(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs

[ARW]

I would not be surprised if they delayed the introduction of ammendment again.

But you have a metalcald CU and already meet the new regs.

[Tim Watts]

It's true - but I was wondering...

I will be adding a second CU once the main jobs are done from a 40A distribution circuit for a few low power outside circuits (non of which will add up to much, but desirable to split between 2 RCDs and have the ability to isolate any one). And not crowd the main CU with random crap of low importance. My current CU (Hager JK Type A) is going obsolete, so I was considering the options...

[Tim Watts]

4 tick boxes? [ ] The wire fell out [ ] The wire did not fall out [ ] Some proper welly [ ] I snapped the head off...

[spuorgelgoog]

And supply a calibration certificate for the torque driver.

Owain

[Dave Liquorice]

+1

Poacher and game keeper to some extent.

[Andy Burns]

Don't a lot of CUs use combination slot/cross screws anyway?

Seems a bit odd that presumably the CU manufacturers first introduced them to allow using either a flat driver or Pozi driver, and then the tool manufacturers introduce a dedicated "PlusMinus" driver

[Andy Burns]

Sorry hit send while trying to find a better photo than Wera's own

[Dave Liquorice]

introduced

So such a tool *is* out there. Use the a flat driver in a +/- head and it suffers the problems of slotted heads. Use a pozi and it's not quite as good as a pure pozi.

Waiting for ts1.mm.bing.net ... Well not quite jpeg 1x1 pixels.

[spuorgelgoog]

How can a British Standard require a 'non flammable' enclosure without defining what that is, either in the Definitions section or by reference to an applicable British Standard?

Anyway, I thought all terminals already had to be in a non-combustible enclosure so any existing combustible CUs (since about 1970something probably) were already unfit for purpose at the time of sale.

Owain

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Another who doesn't do much DIY, but just talks about it.

There is no need for Torx for things like a terminal screw - and makes the head considerably larger than needed which can matter with such things. PZ is an excellent compromise.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I've got nothing like your experience, but have repaired quite a few installations for others where the problem was inadequately tightened terminal screws. And done buy a pro - or at least one who claimed to be. So it could be some just don't know how to tighten a screw for whatever reason.

Trouble with any torque setting device is it needs to be correct for the particular application, and checked for calibration frequently. And there's nothing to stop a charlatan using one but not doing things up tight enough.

[John Rumm]

and decking screws...

[dennis]

Are you sure, all the decking screws I have seen recently are pozi or torx if I buy them.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Plasterboard screws I've got here don't seem to cam out when using a PZ bit - which seems a perfect fit. Just set the max torque on the driver.

Perhaps they would with a Phillips bit.

[Tim Watts]

Or the conductor settled after they left - particularly if there are 2-3 in the terminal (eg ring with spur) or stranded heavy cables.

One of the advantages of DIY of course is one lifts the lid a week or two later and tweaks everything up.

[Andy Burns]

They're designed for Phillips #2, these work nicely, I prefer to set the torque so it doesn't start to bite the paper, then /just/ sink them by hand.

[ARW]

The whole set up would be reliable as the emmisions test during MOT time at a mates garage.

[Chris French]

I prefer to use the plasterboard screw bits which have a kind of metal collar with the end of the bit just protruding. Stops the screw going in to far.

e.g.

[Andy Burns]

I *intended* to include a link to those very bits ...

[Chris French]

:-)

I find just letting the driver just drive them in. It probably knackers the bits quicker, as sometimes it cams out. But I usually lose them first anyway....