Originally posted by: weirdbeard

with conflicting advice given in dribs and drabs from the various guidance experts, such as that given in the ESF BPG4 and the IETs own guide to consumer units :


 12 August 2017 09:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



leckie

Posts: 4146
Joined: 21 November 2008

Originally posted by: geoffsd

Originally posted by: weirdbeard



with conflicting advice given in dribs and drabs from the various guidance experts, such as that given in the ESF BPG4 and the IETs own guide to consumer units :


[IMG][/IMG]


Well of course you would mock such guidance Geoff
 13 August 2017 12:11 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 9836
Joined: 18 January 2003

Considering that all that BS7671 said was that plastic consumer unit enclosures were no longer permitted in domestic installationse, so metal enclosures have to be used instead, there has been a huge amount of varied advice on what is actually required.

Andrew Betteridge
 13 August 2017 12:24 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



geoffsd

Posts: 1601
Joined: 15 June 2010

Originally posted by: sparkingchip

Considering that all that BS7671 said was that plastic consumer unit enclosures were no longer permitted in domestic installationse, so metal enclosures have to be used instead, there has been a huge amount of varied advice on what is actually required.

It did not say that.

It said CUs must be of non-combustible material (or enclosed in) and stated that steel was an example of this.

No definition of non-combustible was given and all the manufacturers instantly started to make steel ones.

Quite odd.
 13 August 2017 12:42 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 9836
Joined: 18 January 2003

Originally posted by: geoffsd

Originally posted by: sparkingchip



Considering that all that BS7671 said was that plastic consumer unit enclosures were no longer permitted in domestic installationse, so metal enclosures have to be used instead, there has been a huge amount of varied advice on what is actually required.


It did not say that.



It said CUs must be of non-combustible material (or enclosed in) and stated that steel was an example of this.



No definition of non-combustible was given and all the manufacturers instantly started to make steel ones.



Quite odd.


Quite true. I should have worded that correctly, though that was apparently the intended outcome according to the manufacturers.

Better quality plastic enclosures are not available, though die cast aluminium are, along with steel.

Andy B
 13 August 2017 12:56 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



MWalker86

Posts: 81
Joined: 05 June 2017

Originally posted by: geoffsd


No definition of non-combustible was given and all the manufacturers instantly started to make steel ones.


Because from a manufacturing perspective that is by far the simplest and most cost effective way to make something non-combustible.
 13 August 2017 01:00 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 9836
Joined: 18 January 2003

Again the IET and BSI committee have stated a outcome without stating a method, the result will be a shambolic message.

Andy Betteridge
 13 August 2017 01:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



whjohnson

Posts: 908
Joined: 24 January 2009

No change there then!

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that nothing in this country seems to work properly any more?

A sceptic might be forgiven for thinking that all of this nonsense is by design....

-------------------------
Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
 13 August 2017 06:46 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



iie63674

Posts: 108
Joined: 17 May 2006

Originally posted by: geoffsd




It said CUs must be of non-combustible material (or enclosed in) and stated that steel was an example of this.



No definition of non-combustible was given and all the manufacturers instantly started to make steel ones.



Quite odd.


Some manufacturers continued for a while to state that their plastic CUs met the flammability requirements of 61439-3 and so were sufficiently non-combustible, but the marketplace seemed to demand metal.
 13 August 2017 07:06 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



geoffsd

Posts: 1601
Joined: 15 June 2010

That was/is the trouble with the regulation.

It says CUs must comply with 61439-3 and be non-combustible.
 13 August 2017 07:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



iie63674

Posts: 108
Joined: 17 May 2006

Indeed, thus implying something over and above the requirements of the product standard.
IET » Wiring and the regulations » Application of the proposed regulation 542.1.201

<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

New here?


See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2017 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.

..