EICR 3036 board - coding - meter tails

[davesparks]

It will contain it longer than plastic.
That's why it's changed or you might as well leave it as plastic.

I think has nothing to do with containing it, just that the enclosure material is less combustible. If it was to contain fire then it would have to have a fire rating and be properly sealed.

 

[Ian1981]

it will contain any fires longer than a plastic enclosure before eventually the fire spreads from a metal consumer unit that is the point.

 

[westward10]

it will contain any fires longer than a plastic enclosure before eventually the fire spreads from a metal consumer unit that is the point.

It has nothing to do with containment. To reduce the risk of fire you remove sources of heat, oxygen or a combustable material, in this case it is combustion by replacing the plastic enclosure with metal.

 

[Ian1981]

Yes giving superior fire containment compared to a plastic enclosure or is that also wrong?

 

[Ian1981]

Don't reply I'm board now!

 

[westward10]

Never assume that by fitting a metal consumer unit the risk of fire is eliminated it merely slows its progress, if a fire starts within a metal enclosure it will eventually spread and that is a certainty.

 

[Ian1981]

Never assume that by fitting a metal consumer unit the risk of fire is eliminated it merely slows its progress, if a fire starts within a metal enclosure it will eventually spread and that is a certainty.

Never said it was eliminated.
I've seen the various videos by different manufacturers, a plastic enclosure burning against a metal enclosure.
What I'm trying to say which is stating the obvious is it gives better containment against fire because it does!
I don't understand where all the negative comments are coming from ?
Always someone trying to shoot you down on this forum.
Opinions are welcomed negativity or sly comments are not.

 

[Leesparkykent]

Never said it was eliminated.
I've seen the various videos by different manufacturers, a plastic enclosure burning against a metal enclosure.
What I'm trying to say which is stating the obvious is it gives better containment against fire because it does!
I don't understand where all the negative comments are coming from ?
Always someone trying to shoot you down on this forum.
Opinions are welcomed negativity or sly comments are not.

Just ignore them Ian if you feel that way. I've enjoyed your input recently and seem like another knowledgeable member so stick around....you will get used to how different people post etc.

 

[westward10]

Never said it was eliminated.
I've seen the various videos by different manufacturers, a plastic enclosure burning against a metal enclosure.
What I'm trying to say which is stating the obvious is it gives better containment against fire because it does!
I don't understand where all the negative comments are coming from ?
Always someone trying to shoot you down on this forum.
Opinions are welcomed negativity or sly comments are not.

Obviously metal boards are better but if connections within are sound the material of the enclosure is probably irrelevant. I can see where you are coming from by saying in contains fire better but the point of them is to remove the source of combustion. Trying not be be negative here

 

[Ian1981]

Just ignore them Ian if you feel that way. I've enjoyed your input recently and seem like another knowledgeable member so stick around....you will get used to how different people post etc.

Wear my heart on my sleeve maybe a bit too much lee.
Enjoy reading different people's methods and theories, if I can bring something positive to the table then I will.
It's interesting how everyone interprets bs 7671 different tho which is why I believe best practice guides, iet guidance notes and on site guide are written to try and make it a bit more clearer.
However using these guides seems to be a show of lack of experience or knowledge which is frankly laughable. All relevant regulations are quoted against such information so you can cross examine against bs 7671.

This thread has gone down hill tho.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Recently had a 'discussion' with an NICEIC registered Inspector on a site I was working on.
Apparently lighting within containers containing gensets should be RCD protected. The wiring for the lighting is all surface run.
The four lights were also spidered from an adaptable box rather than daisy chained. Another non-compliance.
Zs - Ze could be used to calculate the R1+R2 of the lighting circuits.
All the boxes in the schedule of test results must be filled in with either measured or calculated values. A note should be made where calculated values are used.
His main arguments were that he had passed his 2391, had been a QS for a number of years and knew the Regs backwards.
When asked he didn't know that Chapter 6 deals with I&T, though it might be Chapter 5. Couldn't explain why lights have to be daisy chained and was sure there is a Regulation stating Zs or R1+R2 can be calculated, but couldn't find it as he had no data left on his phone.
Finally he was of the opinion that IP54 rated equipment is not suitable for use outside, that it should be IP67.

 

[Ian1981]

Recently had a 'discussion' with an NICEIC registered Inspector on a site I was working on.
Apparently lighting within containers containing gensets should be RCD protected. The wiring for the lighting is all surface run.
The four lights were also spidered from an adaptable box rather than daisy chained. Another non-compliance.
Zs - Ze could be used to calculate the R1+R2 of the lighting circuits.
All the boxes in the schedule of test results must be filled in with either measured or calculated values. A note should be made where calculated values are used.
His main arguments were that he had passed his 2391, had been a QS for a number of years and knew the Regs backwards.
When asked he didn't know that Chapter 6 deals with I&T, though it might be Chapter 5. Couldn't explain why lights have to be daisy chained and was sure there is a Regulation stating Zs or R1+R2 can be calculated, but couldn't find it as he had no data left on his phone.
Finally he was of the opinion that IP54 rated equipment is not suitable for use outside, that it should be IP67.

If you felt aggrieved by this I hope you reported it?

 

[alanjw]

If the main fuse is 60 amp then 16mm tails are fine and don't attract a code the consumer unit being 3036 might not get a code either id no modifications are evident but the rcd matter does need a code and reg number don't just chuck the whole book at it