"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 14/05/2016 05:27, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 13/05/2016 13:05, wrote:
On Friday, 13 May 2016 11:51:44 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 13/05/2016 11:16, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 13 May 2016 10:00:39 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 13/05/2016 05:58, Rod Speed wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
I'd just not mention it and assume it was fine. After all all
the pcbs
have to be the same whether repaired or new, if the circuit was
dangerous then the device would be dangerous no matter what pcb
was in
it.
ISTR Geoff, who owns a company which repairs such things, saying
that
over
a period of time you get to know what things fail on a
particular make,
but is not allowed to improve the design by using uprated parts.
It
has to
be repaired like for like.
Who did he claim wouldnt allow that ? No one gets to not allow
that.
In order to get Gas Council (not sure if its still called this)
approval
you have to submit a technical file of the boiler concerned.
Any change would invalidate that certification.
do you need such approval for a used boiler?
If you can install an old boiler past building control, then I suspect
it will already have get a Gas Council certificate.
What I meant was do you really need GC approved parts to fit to an
old boiler.
And of course a 600v capacitor is specced to do 400v, so is upgrading
from 400v to 600v (eg) really a problem.
I take your point, the issue is that some parts of a boiler are deemed
safety critical. A whole PCB may be such an item where the
manufacturer has no intention of it being repairable.
Doesnt matter what the manufacturer's intention is, what matters
is what the law requires with repairs to something that has failed.
I just dont believe that any law says that when something has failed
due to inadequate specs with a particular component like a cap or a
relay that there is anything to prevent someone repairing that device
from replacing the component which has failed with a higher rated
component, whether that is a higher voltage or temperature rating
on a cap or a higher current rating on the relay contacts etc.
For replacement car parts there is.
That's a lie with the replacement of failed components on a pcb in a car.
And you are free to replace the supplied
headlights with better performing ones too.
If you run a business or own a house and want effective house insurance,
you conform to the installation/servicing manual of the gas appliance.
Which has nothing to say about whether it is allowed
to replace a failed component on the pcb with a higher
rated component which will not fail in the same way.
If you don't care and don't have insurance, then you are entitled to
repair your goods with whatever components you choose.
And if you do care and do have insurance you are welcome
to have the pcb repaired by someone who is competent to
do that and he is welcome to use a higher rated component
to replace the one that failed so the pcb doesnt fail the same
way again.
However if next door burn down as well as yours, expect them or their
insurers to bankrupt you.
Even sillier than you usually manage when the pcb has been
repaired by a competent person who has had enough of a clue
to use a higher rated component so that the pcb doesnt fail
again and so there is no possibility of any house burning down,
let alone your neighbour's with any possibility of suing anyone.
In your example, you might have found that the capacitor was originally
selected with a manufacturer in mind with a set of specifications. How
do you know the one you are replacing it with has the same performance?
You dont need to know that with the voltage and temperature rating, just
the capacitance and with a filter cap even more capacitance is fine too.
Voltage rating is just one aspect of a specification.
But your claim that Geoff isn't allowed to use a higher rated component
when the manufacturer of the pub has used a lower rating that what
would see that component not fail early, is just plain wrong. No law
ever says anything like that, even in the EU.
If the capacitor has the same manufacturer's part number as the
original, then you are truly replacing like with like. I imaging people
like Geoff have to tread a careful line.
More fool you, they dont.
Perhaps you should ask Geoff yourself rather than living in perpetual
denial.
YOU made the stupid claim.
YOU get to substantiate that stupid claim.
THAT'S how it works.
You dont even know if the reason that Geoff doesnt
replace a failed component with a higher rated component
is because his public liability insurance requires him to
operate like that and that how he operates has absolutely
nothing to do with what the law requires or what makes sense.