Some help with coding please for an EICR?

[westward10]

They are not knockouts they are where you enter the circuit details. As I stated in #11 Wylex did give some afterthought guidance that if you want to fit plug- in mcbs you leave no 3036 fuses in place as cutting the cover removes the value of its original purpose, this is fact. These covers were about long before plug in mcbs were even on the drawing board.

 

[Ian1981]

Primary use of the cover was to prevent molten copper being sprayed outward when a fuse failed.
The circuits where indicated inside the cover.
I fail to see how it ever was a knock out in its original design.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

They are not knockouts they are where you enter the circuit details. As I stated in #11 Wylex did give some afterthought guidance that if you want to fit plug- in mcbs you leave no 3036 fuses in place as cutting the cover removes the value of its original purpose, this is fact. These covers were about long before plug in mcbs were even on the drawing board.

Westward I'm struggling to understand what you are saying about leaving a 3036 in when the cover has been cut off. I can't see how this is dangerous? They are wider than the plug in mcb's so actually make it harder to stick anything through. They cover up any gaps better than the mcb's.

 

[telectrix]

but there are small holes in the ends of the fuse carrier.once was a case where an elderly guy picked up a fallen wire coat hanger and as he lifted it up, the hook end caught in the bottom hole of a fuse carrier and he received a shock.

 

[SparkyChick]

There is also the potential for molten bits of fuse wire to be expelled in the case of a fault. If there's lots of dust, this could be enough to start a fire. The cover is designed to prevent this from happening.

 

[Andy78]

Even with the cover totally absent, the front of the CU will comply with IP ratings for live parts in enclosures and should not be worthy of a code surely ?

 

[The Ghost]

@happyhippydad I think the first wylex boxes that came out the cover was as you say for writing the circuit designation/number on and had no knock out. Later when the MCB push fits came out you could change the cover and that had knock outs. Unless of course I am imagining it all but I do remember when these boxes were about doing that. Imagine trying to cut a whole in a normal wylex fuse cover with no knock out, think about it.

 

[westward10]

Westward I'm struggling to understand what you are saying about leaving a 3036 in when the cover has been cut off. I can't see how this is dangerous? They are wider than the plug in mcb's so actually make it harder to stick anything through. They cover up any gaps better than the mcb's.

The original purpose of the cover was to contain molten metal from a 3036 fuse rupturing. Your board still has a 3036 fuse carrier fitted and were the element to rupture there is a remote possibility molten metal could be ejected because the cover has been cut away. I will never find evidence but I recall some guidance from Wylex that if you cut the cover to fit mcbs, leave no 3036 carriers in place.

 

[westward10]

Even with the cover totally absent, the front of the CU will comply with IP ratings for live parts in enclosures and should not be worthy of a code surely ?

I would comment on the MEM QCB device and the fact the 3036 carrier is exposed.

 

[Andy78]

I would comment on the MEM QCB device and the fact the 3036 carrier is exposed.

Yes. I didn't mean this specific example, just the general point about access to live parts made by Wirepuller earlier.

 

[andyb]

I agree with Vortigern. In the 80s we used to fit wylex boards, then when the pop out MCBs were introduced they put the indent in the cover for this reason. The middle came out with a tap from a pair of pliers then you'd clean the edges with the pliers. If you did not knock out the middle you could not fit the cover.
The reason that you can see what looks to be a live part is because someone has fitted an incorrect base.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Even with the cover totally absent, the front of the CU will comply with IP ratings for live parts in enclosures and should not be worthy of a code surely ?

No it wont. without the cover, intact or with the KO removed , it is easily possible to access the live prongs of a plug in fuse or MCB by simply pulling it forward without the use of a tool, a child could do it. These boards without the cover are either a code 1 or code 2 depending on accessibility.

 

[Ian1981]

Ip2x(c)minimum for an enclosure/consumer unit other than the top surface

 

[andyb]

No it wont. without the cover, intact or with the KO removed , it is easily possible to access the live prongs of a plug in fuse or MCB by simply pulling it forward without the use of a tool, a child could do it. These boards without the cover are either a code 1 or code 2 depending on accessibility.

From memory I'm fairly sure that with the modified cover on you can't pull the MCBs out or the fuse holders. But as Ian says IP2X is the reg.

Talking about accessible live parts, I'm amazed that basic lampholders are still allowed on wall lights and table lamps.

 

[Davisonp]

What about no RCD protection on shower/ bathroom electrics and can any sockets be used outside?

 

[Deleted member 9648]

From memory I'm fairly sure that with the modified cover on you can't pull the MCBs out or the fuse holders. But as Ian says IP2X is the reg.

Talking about accessible live parts, I'm amazed that basic lampholders are still allowed on wall lights and table lamps.

You are correct, with the KO out the cover will still prevent access to live parts. However Andy78 stated that even with the cover 'totally absent' the CU will comply with IP ratings and requirements over access to live parts. That is clearly wrong, with the cover missing (intact or modified) these boards allow simple access to live parts and are an immediate danger.

 

[Andy78]

You are correct, with the KO out the cover will still prevent access to live parts. However Andy78 stated that even with the cover 'totally absent' the CU will comply with IP ratings and requirements over access to live parts. That is clearly wrong, with the cover missing (intact or modified) these boards allow simple access to live parts and are an immediate danger.

As quoted by others, the requirement on the front of an enclosure to shield from live parts is IP2X. This rating is not compromised even with the cover removed and all devices removed as long as all bases are intact and in place.
I'm not sure how you can say I was clearly wrong in asserting this. There are no gaps bigger than 12.5mm that allow access to live parts.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

On both the fuses and MCB's it is while withdrawing a device that the two brass prongs on the device are exposed to touch and live if the main switch is on, try it if you don't believe me. It's possible to tilt a fuse carrier leaving the bottom prong connected to the busbar and exposing even more of the top prong. Without the cover in place this can be done without the use of a tool so therefore the enclosure does not meet the requirements. The same applies to the older covers which had a knurled head screw to retain it instead of a screw requiring the use of a tool.
Once the devices are removed you are correct in saying it meets the requirements.

 

[Andy78]

On both the fuses and MCB's it is while withdrawing a device that the two brass prongs on the device are exposed to touch and live if the main switch is on, try it if you don't believe me. It's possible to tilt a fuse carrier leaving the bottom prong connected to the busbar and exposing even more of the top prong. Without the cover in place this can be done without the use of a tool so therefore the enclosure does not meet the requirements. The same applies to the older covers which had a knurled head screw to retain it instead of a screw requiring the use of a tool.
Once the devices are removed you are correct in saying it meets the requirements.

Ah right, I'm with you now. Yes I would agree that it is possible to be in danger of contact whilst handling a device with the main switch closed. Never thought of it that way round to be honest. Sometimes difficult to think of the possible actions of the end user when it is things you would not do yourself.

 

[Des 56]

In the distant past something changed,previously to these boards,a fuse would not be accessible until the switch was turned off,they had interlocks,switch off then remove fuse
Along came the traditional Wylex and the fuses could be removed only if the cover was removed
It seems it was a backward step but the Iee must have decided it was fine to do so
The cover was a barrier to access of the fuses rather than just a protection against molten metal