The daftest change or addition in the 18th edition

[Octopus]

pretty much as the title says ....

For me it’s a txss up between the regulation about no mixing makes or mcbs or rcbos - but what if they are identical except for the name or logo

Eg lewden and control gear

AND

the design limit of 30% earth leakage on circuits with rcbo or rcds - how can this be tested / checked and what happens when people move in a new build and plug in all sorts or carp accessories

Next!

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

the whole damn exercise of the 18th... they brought it out far too soon after the 3rd amendment of the 17th... lots of pots to fill with cash it seems. lots of picky little things have changed and once again a lack of common sense about real world application.

 

[westward10]

Can this thread be about changes which seem insignificant and not people droning on about changes for manufacturers to make money.
1. Change from ac and dc to AC and DC to harmonise with Europe.
2. Change of the rcd notice from quarterly to six monthly.
3. The insistence of two colour notices whilst not a change should have been removed.
4. Font size changes to some of the notices.

 

[Risteard]

For me it’s a txss up between the regulation about no mixing makes or mcbs or rcbos

I think it's eminently sensible. People were always adopting the duties of the designer of the assembly by doing this (although many appeared to be oblivious to this) so I think an unambiguous statement about this is welcome.

 

[netblindpaul]

Can this thread be about changes which seem insignificant and not people droning on about changes for manufacturers to make money.
1. Change from ac and dc to AC and DC to harmonise with Europe.
2. Change of the rcd notice from quarterly to six monthly.
3. The insistence of two colour notices whilst not a change should have been removed.
4. Font size changes to some of the notices.

The a.c. to AC etc was not to harmonise with Europe it was to harmonise with the IEC.

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

the one i think customers will not like is the requirement for notices for all rcd's even ones not at the board, as i understand it a rcd spur will now need a sticker telling them to test etc... either the writing will be so small it cant be read or you put a picture frame on the wall next to it? as soon as you are out the door they will remove it in any case.
I would be surprised if more than 2% of people ever actually test the rcds as per the notices.

 

[PEG]

...not much harmonising with AC/DC...

Let's not let the thread get all Brexit,on us...

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Are we seriously not allowed to use other Manufacturer’s equipment in CUs and DBS now?

 

[Rosco]

What gets me is when they change the number of a reg but don’t actually change the reg itself can’t think of one off hand but I think there’s about 3or4 from the 17th to 18th il have a look tomorrow when I’m less sleepy

 

[Deleted member 26818]

What gets me is when they change the number of a reg but don’t actually change the reg itself can’t think of one off hand but I think there’s about 3or4 from the 17th to 18th il have a look tomorrow when I’m less sleepy

Think that happened more with the 16th to 17th change.

 

[Ian1981]

Are we seriously not allowed to use other Manufacturer’s equipment in CUs and DBS now?

Have we ever supposed to have done this?

 

[Andy78]

@Murdoch mixing similar brands that fit has never been much of an issue. Just get written verification from the manufacturer. I have done this before with Ashley/Hager, Schneider/SquareD etc.

 

[Wilko]

I think it's eminently sensible. People were always adopting the duties of the designer of the assembly by doing this (although many appeared to be oblivious to this) so I think an unambiguous statement about this is welcome.

Hi - I haven't seen the wording of this - can anyone give the reference please?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Have we ever supposed to have done this?

Oh yes, there has never been a prohibition against this practice until AMD3.
The two conditions preventing this practice has always been compatibility and breaking capacity.
The breaking capacity of the individual components of a CU has frequently been lower than the PFC of many installations.
To circumvent this, they introduced ‘Type testing’ which increased the overall breaking capacity of CUs to 16kA.
Mixing different manufacturer’s components negates the type testing. As such unless the breaking capacity of the individual components was greater than the PFC, mixing manufacturers’ components was prohibited.
However in non-domestic installations where breaking capacities of individual components are generally much higher, this has never been much of a problem.

Amendment 3 of the 17th edition however changed things.
It introduced the requirement for BS EN 61439-3 CUs to be used in domestic installations.
BS EN 61439-3 CUs are type tested and as such the requirement effectively prohibits the mixing of manufacturers’ components.
Again in non-domestic installations, not so much of a problem.

If this new requirement prohibits the mixing of manufacurers’ components altogether, it may well have far reaching consequences. Not a only affecting standard DBS and CUs, but also custom built switch panels and control gear.
Will we still be able to build a control panel containing Telemecanique relays with ABB VSDs and Shneider MCBs?

 

[Wilko]

There is Reg 421.1.201 which is unchanged from 17:A3 (domestic boards must be BS614393-3 and the non combustible bit). Is there a new reg?