Blankety blank

[bernardgreen]

And what's wong with Rum or possibly a Brandy or Whisky liqueur?

Nothing at all. Other than you may get drunk before you have finished eating the trifle.

 

[SUNRAY]

Nothing at all. Other than you may get drunk before you have finished eating the trifle.

 

[JohnW2]

The important word is "recorded". How many incidents happen but are not recorded. Do people make an official record every time they shout "" Duck Me that hurt ""

Quite so. As I wrote ...

... [ I have to say, however, that I don't think, in general, that the fact that "zero deaths or shocks had been recorded due to XYZ" would be a remotely safe reason for concluding that XYZ was "not something to worry about"! ]

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I am saying that my issuing of a C2 or C3 code can be questioned at the time or a later date, so if I see a fault which could be questioned as it if C3 or C2, then giving a C3 you have raised the issue, so can't be said you missed it, but it does not force anyone to correct it, so if found it was to manufacturers spec, it is unlikely one will be in trouble for saying some thing is potentially dangerous where what is considered as a higher authority has said this complies with type testing.

This discussion has somewhat slid, from your initial question about "not-typed-tested" items (CU 'blanks') to blanks which may well be type-tested (produced and 'recommended' by the CU manufacturer) but which you believe 'can be removed without the use of a tool'.

As regards the former, my view is that if one is going to 'code' anything, even if only C3 (indicating that "improvement is recommended") one needs to be able to cite the current BS7671 regulation which one believes is being violated (and, at the very least, be able to say what 'improvement' you were recommending). I therefore again ask you what regulation you would cite if you were giving a C3 to something in/on a CU solely because it was not "type tested"?

The latter is different. If you believe that part of any enclosure which was maintaining the required IP rating could be removed 'without the use of a tool', then it would be correct and appropriate to give it a C3 (maybe even C2) because of violation of 416.2.4.

However, as you seem to go on to say, I think this silly discussion gets even sillier when one realises that, unless (in some cases) one has long and strong fingernails, it is probably not possible to remove many, if any, of these blanks 'without the use of a tool'.

However, if you believed, in a particular case, that a 'blank' produced by, and 'recommended for the CU by', the manufacturer of the CU could be removed 'without the use of a tool', you would be creating a rather strange situation if you coded it because of a violation of 416.2.4. In fact, you would probably have created an 'impossible situation' - since, although your C3 would be 'recommending improvement', what 'improvement' would be possible if you believed that the only "type tested" component available did not comply with 416.2.4?

Also, in terms of something else you mention, I'm surprised that we're not hearing more in this (IMO 'silly'/pedantic!) discussion about uncertainties regarding the earthing of a metal 'blank' when it is part of the enclosure of a Class I item!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Methinks mountains out of molehills springs to mind. It's a bank holiday weekend, stop worrying over trifles and go have some jelly.

Quite so. Even in relation to things electrical, let alone jellies, it is pretty crazy to be worrying about such trifling (!) issues when there are far more important ones to worry about.

However, to be serious, the problem (for landlords) arises because of the 'PRS legislation', given that eric seems to have implied that he might at least consider giving C2s to (what most of us would regard as) totally trivial issues - and, as things stand, there's nothing that can be done to stop 'EICR inspectors' doing that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[studentspark]

I don't think this is a silly discussion. Blanks in CU can cause problems.
Clip on ones are a C2 so the install would fail an EICR.

And its a PITA when you find a CU with blanks missing, and you have not got anything in the van, its a revisit, because you can't leave a C1

It would be impossible to carry around a din rail mounted blank for every make of CU.
I generally have a few in the van, but most times you have to cut bits off because they seem completely over engineered
and will not go over the bus bar. The MK one comes to mind

The MCB type ones are good, and I don't worry about the make as long as they fit. I would not even give it a code.

And Ive pondered, whats worse , leaving a clip in blank in place, or putting a metal twist in blank there (Plastic board), until I can return with a proper blank.

Those plastic Twist in which EFLImpudence found, look good. Ive ordered a few, so should solve that worry.

 

[JohnW2]

I don't think this is a silly discussion. Blanks in CU can cause problems. Clip on ones are a C2 so the install would fail an EICR.

Is that not a matter of opinion (as per the discussion here).

What if (as I believe is still the case with some) the 'clip on' blank is one supplied by the manufacturer of the CU for use with the CU in question - would you still give it a CU C2?

What is arguably 'silly' is the drift/evolution in this discussion. It started with eric talking about the use of a blank (which I assumed to be 'otherwise acceptable') with which the only problem was that it was 'of the wrong make' (not 'type tested'). How would you code that? As you go on to say ...

... It would be impossible to carry around a din rail mounted blank for every make of CU. ...

... but, provided it was dimensionally compatible, would you see a problem in using a DIN rail-mounted one which was of the 'wrong make' (and, if so, how would you code it?)?

Kind Regards, John
Edit: typo corrected

 

[studentspark]

would you see a problem in using a DIN rail-mounted one which was of the 'wrong make'

No problem , No code. Its just a lump of plastic

 

[boringoldcodger]

Deleted, as no longer relevant.

 

[JohnW2]

Much though I dislike being a pedant (if you believe that, you'll believe anything). ... I believe John meant C2 (not CU), 'cos:...

Very true. Typo has now been corrected. Thanks for noticing!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

No problem , No code. Its just a lump of plastic

Quite so. That's certainly my view, and appears to correspond totally with common sense.

However, as I said, if you look at the OP it appears that eric would consider giving it at least a C3 (for "not being type-tested"), even though he has so far not been able to tell me what regulation he would cite as the reason for the 'coding'.

Kind Regards, |John

 

[ericmark]

Sorry what I was saying is if I felt the blank could be removed without a tool, then C3 rather than C2, but the old Merlin Gerin boards had switches for the MCB's so even with no blank there were no live parts to IP2X all the blank was for was aesthetics, as to if any consumer units like that not sure, even the old Wylex fuse board had blanks, but the base for the MCB was considered good enough, and when fuses were used, we could remove the fuse without a tool with a thumb screw on many covers.

I had never considered this as potentially dangerous, even though I had not refitted the covers over the MCB's there were marked sections to knock out so they could be refitted, but most times they would break if you tried removing the section. I did not feel this

presented a potential danger, and what is assessable with MCB removed clearly has a bearing on code given, if any.

To use metal blanks the problem is how to bond them, if a wire was to come out of the neutral bar, it could touch the blank and make it live in many cases, so in the main the metal version is out, and I am really not sure I could remove a plastic blank without a tool or excessive force. Yes blanks can be pushed in, but the whole plastic consumer unit could be smashed with ones elbow, so some reason must be used, I seem to remember the test finger to establish if IP2X does have a limit as to pressure? Seem to remember one newton or around 3.5 ounces? I can't see many blanks being pushed in with 3.5 ounces?

So really looking at if a child, who has not learnt how to use tools, can prise the blank off? If you need a set of steps to reach the CU then really no problem, it is where the consumer unit is mounted low enough for a child to access it, although you can get adults who may play with a consumer unit, they can use tools even if mentally challenged. If I want to remove the blank I would not try very hard before looking for a tool.

So in real terms I have not tried to remove a blank with cover in place without using a tool, with less than one newton force.

So are push in blanks really an issue?

 

[bernardgreen]

This video about consumer units is well worth watching.

 

[JohnW2]

Sorry what I was saying is if I felt the blank could be removed without a tool, then C3 rather than C2 ...

OK. I must have taken your OP too literally. Although you (and everyone else) did, indeed, go on to discuss blanks that could be removed without use of a tool, you started this thread with ....

This has been raised on another forum, and I don't really have an answer, we are told to retain the type tested status that a consumer unit should only be fitted with items authorised by the manufacturer which in real terms means items made by the same manufacturer. .... So if the blanks are push in type, even if you can remove them without a tool then you can't replace them with another manufacturers blanks .....

... which seemed to be majoring on the issue of "another manufacturer's blanks" - although I wonder we why, in the last sentence quoted above, you had not written "... even if you cannot remove them without a tool".

So, to be clear, what if you had written that? Are you now agreeing that (despite the first sentence of your OP) if a blank cannot be removed without a tool, then it does not need to be 'coded' at all if the only issue that it is "other manufacturer's blanks" (and therefore not part of the CU's 'type testing')?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

..... If I want to remove the blank I would not try very hard before looking for a tool. So in real terms I have not tried to remove a blank with cover in place without using a tool, with less than one newton force. So are push in blanks really an issue?

Quite so. As I wrote above ...

However, as you seem to go on to say, I think this silly discussion gets even sillier when one realises that, unless (in some cases) one has long and strong fingernails, it is probably not possible to remove many, if any, of these blanks 'without the use of a tool'.

Kind Regards, John