New 17th edition amendment 3 consumer unit - metal or plastic?

[stillp]

No, I think the problem is that a glow-wire test is not a test for resistance to fire.

 

[JohnW2]

What I'd really prefer, and were I able to, insist upon, would be "fire or abnormal heat" to express the former.

I agree. That cannot really be regarded as ambiguous.

Such ambiguity would obviously not be acceptable in mathematics or computer programming.

It is, or BWOTB, just as unacceptable in legislation, regulations and standards.

Again agreed.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

No, I think the problem is that a glow-wire test is not a test for resistance to fire.

Ah! So why is it prescribed in a section of the Standard referring to "abnormal heat and fire", if it is not 'fit for purpose' in the latter case?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Because it is referred to under the title "Verification of resistance of insulating materials to abnormal heat and fire due to internal electric effects"

 

[JohnW2]

Because it is referred to under the title "Verification of resistance of insulating materials to abnormal heat and fire due to internal electric effects"

But that's what LFB (and hence, by extrapolation, JPEL/64) are concerned about, isn't it? - or does "internal electrical effects" not include the overheating (or 'bursting into flames") of electrical components or conductors within a CU enclosure?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Ah yes, that's true. I was thinking of the LVD requirements dealing with propagation of fire.

 

[JohnW2]

Ah yes, that's true. I was thinking of the LVD requirements dealing with propagation of fire.

Fair enough. So does that mean you now feel that the glow wire test is appropriate in the context we (or the LFB) are talking about - and, if so, do you think that (as IU suggested) the 'issue' is that 'they' (LFB, who have maybe convinced JPEL/64) do not regard a 650° C test as adequate?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

No, and no.

 

[securespark]

Sealing round the cable entry points is nothing new.

 

[JohnW2]

No, and no.

I see - so do you have a view on what test would be appropriate, and what relevant Standard would describe the test and specify the requirements?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Sealing round the cable entry points is nothing new.

For what purpose (if the CU were 'combustible') - and are you suggesting that there is (or has been) a regulatory requirement to do this?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

No, and no.

I see - so do you have a view on what test would be appropriate, and what relevant Standard would describe the test and specify the requirements?

Kind Regards, John

Yes, but I'm not going to discuss it here.

 

[JohnW2]

I see - so do you have a view on what test would be appropriate, and what relevant Standard would describe the test and specify the requirements?

Yes, but I'm not going to discuss it here.

Fair enough. I can understand your not wanting to discuss your views here, but could you tell us whether there is any Standard which is explicitly relevant in relation to the fire-resistant properties of a CU enclosure (given that you have indicated your belief that 60439 isn't)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ElliotW]

Thanks for all the comments, this thread has got a bit technical for me now! But it seems the consensus is I do need a new consumer unit as want an electrical shower fitted, and if want to keep up with regulations coming into place from 1 January 2016 should consider getting a metal CU?

Another quick questions...one quote I received said: To supply a satisfactory NICEIC certificate with Part P council notification. £90.00. That seems a lot to me and research online seems to say this should be included. When I questioned what the charge for the certificate was for he added 'The advantage of the certificate if that if you want to rent the property in the next 5 years you have it in place, if you are going to live there then there is not a great advantage to having the certificate to be honest.' Still, should I be paying for this if we do plan to rent in the future and if so, £90 seems a lot or is that standard?

 

[stillp]

No, I see no value in that.

edit: sorry, that was a reply to JohnW2