EICR What would you do?

[Doomed]

So a DIN rail mounted MCB with its entry for the busbar in the same place is now a hazard? Reality check time.
Yes you would never do it on a new install, yes you would never do it if the correct spares are available, but if it fits exactly the same what is the problem?
(Although I would not willingly touch proteus)

Oh, and:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tWsBw3lB64

 

[R G]

Going back to earlier times , testing for site built assemblies was seen at that time as an issue for anything that was cobbled together with different make parts , this was something I remember from the 80s , still should apply I suppose ..

Although at the time it was seen to apply to larger equipment etc , it was seen that the principle could be applied to this situation also ,

 

[netblindpaul]

IF you modify a type tested assembly then you are placing a new product onto the market, end of story.
Thus you are legally responsible for ensuring that the product meets the requirement for placing on the market.

Your shout.

 

[Doomed]

If it was a crabtree or one of those old federal beasts I would agree, but a DIN mounted assembly?
Also if we are going down your road how many extract fans without a 3A fuse protecting it do you see? How many times have you seen a cut off premoulded plug to wired straight into a fused spur?

 

[Guest77]

Perdone??

 

[D Skelton]

C3 at the very worst. I could however be easily swayed by a good argument for no code at all.

C2 is a ridiculous suggestion.

 

[netblindpaul]

No Damien,
Think about the fault scenarios.
Look at the DRA that needs to be done for the change.
Then look at the requirements for the change, and the testing that needs to be done.

I will agree that it is borderline C2/C3, however, without doing the full analysis it is not possible to tell.

You will have placed an new product into the market place, without having done any testing, or design analysis, how can you say it is safe.

I would trust that you are by now aware that 60898 does not cover performance in failure scenarios, only performance under circuit fault conditions.
I don't "like" it either, but, this is what we have to live with.

 

[willy fixit]

Thanks Tony, Living up to the Grumpy git moniker!
As I implied, I'm not after advice. I was merely being devils advocate and interested in what others might think - I will never ask for advice on this forum because, I agree with what you say, and I would not have changed my mind on the opinion of "random guys on the internet".
In saying that I do read a lot of posts here and find it interesting that a worrying number of "Electricians" do seem to ask questions on fundamental issues that they really ought to know about.
As far as personal preferences are concerned I'm really sorry about my taste in music. I'm also not keen on the Beatles! (Does that make me a really bad person?)

 

[D Skelton]

No Damien,
Think about the fault scenarios.
Look at the DRA that needs to be done for the change.
Then look at the requirements for the change, and the testing that needs to be done.

I will agree that it is borderline C2/C3, however, without doing the full analysis it is not possible to tell.

You will have placed an new product into the market place, without having done any testing, or design analysis, how can you say it is safe.

I would trust that you are by now aware that 60898 does not cover performance in failure scenarios, only performance under circuit fault conditions.
I don't "like" it either, but, this is what we have to live with.

Yes Paul,
Think about the fact that we have argued the ---- over this one issue literally hundreds of times now and we are yet to agree.

No matter how many acronyms, statutory documents or EU directives you throw at me, you would never catch me in a month of Sundays C2'ing a different brand of breaker unless actual alterations had taken place to get it to fit.

 

[Marvo]

Please keep the off topic discussions and chit chat in the Chit Chat forum.