Safety of phone chargers

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

Dave the problems with his extension are the subject of an insurance claim, the insurers have taken over sorting everything out. So far the insurance claim adds up just over £7000 so the insurance company has a vested interest in investigating the original Part P. It was fortunate in a way that the water leak caused so much damage and the electrical bodge was revealed.

Dave W

[paul raynerParticipant @paulrayner36054]

Posted by Samsaranda on 23/04/2019 14:45:59:

I find the training and certification of those who install and service our domestic electrical installations is certainly very lacking, I am horrified that someone with no or very little experience of electrics on payment of the requisite sum of money is then set free to certify installations in accordance with Part P. A friend of ours has had a very close experience of disaster, a recently built extension of their house, containing a shower room, study and lounge area suffered a water leak in the shower/toilet room. Unfortunately the leak had damaged the stud walls and they had to be removed as part of the repairs. The water leak was due to poor soldering on a joint but the builders carrying out repairs found that the electrical supply to the macerator unit for the toilet was not properly carried out, the supply wires had just been twisted together and wrapped in insulating tape, the mind boggles. This is in an area which is legally required to have had a Part P certification carried out!!! I have worked in engineering all my life and received at various times the necessary training to enable me to undertake diagnosis and repair of electrical systems and equipment, so I do have training and experience stretching back over many years but I am not considered competent to carry out basic wiring in my own workshop I have to use some numpty who has probably no experience but does have a certificate which I do not. I for one have no confidence in the current training and certification system, when will those in charge wake up to the potential disasters waiting to happen, how many have to die.

Dave W

It was a politicians son or daughter that died due to shoddy electrical work carried out by a builder that brought about PART P. Which in my opinion is a good thing, but would be better if it was ENFORCED, and not just a money making scam for the powers that be, and jobs for the boys.

regards

Paul

[Phil WhitleyParticipant @philwhitley94135]

t was a politicians son or daughter that died due to shoddy electrical work carried out by a builder that brought about PART P. Which in my opinion is a good thing, but would be better if it was ENFORCED, and not just a money making scam for the powers that be, and jobs for the boys.

Correct Paul, it was. but the reason (she) was killed was not shoddy work, but the removal of the requirement that "all extraeneous metalwork must be earthed" from the regs. A metal framed partition had been fitted and wired for lighting, then plasterboarded, and a pb screw had damaged a cable. If the metalwork had been earthed, the rcd would have tripped immediately the circuit was powered up, but it remained on, and the partition frame became live and went unknown till the unfortunae victin was mopping the concrete floor next to the partition. I had the report of this occurence sent to me by electrical review, and wrote a piece for them commenting on the problem highlighted by this unneccasary tragedy. The part p boys claimed that it was caused by a lack of proper testing, whereas it was actually caused by lack of proper earthing! A test is only valid on the day it is done, a properly fitted and earthed installation is always safe.

[Phil WhitleyParticipant @philwhitley94135]

Martin 100

"Electrical correctness' is not a word I would use to describe significant parts of what is said above."

Holding the view that rewireable fuses are 'safer' is staggering, they are by nature always slower in operation, they are prone to abuse, unreliability and early failure.

Staggering eh? do you have any evidence for this, I did mention they are prone to abuse, and you certainly cant fight stupid, but the vast majority of the British housing stock that was wired or rewired between the late fifties to the eighties still has rewirable fuses, and is very unlikely to be upgraded unless extended. Since these rewires were done, the number of electrical housefires fell dramatically (Rospa figures)

The 3 to 5 times rated current for a type B MCB, and similarly for the other types is for a fault clearance time of 0.1 seconds. At around 2 x their rated current they will trip in around 2 minutes

Interesting, so why are they catching fire? Could it be because of the vast numbers of chinese made mcbs on the market?. the introduction of fully metalclad CU's and fire sealed cable entries means that already, there are serious problems. Incidentally 2x the rated current for a 2 minute trip is longer than a rewirable, even at 1.8 fusing factor!

A BS1362 plug top cartridge fuse rated at 13A requires around 150A to clear a fault in 0.1 seconds

It may require that to clear in 0.1 seconds, but requires much less than that to clear in 1 second. I have tested this at college many years ago under lab conditions. The IEE set the fusing factor for an HRC cartridge fuse at 1.2 times the rated current, are you saying they were wrong?

Rewireable fuses are long since deprecated. Cartridge fuses or MCB's are the norm worldwide because they are good sound reliable and dependable engineering practice.

Explain this "deprecation", lets hear some thoughful logical reasoning if you are going to comment at all. Is it "sound reliable and dependable engineering practice" to fit a device as sole means of overcurrent protection that has no failsafe capability and can, and does stay in the on position in the event of an internal failure, and will carry current till it literally catches fire because the next line of protection is the 100 amp service fuse, which (according to your calculations)will need 1153amps to blow in 0.1 seconds, here is the clear illustration of the reason for the introduction of the Metalclad CU. IEE regs used to state that "No mechanical device or circuit breaker shall be fitted in any final sub circuit as the SOLE means of protection" In other word, use an MCB or other circuit breaker by all means, as long as it is backed up by a similarly rated fuse, ok use a cartridge fuse if you must, but electrically they are only a little better than a rewirable, although harder to fit the wrong size. To say they are "the norm worldwide" is just silly, they may be the norm worldwide IN NEW INSTALLATIONS, but that is all. The UK has the safest and most modern system in the world, and we still have a majority of "legacy" installations. I have shown that MCB's, under certain circumstances, are much less safe than fuses, and the IET regulations upgrade to metalclad (which used to be common anyway in large domestic commercial and industrial installations) and their introduction of Potential fault current calculations shows that they are literally firefighting the problem!

I stand by what I said, which is based on 50 years of practical experience of a wide range of domestic, factory and heavy industrial installation, faultfinding and maintenance You are entitled to your opinion.

Phil

[Author]

Posts