MSF100 Switch fuses and amended regs

[JohnW2]

They were already sure John. Several (including my ex-employer) produced guidance stating that conformity to 61439-3 was sufficient, but they had to change their approach.

Interesting. How can anyone be "sure" that something is compliant with a regulation which does not give adequate clarity/detail about what it requires?

One can but presume that the authors of BS7671 intended to be requiring something beyond what is required by 61439-3, since, if I recall correctly, the reg calls for compliance with 61439-3 and to be made of a 'non-combustible' material?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I would point out that the definition quoted is from the easily influenced dictionary, and -

not all dictionaries include the word 'easily'.


Also, the definition of 'combustibility' is given as:

Surely, if nothing is non-combustible, then the inclusion of 'easily' does not really alter anything.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

7.1.2.3 Resistance to abnormal heat
When tested in accordance with the glow wire test in BS EN 60695-2-10:2001, Clause 4 to
Clause 10, and BS EN 60695-2-11, at a test temperature of 960 °C, the insulating materials
shall conform to BS EN 60695-2-11:2001, Clause 12.

7.1.2.4 Resistance to fire
When tested in accordance with BS EN 60695-11-10, insulating materials shall be flame
retardant to Category V-1.

8.2 Conformity to constructional requirements
8.2.1 Materials
8.2.1.1 Flammability test
Materials used for the insulating integral enclosure of all protective units, terminal blocks and
interconnecting units shall conform to BS EN 60695-11-10:1999, Category V-1. At the cut-
out assembly manufacturer’s discretion, conformity shall be demonstrated by testing
samples of materials in accordance with BS EN 60695-11-10, or alternatively, by reference
to the material manufacturer’s test data.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

not all dictionaries include the word 'easily'.

Which ones?

 

[JohnW2]

Surely, if nothing is non-combustible, then the inclusion of 'easily' does not really alter anything.

If I understand correctly, on the basis of the definition of "combustible" that he has now found and quoted, he no longer believes that "nothing is non-combustible", since he now thinks that "non-combustible" means "not easily burnt" (whatever one understands by "easily").

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, but if combustibility also means how easily something is set on fire through combustion, then we now have to decide how easily it easily catches fire - so back to square one.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Which ones?

The very next one on the page for a start.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=combustible+definition

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/combustible

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes, but if combustibility also means how easily something is set on fire through combustion, then we now have to decide how easily it easily catches fire - so back to square one.

I don't think we are, because unless "easily" is defined, we fall back on the dictionary definition. And I don't believe that many dictionaries don't define easy or easily.

Being realistic - how many average people would think that a British Standard for the construction of consumer units would allow them to be made out of something which is able to catch fire and burn easily? How many would think, if you described the test, that a material which went out of its own accord was something which caught fire and burned easily?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The very next one on the page for a start.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=combustible+definition

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/combustible

My "Which ones" was in relation to your claim that some dictionaries don't define "easily".....

 

[EFLImpudence]

From the free OED

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/combust

So, how can combustible relate to 'easily'?

 

[EFLImpudence]

My "Which ones" was in relation to your claim that some dictionaries don't define "easily".....

No, I meant some dictionaries don't include 'easily' in the definition of combustible.

 

[JohnW2]

I don't think we are, because unless "easily" is defined, we fall back on the dictionary definition.

That's certainly an argument you could put forward, but there's no guarantee that others, or other authorities, would necessarily agree. As EFLI has said, I think we're simply back to an inadequately defined requirement.

Being realistic - how many average people would think that a British Standard for the construction of consumer units would allow them to be made out of something which is able to catch fire and burn easily? How many would think, if you described the test, that a material which went out of its own accord was something which caught fire and burned easily?

Agreed, but only if one assumes a meaning for "easily".

I would also suggest that most average people reading the reg would believe that it was clearly indicating a requirement that the material must not be one that would catch fire or burn "easily" - but, again, in the absence of any definitions or quantification, one cannot know which materials would, or would not, satisfy the intended requirement.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

how can combustible relate to 'easily'?

Because that's what it's been decided it means?

It's not uncommon for other factors to be in the definition of an adjective but not necessarily in the verb.

Just because I could eat something, that does not make it edible.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's certainly an argument you could put forward, but there's no guarantee that others, or other authorities, would necessarily agree. As EFLI has said, I think we're simply back to an inadequately defined requirement.

But one which can much more readily be viewed as being satisfied by compliance with BS EN 61439-3.

I would also suggest that most average people reading the reg would believe that it was clearly indicating a requirement that the material must not be one that would catch fire or burn "easily" - but, again, in the absence of any definitions or quantification, one cannot know which materials would, or would not, satisfy the intended requirement.

But that's the point. As there is no specific definition, the only thing which we can do is to use the "everyday" definitions of the words used. So we have a combination of one standard requiring that the material used not catch fire or burn easily, and we have another which says that if an item complies with it it will therefore be made using a material which does not catch fire or burn easily.

 

[stillp]

How can anyone be "sure" that something is compliant with a regulation which does not give adequate clarity/detail about what it requires?

Because there is a product standard that defines precisely what is required, which in the opinion of those who were 'sure', was sufficient.