Flammable CUs solved!

[davesparks]

Some genius has come up with a wonderful idea to solve the whole flammable CU debacle once and for all!
It is ridiculously simple, you just install a device which presumably contains some sort of fusible link or bimetallic strip which when operated puts a deliberate fault in to the installation to make the RCD trip!
What could possibly be a better soloution to an overheating connection than creating another fault in the CU???
You can even fit them in those pesky spontaneously combusting shower isolators too!
Thermarestor® - technology transforming fire safety
I was so impressed when I saw this on the counter in a recent trip to wilts that I nearly cried laughing
I can't wait for a rep to turn up trying to sell these at my regular wholesaler, i'd love to discuss this revolutionary product with them

 

[uksparks]

Nice looking website, not exactly sure that it will take off though!

 

[Midwest]

How much!

 

[SJD]

Just wait till they become mandatory in the 18th edition!

 

[Thermarestor]

Thanks for the mention Dave - more than happy to discuss our product range with you. Unlike the AMD 3 boards we actually stop the fire from happening in the first place, using miniature non-resettable thermal switches to detect abnormal heating at connection points. Independently tested, with LABC certification and complies with BS7671 (ECA Today June 2015 ECAtoday - June 2015 ) - a cheaper and, more importantly, safer alternative to metal CU's.

 

[Richard Burns]

Just wait till they become mandatory in the 18th edition!

Do not tempt fate, please!!

 

[Marvo]

Welcome to the forum Thermarestor. I've given you full members permissions to aid your right to reply. Any future posts will be visible immediately but please avoid direct marketing activities which would be in contravention of the forum advertising policy.

Thanks for the mention Dave - more than happy to discuss our product range with you. Unlike the AMD 3 boards we actually stop the fire from happening in the first place, using miniature non-resettable thermal switches to detect abnormal heating at connection points. Independently tested, with LABC certification and complies with BS7671 (ECA Today June 2015 ECAtoday - June 2015 ) - a cheaper and, more importantly, safer alternative to metal CU's.

 

[stevethesparks]

Maybe built in with a licensed key (not available to plebs) to reset might be a consideration of the future.
Then again, just put blimim twin screws back on to terminals and have them specified to be man enough for the job.
:icon3:

 

[amlu]

"thermarrestor removes the need to fit metal consumer units " and a big ECA logo next to it. must be big £££ passed around.
looked at the brochure and installation guide, looks like its a battery powered gadget sounding alarm when things get hot.
thats it.
cut out version looks like is not ready yet, wonder how it works and how a bi-metallic strip will be able to break a big fault current if something goes wrong...

 

[Andy78]

Thanks for the mention Dave - more than happy to discuss our product range with you. Unlike the AMD 3 boards we actually stop the fire from happening in the first place, using miniature non-resettable thermal switches to detect abnormal heating at connection points. Independently tested, with LABC certification and complies with BS7671 (ECA Today June 2015 ECAtoday - June 2015 ) - a cheaper and, more importantly, safer alternative to metal CU's.

So are you saying that the regulations are going to be rewritten before January to incorporate the use of your device as an alternative to the use of non-combustible enclosures for domestic distribution ?

 

[davesparks]

Thanks for the mention Dave - more than happy to discuss our product range with you. Unlike the AMD 3 boards we actually stop the fire from happening in the first place, using miniature non-resettable thermal switches to detect abnormal heating at connection points. Independently tested, with LABC certification and complies with BS7671 (ECA Today June 2015 ECAtoday - June 2015 ) - a cheaper and, more importantly, safer alternative to metal CU's.

If I have understood correctly your device connects between N and E on the outgoing side of the RCD to cause a trip if the thermal switch activates?
How does this work with a TT system or any installation where a high impedance N-E fault exists?

 

[Thermarestor]

If I have understood correctly your device connects between N and E on the outgoing side of the RCD to cause a trip if the thermal switch activates?
How does this work with a TT system or any installation where a high impedance N-E fault exists?

Hi Dave

As I'm sure you already know, a high impedance neutral to earth fault may not pass sufficient fault current to trip the RCD - but as the load is increased some of that load current will pass via the N-E fault and when the load current is large enough the RCD will trip so you would be correct in assuming that in such circumstances our devices will only operate the RCD when load is sufficient. However, the risk of the type of fire we protect against is also load dependent (the majority of fixed electrical installation fires being due to resistive/ohmic heating at connection points). In short - No load=no risk of fire + no RCD operation. High load = risk of fire + RCD operation. Really over-simplifying things, I know, but I do take your point - trying to produce a "one size fits all solution" ain't that easy!

 

[Darkwood]

(In short - No load=no risk of fire + no RCD operation. High load = risk of fire + RCD operation)

The issue I see here is that as you express one solution cannot fit all but you seem to be in the mindset that it takes a high load to create a fire risk or overheating hazard and this is not the case, you can generate massive amount of heat from a loose cable with a very small load, arcing in itself can exacerbate an issue too, all you need for a burn out is what is known as a runnaway effect where by the heat generated cannot be dissipated faster than it is produced so even small loads can create the same outcome albiet they may take longer... this is especially the case with low voltage 230v we see in domestic as it has the potential to overcome the resistive nature of loose cables even when heated by the problem.

I personally can see area's in my sector of work for you device but have to say its a bold statement to express that your product nullifies the need to move from 'combustable' consumer units to 'non-combustable'.

 

[Thermarestor]

"I personally can see area's in my sector of work for you device but have to say its a bold statement to express that your product nullifies the need to move from 'combustable' consumer units to 'non-combustable'."

Point taken and website will be edited. The majority of research into ohmic heating is American as far as I'm aware - not been able to find any creditable UK studies - and the overriding conclusion is that current is by far the most significant factor in generating the sort of heat which can lead to ignition of adjacent combustibles. As BEAMA recognise, the term "non-combustible" in regard is somewhat misleading as there is no agreed definition and/or test in regard to the new reg. - "less combustible" might have been better. The objective is to contain the fire rather than address the cause and this only really works whilst the integrity of the metal cu is maintained. Latest guidance from BEAMA and endorsed by the powers that be states that there is no requirement for fire rated cable glands or intumescent seals. Unless the manufacturer requires it. So, the metal enclosure can now be cut up to allow for insertion of "combustible" PVC trunking and the back entry cables coming through the gaping letterbox at the rear allow any resultant fire a nice route into the building cavity.

 

[Darkwood]

TBH this is all a knee jerk reaction to failures in other parts of the industry, fires derived from consumer units has only seen a massive rise in the last few decades now read into that how you will but it's probably a mix of cheaper electrical goods, mass manufacturing coupled with a lowering of standards/requirements to become an Electrician. Their is also the rise in DIY access to such equipment that the uneducated are actively installing consumer units because the likes of B&Q etc sell them to Joe Public... all these together account for the rise in fires and instead of addressing the issue directly from source it has been decided to try tackle the consequences.... from a H&S approach this is a screw up on a major scale but hey - now us humble electricians have had the responsibilities drop squarely on our doorsteps as no 'body' out there is willing to tackle the real problems and prevent this in the first place.

Why do you think now we should be using Torque drivers to tighten terminals up - because we can no longer trust the fitters to know their job.

I put inverted brackets on the 'combustable' 'non conbustable' as its meaningless technical terminology again the IET are not willing to answer the question of clear definition of these terms so we are left with overkill just in case.

 

[Paul.M]

TBH this is all a knee jerk reaction to failures in other parts of the industry, fires derived from consumer units has only seen a massive rise in the last few decades now read into that how you will but it's probably a mix of cheaper electrical goods, mass manufacturing coupled with a lowering of standards/requirements to become an Electrician. Their is also the rise in DIY access to such equipment that the uneducated are actively installing consumer units because the likes of B&Q etc sell them to Joe Public... all these together account for the rise in fires and instead of addressing the issue directly from source it has been decided to try tackle the consequences.... from a H&S approach this is a screw up on a major scale but hey - now us humble electricians have had the responsibilities drop squarely on our doorsteps as no 'body' out there is willing to tackle the real problems and prevent this in the first place.

Why do you think now we should be using Torque drivers to tighten terminals up - because we can no longer trust the fitters to know their job.

I put inverted brackets on the 'combustable' 'non conbustable' as its meaningless technical terminology again the IET are not willing to answer the question of clear definition of these terms so we are left with overkill just in case.

:iagree:

This should be e-mailed to the IET.... They look at this forum anyway, dont bother lol.

The problem is with the terminations and the people doing the them, not the plastic box they reside in! Double screw terminations for the Neutral bars, better quality clamps for the MCB's and none of this would be an issue.

If it was not for this becoming a Reg on 01/01/16, I would continue fitting plastic CU's. None of mine have caught on fire or melted and that is without using a torque screwdriver!!! Guess I've just been lucky???? oh,,, sorry, Trained!

 

[davesparks]

Hi Dave

As I'm sure you already know, a high impedance neutral to earth fault may not pass sufficient fault current to trip the RCD - but as the load is increased some of that load current will pass via the N-E fault and when the load current is large enough the RCD will trip so you would be correct in assuming that in such circumstances our devices will only operate the RCD when load is sufficient. However, the risk of the type of fire we protect against is also load dependent (the majority of fixed electrical installation fires being due to resistive/ohmic heating at connection points). In short - No load=no risk of fire + no RCD operation. High load = risk of fire + RCD operation. Really over-simplifying things, I know, but I do take your point - trying to produce a "one size fits all solution" ain't that easy!

There are situations where a N-E fault on circuits not protected by an RCD can prevent that RCD from tripping. Just have a look at the number of posts on here from half trained idiots asking why their RCD won't trip when tested but does trip when circuits which aren't protected by it are switched on. It's the same idiots who are incapable of doing screws up properly who have caused this whole farce of a regulation.

Now what about the second part of my question? How will it work on a TT supply. Bearing in mind the aforementioned idiots have got hold of the ridiculous 200ohm Ra and 1667ohm Zs values and treat them as gospel

 

[Midwest]

Are you related to Victor Meldrew?

 

[ferg]

There are situations where a N-E fault on circuits not protected by an RCD can prevent that RCD from tripping. Just have a look at the number of posts on here from half trained idiots asking why their RCD won't trip when tested but does trip when circuits which aren't protected by it are switched on. It's the same idiots who are incapable of doing screws up properly who have caused this whole farce of a regulation.

Now what about the second part of my question? How will it work on a TT supply. Bearing in mind the aforementioned idiots have got hold of the ridiculous 200ohm Ra and 1667ohm Zs values and treat them as gospel

As usual I'm finding it difficult to wade through your waffle and work out what it is you are trying to say.

Stop beating round the bush man!

Just say what you really think.