Why is Wylex so popular!?

[stillp]

As to type testing clearly non type tested gear is not necessary dangerous and in real terms if one manufacturers gear fits into another manufacturers box then really no problem with using it as the whole idea of DIN rail was to allow one to mix and match.

No, the whole idea of DIN rail is to allow speedy mounting of switchgear components.
A problem with "mix and match" is that if the assembly goes wrong, who gets the blame, the mcb manufacturer or the CU manufacturer? Sometimes devices don't work correctly (i.e., within their manufacturer's specification) if fitted in another manufacturer's CU enclosure, even if the busbar arrangement is compatible.
There's also the issue about physically fitting in the enclosure without leaving gaps that can allow contact with live parts.

 

[JohnW2]

A problem with "mix and match" is that if the assembly goes wrong, who gets the blame, the mcb manufacturer or the CU manufacturer? Sometimes devices don't work correctly (i.e., within their manufacturer's specification) if fitted in another manufacturer's CU enclosure, even if the busbar arrangement is compatible. There's also the issue about physically fitting in the enclosure without leaving gaps that can allow contact with live parts.

I have to say that it has always rather surprised me that the relevant Standards for MCBs/RCDs/RCBOs etc. didn't require at least physical compatibility (terminals and aperture etc.), if not complete interchangeability. I wonder if lobbying by industry (whose commercial interests might well be served by non-compatibility) had anything to do with that?

Even industry has seemingly accepted interchangeability in terms of fuses and fuse holders, lamps and lampholders etc. etc. - and BS1363 obviously demands a high degree of compatibility in terms of plugs, sockets and accessories.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

I know John, we've had this discussion previously. As I've said, mixing makes of device can affect their operation, so manufacturers don't really want interchangeability. To ensure full interchangeability would require a lot more than harmonising the dimensions. Besides, as I've asked previously, who would take the blame if an assembly of mixed manufacturers' devices misbehaved?

 

[stillp]

BS 1363 does allow different fixings - remember the dual sockets that had four fixing screws, and the switches with screws at top and bottom? In that case though, there's no advantage to the manufacturer of being different from the others, so they all seem to have adopted compatible dimensions.
Fitting one manufacturer's socket onto a differnt make of back box won't affect the performance, fitting the wrong make of MCB into a CU might.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

... even if the busbar arrangement is compatible ...

Having tried to mix'n'match, my experience is that they usually aren't.

 

[JohnW2]

I know John, we've had this discussion previously. As I've said, mixing makes of device can affect their operation, so manufacturers don't really want interchangeability. To ensure full interchangeability would require a lot more than harmonising the dimensions.

Yes, we've been here before, but, rightly or wrongly, I remain sceptical! The argument relies heavily on the notion that mixing of devices 'can affect their operation'. I actually find it fairly hard to believe that, even now, it is often a significant consideration (in terms of domestic CUs, which is really what we're discussing) - but if all devices were required to comply with a Standard which took 'operation' adequately into account (in terms of thermal behaviour, effect of proximity to other devices etc.) then I would imagine that the argument would lose most of its substance.

Besides, as I've asked previously, who would take the blame if an assembly of mixed manufacturers' devices misbehaved?

Well, as above, if all the devices were non-faulty and compliant with a common Standard which adequately addressed issues of operation (as well as dimensions), then I don't think that anyone would be 'to blame' (although the Standard itself may need to be revisited!). What if the combination of one manufacturer's BS1363 plug and another manufacturer's BS1363 socket 'misbehaves', and both can be shown to have been compliant with the Standard - who, if anyone, then 'takes the blame'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[AndyPRK]

As usual things have gone off at a tangent.

Yes John they really should standardize MCB terminal location and dimensions for manufactures new ranges from year xxxx

As well as switch location (and test button location for RCBO's.)


A neutral bar would be excellent too for RCBO's.

And make the DIN rail the CPC bar somehow.

 

[JohnW2]

As usual things have gone off at a tangent. ... Yes John they really should standardize MCB terminal location and dimensions for manufactures new ranges from year xxxx ... As well as switch location (and test button location for RCBO's.) ... A neutral bar would be excellent too for RCBO's. ... And make the DIN rail the CPC bar somehow.

I sometimes hate this medium of communication - is this agreement or sarcasm ?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

When I built a board for a new machine I used Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) in Germany, which have since been adopted as European (EN) and international (ISO) standards.

It would have a mixture of makes including a Mitsubishi PLC using Actuator Sensor Interface, (AS-i) with SES motors with AS-i, Inverter drive and gear box all built in. But it was a real mixture of makes and I had little problem working out which bit had failed and which manufacturer to ask for help from.

Only where ordinary persons are in charge do we have restrictions on what equipment can be used. In the factory I could mix and match as much as I wanted as long as the result was safe.

As to why it's not permitted where ordinary persons are in charge I don't know. I would assume it is the length of time between inspections. When I built a machine to start with I would inspect every day, then once a week, then once a month as we become more confident that we had removed any bugs. Clearly this does not happen with a house once commissioned the electrician walks away never to be seen again.

Even a car has recalls and regular servicing plus a MOT once a year but there is nothing to make the owner of a house have the installation checked at all once the electrician has finished although should be every 10 years. Clearly from the number of houses with no earth to lights this does not happen.

So to me reason for type testing is lack of inspection and testing you want a product which will still be OK in 10 years time.

 

[JohnW2]

Only where ordinary persons are in charge do we have restrictions on what equipment can be used. ... As to why it's not permitted where ordinary persons are in charge I don't know. I would assume it is the length of time between inspections.

Maybe - but the regulation we're discussing only talks about who is 'in control of' (which I take to mean 'operationally') the DB/CU, without saying anything about frequency of inspection. The fact that a skilled (or whatever) person 'is in control of' a DB in no way ensures that it will be inspected at any particular frequency, does it?

I also have to wonder what sort of perceived consequences of 'mixing and matching' devices within a DB/CU would be detected by even very frequent inspections - particularly given that OPDs cannot be tested. Visually obvious thermal damage is about the only thing I can think of.

Kind Regards, John

 

[AndyPRK]

No it wasn't sarcasm John.

 

[JohnW2]

No it wasn't sarcasm John.

Thanks for clarifying. It might sound silly, but it's sometimes very difficult to be sure!

If you're serious about favouring mix-and-matchability then I fear that, like me, you're probably going to be disappointed!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

There will always be the rouge manufacturer who will not abide by standards. All mobile phones were to have standard USB chargers (Except Apple) for air travel the flight mode was not going to be accepted it required battery removal. This actually made a lot of sense as a Nokia would turn it's self on with an alarm setting. Again Apple decided not to make battery removable. Desk tops also had a host of user replaceable and upgradeable parts, except apple.

As a result one would expect users to shun apple products and apple to go to the wall but this has not been the case. The apple example has shown manufacturers how it better not to standardise.

The type BS 196 15A plug and socket was to me a great standard specially for 110 volt with the two options of either lug or no lug for fused or unfused but the massive yellow plug replaced them it was a British Standard not Europe.

 

[JohnW2]

There will always be the rouge manufacturer who will not abide by standards. ... (Except Apple) ... Again Apple decided not to ... except apple ... As a result one would expect users to shun apple products and apple to go to the wall but this has not been the case. The apple example has shown manufacturers how it better not to standardise.

Indeed - but Apple have only been able to do that because there are no 'mandatory' Standards applying to the things you mention, so they are free to 'not abide' by the same 'standards'/conventions as others. However, in a more regulated situation, Apple could not come up with, and market in the UK, their own alternative to BS1363 accessories (which were not compliant with BS1363) and expect them to be used in BS7671-compliant installations in the UK.

I've already suggested (perhaps somewhat cynically) that the industry may possibly have taken a more subtle approach in relation to CU components (MCBs, RCBOs RCDs etc.) by lobbying BSI not to impose Standards which would make their products interchangeable. However, if that happened, it's different, since the manufacturers remain effectively obliged to comply with the Standards, but may possibly have influenced what those Standards required. However, that is obviously all wild conjecture, and I may be doing both manufacturers and BSI an injustice by even suggesting it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

John, since 2010 there has been a European regulation requiring mobile phones to charge using USB-IF BC 1.1. (I believe it's called MOU REGARDING THE HARMONISATION OF A CHARGING CAPABILITY FOR MOBILE PHONES).

I have heard there are some exceptions, and the other problem is that BC 1.1 has been replaced by BC 1.2, though the European legislation was not updated.

I also believe that the introduction of the USB C-connector will kick off some new European legislation.

All the phones I have seen recently have used the Micro-B USB connector for charging, so I think the ruling has been partly successful. So far though, each new phone seems to come with its own new charger. It's just that these chargers are all compatible now.