Metal enclosure with 3rd amendment.

[ericmark]

As far as I was lead to understand the IET/BSi panel had very little choose in including the extra fire protection measures.

It would seem extreme pressure was put to bear manufacturers were just too slow altering their products to stop the massive increase in fires so the result was a change in regulations.

We have all made comments on what could have been done to reduce the fire risk but it simply was not done.

As to the other fire related alterations I will admit I have considered escape but not re-entry by fire fighters. And the use of steel cable ties has been common practice in the petrol/chemical industry but no so much in the domestic installations.

I have used trunking myself and to stop it falling off the wall latter used decorators cork. I am sure many others have done the same. And that includes going over door ways. That will no longer be permitted and clearly this will affect many aspects of the trade specially things like intruder alarms and LAN cables.

Where the problem arises is doing an EICR failing the installation due to SELV cables be it telephone or alarm is questionable. And what code will we give it? Clearly we will modify what we do but it will also need allied trades to do the same.

 

[JohnW2]

What 'resources of a large organisation' did you have in mind?

Well, you speak of your ongoing education, which presumably doesn't come from nowhere, you frequently ask questions here, you consult IET guidance... Granted, all these examples are available to you as an individual so perhaps are poor examples.

That's really the point. All of the 'resources' (educational, reference or whatever) I usually need are available to me as an individual.

In my case, during the latter stages of my career I could call on advice on materials, product standards, product applications, intellectual property, and all the other things that a company of over 100 000 people get involved with.

Fair enough - but, again, I think that is largely reflecting our different 'fields' and activities. I am usually asked for an opinion relating only and specifically to my personal areas of expertise. If opinions/advice were required in relation to other areas/disciplines/whatever (such as you mention in your field), they would usually be sought separately - just as would happen if inspection of, say, gas or electrical installations (or maybe specialist inspections relating to dampness, infestations etc.) were required in addition to structural survey.

Conversely I'm aware of individuals who are unwittingly biased by their narrowness of experience. They have of course as much right to their opinions as anyone else, the problem comes when someone takes their advice without considering how meaningful it is.

All true, and one assumes that is why people are careful to only ask for the opinion of those who, for whatever reason, they 'trust' and consider capable of giving meaningful advice (based on 'track record' or whatever).

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

One of the problems has been the increase in use of very cheap CUs, that in many cases don't use flame-retardent plastics in their construction. You can't tell just by looking whether a plastic is flame-retardent or not, whereas it's obvious if it's metal. At least one manufacturer was ready for the change...

 

[JohnW2]

One of the problems has been the increase in use of very cheap CUs, that in many cases don't use flame-retardent plastics in their construction. You can't tell just by looking whether a plastic is flame-retardent or not, whereas it's obvious if it's metal.

With some metals, at least - I wouldn't want a CU made out of magnesium Maybe this is why Amd3 only gives one example of a material deemed to be 'non-combustible' - namely "ferrous metal". Is aluminium (or alloys thereof) going to be allowed?

At least one manufacturer was ready for the change...

Quite so

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Is aluminium (or alloys thereof) going to be allowed?

It already is. As are suitably flame-retardent plastics. The reference to "ferrous metal" is an example.

 

[JohnW2]

Is aluminium (or alloys thereof) going to be allowed?

It already is. As are suitably flame-retardent plastics. The reference to "ferrous metal" is an example.

I realise that but, since it's just about the most obvious 'non-combustible' material possible, I cannot help but wonder why they bothered to quote it as 'an example'!

 

[stillp]

Is aluminium (or alloys thereof) going to be allowed?

Well, you asked!
As to why they gave the example, I can only suppose that that was somebody's proposal, and no-one could think of a reason to reject it.

 

[JohnW2]

Is aluminium (or alloys thereof) going to be allowed?

Well, you asked!

Yes, I did, and that was because I wasn't certain of the answer

As to why they gave the example, I can only suppose that that was somebody's proposal, and no-one could think of a reason to reject it.

Maybe, if that's the 'way around' that they do things. Is there not a requirement for some proportion (maybe even a majority) of committee members to 'support' something (rather than simply 'not reject it') before it gets into the Standard?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

[Is there not a requirement for some proportion (maybe even a majority) of committee members to 'support' something (rather than simply 'not reject it') before it gets into the Standard?

No. There has to be a consensus - defined as the absence of sustained objection.

 

[JohnW2]

[Is there not a requirement for some proportion (maybe even a majority) of committee members to 'support' something (rather than simply 'not reject it') before it gets into the Standard?

No. There has to be a consensus - defined as the absence of sustained objection.

Thanks .... now where's my dictionary?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

You don't need a dictionary, you need BS0.

 

[JohnW2]

You don't need a dictionary, you need BS0.

Hmmm - but the two might not see eye-to-eye

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

That won't matter, since the rules governing the behaviour of committees and their members are in BS0.

 

[JohnW2]

That won't matter, since the rules governing the behaviour of committees and their members are in BS0.

I'm sure that's true - but the outside world's view of the situation might be defined in a dictionary!

"Seriously, though" ... isn't one problem with that approach that it presents a risk of allowing the document to get seriously littered with all sorts of 'harmless but unnecessary' things - each proposed by one person, but with no-one else having a particularly good or strong reason for objecting?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

[quote="JohnW2";p="3304001" isn't one problem with that approach that it presents a risk of allowing the document to get seriously littered with all sorts of 'harmless but unnecessary' things - each proposed by one person, but with no-one else having a particularly good or strong reason for objecting?

[/quote]Yes. It's perhaps not quite that simple, but I'm not a member of JPEL/64 so I don't know how rigidly the Chairman controls them. The reason for using consensus rather than voting is to stop minorities being frozen out by voting groups.