That's irrelevant.
They did not say "non-combustible at temperatures below X°C", they require total, absolute, unqualified non-combustibility, because that is what they wrote. If they did not mean that they they should not have written it.
CU change pricing?
- Thread starter dabomb3k
- Start date
They did not say "non-combustible at temperatures below X°C", they require total, absolute, unqualified non-combustibility, because that is what they wrote. If they did not mean that they they should not have written it.
Sponsored Links
There is no doubt that that is what they wrote.
There is also no doubt that they are wrong, and that what they have written is impossible to achieve.
If they had said that papier mâché covered in pitch was deemed to be non-combustible, would you be agreeing with them that it was?
They are not. If you can't see that then your command of English is not what you think it is.
Irrelevant!
Of course not - but if they made it very clear that they deemed papier mâché covered in pitch to satisfy the requirements of their regulation, then I would believe that it satisfied the requirements of their regulation.
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
If you truly believe that them deeming pitch covered papier mâché to be non-combustible would make it so then there is no point discussing this with you any firther.
The requirement of their regulation is that the CU shall be non-combustible.
They cannot then say they have deemed something to be so and thus satisfies this requirement if it is not.
They cannot then say they have deemed something to be so and thus satisfies this requirement if it is not.
Yes they are, and my command of English is perfectly adequate to see that.
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 2,742
- Reaction score
- 453
- Country
Non-combustible.
Aren't these spec writers the same people who call 'Low Voltage' something which can easily kill you? BAS is in sympathy with this as I understand it. (Images of signs saying: 'Danger - Low Voltage!".) But to define a term 'non-combustible' to mean 'however ferrous metal behaves' is suddenly not allowable according to BAS.
Either a spec may define its terms or it may not.
Nevertheless: Clearly there is a problem with the wording. I would assume that behind the scenes, the people who need to demonstrate compliance have been having contact with the spec writers and agreeing what was meant. There is no other possibility with so much money on the line. But these people have no remit to help out interested observers, so we may have to wait a long time for a clarification.
Aren't these spec writers the same people who call 'Low Voltage' something which can easily kill you? BAS is in sympathy with this as I understand it. (Images of signs saying: 'Danger - Low Voltage!".) But to define a term 'non-combustible' to mean 'however ferrous metal behaves' is suddenly not allowable according to BAS.
Either a spec may define its terms or it may not.
Nevertheless: Clearly there is a problem with the wording. I would assume that behind the scenes, the people who need to demonstrate compliance have been having contact with the spec writers and agreeing what was meant. There is no other possibility with so much money on the line. But these people have no remit to help out interested observers, so we may have to wait a long time for a clarification.
I am NOT saying that their deeming pitch covered papier mâché would make it so - but I am saying that if they wrote that in the context of the regulation we are talking about it, I would have no problem in regarding that as saying (no matter how daft it may be) that they would regard pitch covered papier mâché as being compliant with their regulation.
Unfortunately, by focussing incessantly on the obviously 'incorrect' wording, you are detracting discussion from what we should be talking about, and campaigning to get rectified. It is quite obvious to any sensible person that when they wrote "non-combustible" they meant something less than the literal meaning of those words - just as we still frequently see words such as "fireproof", "waterproof", "windproof" or whatever used when people should have written "xxx-resistant". The problem is that they have provided no definition of what they actually mean (clearly something short of literal "non-combustibility", which is impossible), merely giving one example of something that fulfils that (unstated) definition. We need to campaign to get that definition clarified, rather than attempt to 'dismiss' the whole regulation (which few people other than you will do) because of its inadequacy.
Kind Regards, John
That may be true, but "the people who need to demonstrate compliance" includes all of the electricians (and maybe some of the DIYers) here, and I've yet to see any of them indicating that they are "in contact with spec writers".
In any event, even if someone could get the 'spec writers' to indicate what they actually meant/intended, nothing short of an Amendment to BS7671 would/could formalise that.
... and I've also mentioned that it probably is not in the interests of manufacturers of CUs to seek clarification since they are probably very happy with the situation in which everyone (other than BAS) feels that the only definite thing about the reg as worded is that (more expensive, therefore probably more profitable) ferrous metal CUs will be compliant with the new regulation.
Kind Regards, John
As I've just written, it is surely obvious that they intended (but did not write) non-combustible "in inverted commas". The only problem is that they have merely given one example of a material than satisfies their intended meaning of that, leaving us unable to determine what other materials might also satisfy whatever characteristics they have in mind.
Kind Regards, John
You are not saying it would make it so but you are saying it would be allowed when it clearly does not meet the requirement to be so.
...when it clearly is not.
The definitions of those words is quite clear.
I suspect the misuse of them is intended to mislead for gain.
That other bodies are also lax in their wording is no excuse.
I really do not understand your reasoning and why we should translate their wording in the meantime.
There would have been nothing easier than to state that CUs must be metal but they did not do that.
Edit - I therefore deduce that that was not their intention.
As an aside, there are similar lengthy debates on the IET forum.
The thing I do not understand is why, on the IET forum, there is not someone who KNOWS the answer (to any query).
Last edited:
As far as I am concerned, that is their problem, not ours. It is not our job to 'mark' the regulation, merely to comply with it (or any bits of it which we can understand). Imagine a situation in which we did not understand the word at all, such as if the regulation said some thing along the lines of:
"CUs must be in an enclosure which is manufactured from non-contropulable material.
Note: ferrous metal is an example of a material with is non-contropulable"
Whilst you have no idea what non-contropulable means, or whether or not it is correct that ferrous metal is an example of a material that is non-contropulable, would you not regard it as clear that a ferrous metal CU would be compliant with that regulation (but goodness knows whether any other materials would be)?
As I keep saying, whilst I haven't a clue about any other materials, I do not feel that any 'interpretation' is required to conclude that the regulation, as written (which is what we have to comply with), is saying that ferrous metal CUs would be compliant with the regulation
In a perfect world, that would be the case. However, a quick bit of Googling confirms that there are literally countless millions of products out there described a "waterproof", "weatherproof", "fireproof", "stormproof", "tamperproof" etc. etc. when we both know that, by definition, none of them can be "....proof" against anything. JPEL/64 have clearly been very remiss/incompetent in using such sloppy language in a regulation, but they are far from alone, and it is apparent that they intended something less than "...proof", but failed to tell us what they did intend!
Kind Regards, John
I don't think I've read a more ridiculous or pointless thread in many a year 
I'm not sure I'd go quite that far - maybe you missed some past threads!I don't think I've read a more ridiculous or pointless thread in many a year
I do think that efforts should be made to get some clarification about the regulation, rather than allow manufacturers to capitalise on the confusion and exploit everyone by effectively obliging everyone to buy (presumably more expensive and hence probably more profitable for them) metal CUs when that very probably is not really necessary in terms of the intent of the reg.
I really fail to understand what BAS is suggesting as a realistic option. I'm sure we all agree with him about the wording of the reg, but to suggest that people should therefore 'ignore the regulation, because it is invalid' is, IMO, just plain ridiculous. Can you imagine that, come next year, any credible electrician would carry on installing 2015 (or earlier) plastic CUs because the new reg was 'invalid'??? There are times when I really don't know what world BAS lives in!
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
