More about conforming to the low voltage directive than anything else, and certain tests being carried out, hi-pot etc. the CE marking can be self certed, and is no guarantee that the design is approved.
I was about to say similar to Marvo^^
Dave sparks also alluded to this too, I would be more concerned fitting a panel that was not type tested/approved.
If the front cover is lockable, or requires a tool to open, you should be fine, I would perhaps have a warning --- Volts label too, although not required in BS7671,most panels I have built do have this label.
The IP ratings are almost (if not exactly) the same as BS7671, namely suitable for the intended environment, minimum IP 4X for the top surface and IP2X for the rest or higher depending on environment.
The colours can be anything except Green, and G/Y this latter only used for CPCs, so long as...
They are a flip out type, but they can detach quite easily the (carrier part), here is a pic, we used loads of these for feeding digi multifunction meters and the like when building panels, they are secondary fuses.
Those fuse carriers look like Wiedmuller terminal fuses, they take standard 20mm fuses, they are normally enclosed inside of the panels, I don't think they are certified for external use.
Agree about the (lack of) trunking. :)
To be honest this type of situation is one of the few times TT ing the far end is worth considering on economic grounds due to the cable sizes involved, probably not in domestic where the distances are fairly short, but certainly in cases where you may only want say a lamp in an outbuilding...
Then why the blanket statement ?
543.2.5 The metal covering including the sheath (bare or insulated) of a cable, in particular the sheath of a mineral insulated cable, trunking and ducting for electrical purposes and metal conduit, may be used as a protective conductor for the associated...
Usually on the either/or type codes I look at the rest of it as a whole, if it is all spot on other than being to the earlier edition I tend to be a bit more generous and code more leniently, OTHO hand if it is a pile of poo with other C2s then I code more harshly.
Cheers, E54
TBF I thought that table was a little on the optimistic side ;) ,it is the only one I have that shows the copper equivalent, I have others that show which sizes the SWA are suitable for use as a CPC, I probably got one of those from you. :)
When I have finished my paperwork I...
No, the copper equivalent was given as 15mm in one table I looked at.
I appreciate that particular table maybe incorrect, and I would need to do the calcs properly, actually I think I got the table from here ;)
If the k values in that table are correct then the armourings could be used as the...
I don't think that matters in this context Archy, the general rules for protective conductors in 543 apply equally to section 544.
Section 544 applies additional conditions regarding minimum sizes to the preceding section, more specifically to bonding conductors.
If you look at 543.2.5 though, this refers specifically to the sheath as a protective conductor and must fulfill condition (i) or (ii) of the reg you quoted, I read this that the sheath must be able to satisfy one of the functions of a given protective conductor in it's own right.
If it does...
I think Dave is referring to reg 543.2.5
Even so, taking 543.2.5 into account, one of my tables for Equal Size Conductor Cables PVC ins. SWA to BS3646, operating at 70 degrees C gives the equivalent copper csa of the armourings for 3 core 6mm2 SWA as 15mm2
If that's the case then the...
Part P need not apply if you are adding to an existing circuit (spurring from existing RFC), Part P only applies if you are adding a new circuit to the CU ;) , otherwise a what the other posters have said ^^^^^
As Bruce has edited his post above :)
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc