Multiple led recessed lights to rose

[JohnW2]

If that is a reference to the absence of an MF marking then that's silly, since it's quite obvious that Yorkshirebloke meant that is looks as if it quite possibly "complies with everything else for 5733", and hence therefore probably 'could' bear 5733 markings. If there's some other aspect of obvious non-compliance that he and I have both missed, then it would be interesting to know what it is.

 

[Yorkshirebloke]

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=s...63#imgrc=4vHX8dd7iitpUM&imgdii=qEOOkFfG20irXM

Every one I've seen does have the MF on it. It can from what I understand have the MF logo on it because the box is rated to BS EN 60670-22.
The terminals inside it however aren't considered to be compliant with 5733.

Personally I think it's quite a ****ty thing to do by the manufacturer, making out it is a maintenance free JB but actually hasnt been scruitineered to its fullest extent and awarded 5733 compliance status......but sadly there are quite a lot of them like this on the market. From my understanding, everything about that surefix box meets the specs of 5733 visually, obviously the testing is an aside. We all know that getting that testing done will be hellish expensive.
But, again, does it need to be MF? Not everything has to be MF. My idea of MF is likely very different to your MF BAS. But if you or I install this...... or an Ashley J501..... it won't matter a sh1t as it wouldn't be signed off anyway.

 

[JohnW2]

.... The terminals inside it however aren't considered to be compliant with 5733. ... From my understanding, everything about that surefix box meets the specs of 5733 visually, obviously the testing is an aside. ...

That's a little confusing, at least to me . What makes you think that the terminals aren't considered compliant with 5733 - simply the fact that they (possibly) have not been tested to confirm that compliance?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Yorkshirebloke]

Hi ya John,
I might be misreading it John, but from what I can ascertain BS 60670-22 is the applicable standard for junction boxes and BS 5733 is the applicable standard for accessories.

So for instance the wago box is 60670. It is only a true MF box if used with the wago connectors which are 5733. I guess this is to stop cheapskates sticking choc blocks in a wago box and claiming it's MF.

Alex

 

[Yorkshirebloke]

That's a little confusing, at least to me . What makes you think that the terminals aren't considered compliant with 5733 - simply the fact that they (possibly) have not been tested to confirm that compliance?

Kind Regards, John

Sorry John I misread your post!!! Doh!
Yes, unless they have been tested from my understanding they are not given 5733 compliance status..... as BAS said. But they are built to the specs from what I can see/read.
But they can be given 60670 as the box clearly conforms to that reg.

Again, I hasten to add, that's my rudimentary understanding of it.

Alex

 

[333rocky333]

some surewire products have only recently got MF accreditation, even though they have been around a while, i have seen 2 versions of another product and the newer one is marked MF and the other only a few months old not.

 

[JohnW2]

Sorry John I misread your post!!! Doh! Yes, unless they have been tested from my understanding they are not given 5733 compliance status..... as BAS said. But they are built to the specs from what I can see/read. But they can be given 60670 as the box clearly conforms to that reg.

Yes, but I didn't think that 60670 alone makes it 'MF'. For concealed JB's (which is the concern/context for people here), BS7671 certainly requires both an 'MF' marking and BS5733 compliance.

Kind Regards, John

 

[333rocky333]

I am a bit confused with this post, surely they are a complete assembly and MF , why are the connecters being doubted, there website clarifies the MF marking, whereas wagoboxes can be abused have any terminals inside, i would say these are more likely to be installed correctly as MF

 

[JohnW2]

I am a bit confused with this post, surely they are a complete assembly and MF , why are the connecters being doubted, there website clarifies the MF marking, whereas wagoboxes can be abused have any terminals inside, i would say these are more likely to be installed correctly as MF

If it's my post which confuses you, you needn't be confused by me . I also don't understand why doubts have been expressed about the 'MF compliance' of the connectors - so I'm not the person who can clarify that for you!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

MF is not sufficient for BS 5733

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If that is a reference to the absence of an MF marking then that's silly,

No, it is of fundamental importance.

since it's quite obvious that Yorkshirebloke meant that is looks as if it quite possibly "complies with everything else for 5733"

Is it indeed.

Since you claim to know he meant, would you be able to explain why he didn't write what he meant?

and hence therefore probably 'could' bear 5733 markings.

Maybe it could.

Maybe it couldn't.

But there is no "maybe" about the fact that neither you, nor I, nor Yorkshirebloke are the makers of it, so neither you, nor I, nor Yorkshirebloke know why BS 5733 compliance is not claimed.

If there's some other aspect of obvious non-compliance that he and I have both missed, then it would be interesting to know what it is.

Only the maker can tell you.

 

[JohnW2]

I have asked Surewire to clarify the situation with their products as regards BS 5733 (hence also BS 7671).

 

[Yorkshirebloke]

This is taken from the wago site, and again, I might be misreading this but it seemed to me that 60670 and 5733 go hand in hand but are separate.

So in summary, for a maintenance-free installation you require:

• Screwless terminals that are suitable for the type and size of conductor you are using, which have been tested and meet all relevant product standards and European directives, as well as the requirements of BS 5733

• A suitable junction box that is compliant with BS 60670-22 (applicable standard for junction boxes) and BS 5733 (applicable standard for accessories), as well as showing both the MF and CE marks, and meeting all relevant European directives

It’s important to note that the connectors and the enclosure do not qualify on their own as maintenance-free accessories. This is because an accessory is defined as the whole equipment and may comprise of two separate products – the connectors and the enclosure – both have to be certified for use together and installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

 

[JohnW2]

I have asked Surewire to clarify the situation with their products as regards BS 5733 (hence also BS 7671).

I have received a rapid response, but it is far from fully clear/satisfactory.

The Wago connector 224-112 in our boxes fully conforms to the BS5733 and is a maintenance free connector. Our boxes were test by BSI and they authorised the the MF symbol and certification to BS EN 60670-22 on our products.
I can understand your concerns as many companies say tested to BS EN 60670-22 and not tested by BSI.

I have responded accordingly and I will keep you all posted
Edit: I should perhaps have added that I think they have probably 'got it all wrong'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

For information, this is the guts of my response:

Many thanks for your rapid response.

BS 5733 is a Standard relating to electrical accessories and, as such, an individual connector cannot be said to conform with that standard. Even Wago make no such claims about any of their connectors.

Certain combinations of 773- and 222- series of Wago connectors, if installed in a Wagobox, are said to be conformant with BS 5733. However, in the case of 224-112 Wago connectors (as in your products), even Wago do not claim conformity with BS 5733, not even when the connectors are contained in a "Wagobox Light Junction Box" (which does not bear an MF marking).

As I wrote before, to be acceptable to BS7671 as a junction box that could be used in an inaccessible location, the junction box as a whole (including, but not restricted to, the connectors) would have to conform to BS 5733, and bear the MF marking.

I look forward to hearing your further comments.

Kind Regards, John