No, I mean those who wrote "BS7671 653.2, item 4", assuming that Simon quoted it correctly.
Kind Regards, John
EICR, plastic CU, coding and the checklist
- Thread starter SimonH2
- Start date
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
Quite so - but who said anything about "metallic"? The regulation requires "non-combustible" - and, as EFLI has implied, one could probably get more-or-less as close to that with some non-metals as with some metals (and, as your comment implies, almost any plastic is 'less combustible' than some metals!).
Kind Regards, John
I don't think so -if I recall correctly, it does say that ferrous metal is an example of a material which would be deemed to be 'non-combustible', not that it's the only acceptable material, doesn't it?
Kind Regards, John
I think that many of us would question whether changing a plastic CU to metal one would constitute an 'improvement', but aren't we tied by the fact that BS7671 presumably does regard it as an 'improvement' (if not, then.....!!!
).Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
We seem less tied than we thought.I think that many of us would question whether changing a plastic CU to metal one would constitute an 'improvement', but aren't we tied by the fact that BS7671 presumably does regard it as an 'improvement' (if not, then.....!!!
BS7671 will not be the person doing EICRs. It is up to the inspector.
Yes, but it states steel so that's all we've ended up with.
It doesn't real 'state steel' ... it merely says that ferrous metal is one material that would be deemed to satisfy the regulation.
Almost everyone (in particular, the manufacturers of CUs) seem to have chosen to adopt the 'easy' course, by assuming that that one example is the only possible material.
However, in practical terms I can understand that, since, in the absence of any definition, I don't think that anyone could determine (or even guess) what other materials would be close enough to "non-combustible" to also satisfy the regulation!
Kind Regards, John
Indeed, and I don't think it's restricted to EICRs - it would seem to apply to anyone undertaking electrical work and 'certifying' it (as compliant with BS7671) - e.g. on an EIC.
As I've said, with just a tiny number iof new words in Part 2, they seem to have created a complete mess, which threatens to undermine the whole of BS7671 - if it is, indeed, now the case (as it sems to be) that someone can, where appropriate, argue that a non-conformity with any regulation in BS7671 is not actually a non-compliance.
However, in practice, I doubt that (m)any electricians would want to stick their necks out by trying to argue that a non-conformity with BS7671 in some work that they had done was not actually a 'non-compliance' - so it probably won't make any significant difference in practice.
Kind Regards, John
Well, it states "Ferrous metal, e.g. steel, is deemed to be an example of non-combustible material" - so steel it is.
Indeed - but, as I keep saying, the word "example" appears in that sentence, even though everyone is regarding it (probably for the reasons I mentioned) as the only material which would be regarded as "non-combustible".
Kind Regards, John
FWIW, I never got any reply beyond the "in my opinion ..." ones I've already mentioned.
So that seems to leave us in a situation where the BBB says one thing, but people supposedly in a position to make official comment are saying "ignore that" - but won't state so "officially"
So that seems to leave us in a situation where the BBB says one thing, but people supposedly in a position to make official comment are saying "ignore that" - but won't state so "officially"
Then ignore the ones saying ignore that. Simples and obvious.
They make money writing interminable guides.
They make money writing interminable guides.
I think I'm going to have to read up the definitions of some of these words.....
I recently saw a bit of one of the many "forensic science" programmes on TV at the moment. Someone had committed a murder and tried to destroy the evidence (the body) by pouring some liquid (I think some type of solvent) over the body and igniting it. However, this failed in its intended purpose of 'burning up' the body, and it was said that the reason was that the liquid used was "inflammable but not combustible" - which, as above, makes me feel the need to discover what these words actually mean!
Kind Regards, John
I recently saw a bit of one of the many "forensic science" programmes on TV at the moment. Someone had committed a murder and tried to destroy the evidence (the body) by pouring some liquid (I think some type of solvent) over the body and igniting it. However, this failed in its intended purpose of 'burning up' the body, and it was said that the reason was that the liquid used was "inflammable but not combustible" - which, as above, makes me feel the need to discover what these words actually mean!
Kind Regards, John
Who knows - but it was a forensic scientist who said this, and I doubt that he would have said something that didn't make sense to him just because a scriptwriter had written it - which led me to suspect that this scientist believed (rightly or wrongly) that "inflammable" and "combustible" had specifically different meanings.
In fact, I think that if I poured alcohol (e.g. meths) on my hand and ignited it, the alcohol will all burn away, but my hand will not get burned (probably actually would get cooled) - so maybe that's the sort of difference we're talking about?.
Kind Regards, John
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
