| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm
outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure. Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non flammable enclosure means? eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the regulation? |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
On 26/07/2015 20:40, Tim Watts wrote:
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure. Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non flammable enclosure means? eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the regulation? As an aside, here's an extract from the justification for the new requirement: "The cause of the fires investigated was almost invariably found to be resistance heating as a result of poor electrical connections due to poor workmanship or lack of maintenance." Seems to me it will take a lot of effort to put in place regs to ensure that *all* parts of any electrical installation are proof against incompetent installers. |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
I often wonder while they are busy trying to stop every conceivable
possibility of fire in one place, where 20 other places are waiting to bite us in the bottom so to speak. Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "Tim Watts" wrote in message ... http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure. Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non flammable enclosure means? eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the regulation? |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
Tim Watts wrote:
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure. Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non flammable enclosure means? eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the regulation? I thought the reg. actually requires "non-combustible" material for the CU or enclosure. Wiring Matters had: "There is no published definition for the term 'non combustible' that aligns with the intent of Regulation 421.1.201. However, as stated in Note 1 to the regulation, ferrous metal, such as steel, is deemed to be an example of a non-combustible material. Steel will no doubt be the material usually employed in the manufacture of the enclosure or cabinet. Nevertheless, it will be open to manufacturers to offer enclosures or cabinets made from other types of material that they claim to be non combustible within the intent of Regulation 421.1.201. In this case, however, the manufacturer would have to provide suitable evidence to support the claim of non combustibility, and it is not presently clear what criteria would be used to judge the non combustibility of a material other than non-ferrous metal." http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm No government department would get away with legislatuni which is so vague and which AFAICS is backed up by no cost-benefit analysis. But in privatised regulations the IET gets away with it. -- Robin reply to address is (meant to be) valid |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
On 26/07/15 21:24, nemo wrote:
On 26/07/2015 20:40, Tim Watts wrote: http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure. Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non flammable enclosure means? eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the regulation? As an aside, here's an extract from the justification for the new requirement: "The cause of the fires investigated was almost invariably found to be resistance heating as a result of poor electrical connections due to poor workmanship or lack of maintenance." Seems to me it will take a lot of effort to put in place regs to ensure that *all* parts of any electrical installation are proof against incompetent installers. It's not just that - many modern CU components are utter crap compared to the old stuff. If you go over to the IET forums, many people want to see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main earthing blocks) - with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive). There is talk of dissimilar metals (creep), cage terminals that cannot clamp particularly well[1] onto large conductors, and other generally ****e construction. [1] Hager use cage terminals - I have not had a problem with these. But some cage terminals are not foolproof and mean you can easily get the busbar prong the wrong side of the clamp. So to my mind, the IET have done a knee jerk and solved the wrong problem - the damn things should not be getting hot, let along catching fire in the first place. |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
On Sunday, 26 July 2015 20:40:37 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure. Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non flammable enclosure means? eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the regulation? In days of yore, CUs were made of bakelite (or steel) which is non-flammable. I was surprised when all this modern crap came out made of thermo-plastics. Someone else has mentioned twin screw terminals which is exactly right. Back then, fires in CUs were virtually unknown. Stuff like cooker control units had double screws too. Never came loose. These Wago connectors are ****e too. They will cause trouble too. |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote: It's not just that - many modern CU components are utter crap compared to the old stuff. If you go over to the IET forums, many people want to see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main earthing blocks) - with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive). Pozidriv with the correct screwdriver allows a screw to be tightened correctly far more easily than a slot type. But not without the correct screwdriver. -- *Funny, I don't remember being absent minded. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
On 27/07/2015 11:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Tim Watts wrote: It's not just that - many modern CU components are utter crap compared to the old stuff. If you go over to the IET forums, many people want to see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main earthing blocks) - with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive). Pozidriv with the correct screwdriver allows a screw to be tightened correctly far more easily than a slot type. But not without the correct screwdriver. Then they should be using torx screws as they are far more positive than pozidrive. |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote: On 27/07/2015 11:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Tim Watts wrote: It's not just that - many modern CU components are utter crap compared to the old stuff. If you go over to the IET forums, many people want to see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main earthing blocks) - with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive). Pozidriv with the correct screwdriver allows a screw to be tightened correctly far more easily than a slot type. But not without the correct screwdriver. Then they should be using torx screws as they are far more positive than pozidrive. Don't do much in the way of DIY, dennis? Much easier to locate a PZ in the head than a Torx. -- *I didn't drive my husband crazy -- I flew him there -- it was faster Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
On 27/07/15 13:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Don't do much in the way of DIY, dennis? Much easier to locate a PZ in the head than a Torx. Trouble with Pozi is of course, if the head ges damaged it just gets worse. I would rather have slotted in a CU - they are down a tube anyway so locating the screwdriver is easy enough. |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
On 7/26/2015 8:40 PM, Tim Watts wrote:
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure. Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non flammable enclosure means? eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the regulation? Another question it raises is the lack of mention of how "insulated" CUs will be constructed for use with high Ze installations (e.g. most TT installs) -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
On 7/27/2015 11:13 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Tim Watts wrote: It's not just that - many modern CU components are utter crap compared to the old stuff. If you go over to the IET forums, many people want to see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main earthing blocks) - with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive). Pozidriv with the correct screwdriver allows a screw to be tightened correctly far more easily than a slot type. But not without the correct screwdriver. +1 - you can get massive torque on a well fitted posi screw - but not if using a philips driver. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
In article ,
John Rumm wrote: On 7/27/2015 11:13 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Tim Watts wrote: It's not just that - many modern CU components are utter crap compared to the old stuff. If you go over to the IET forums, many people want to see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main earthing blocks) - with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive). Pozidriv with the correct screwdriver allows a screw to be tightened correctly far more easily than a slot type. But not without the correct screwdriver. +1 - you can get massive torque on a well fitted posi screw - but not if using a philips driver. Yup. PZ is probably the most common head by far in the UK, but you'll find lots of Phillips screwdrivers on sale in the sheds. But try buying true Phillips screws. ;-) -- *I'm not as think as you drunk I am. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Tim Watts wrote: It's not just that - many modern CU components are utter crap compared to the old stuff. If you go over to the IET forums, many people want to see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main earthing blocks) - with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive). Pozidriv with the correct screwdriver allows a screw to be tightened correctly far more easily than a slot type. But not without the correct screwdriver. which might be why I saw pozidrivers with integral torque adjustment at the Tool Fair last year |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
John Rumm wrote:
Another question it raises is the lack of mention of how "insulated" CUs will be constructed for use with high Ze installations (e.g. most TT installs) Phenolic resin? ducks_and_runs -- Robin reply to address is (meant to be) valid |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
In article ,
Charles Hope wrote: In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Tim Watts wrote: It's not just that - many modern CU components are utter crap compared to the old stuff. If you go over to the IET forums, many people want to see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main earthing blocks) - with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive). Pozidriv with the correct screwdriver allows a screw to be tightened correctly far more easily than a slot type. But not without the correct screwdriver. which might be why I saw pozidrivers with integral torque adjustment at the Tool Fair last year Odd I'm just a simple DIYer, but manage to tighten terminal screws so they neither break or come loose. Torque screwdrivers presumably aimed at Adam's apprentices? -- *What are the pink bits in my tyres? Cyclists & Joggers* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In traweb.com, lid wrote: On 27/07/2015 11:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In , Tim wrote: It's not just that - many modern CU components are utter crap compared to the old stuff. If you go over to the IET forums, many people want to see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main earthing blocks) - with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive). Pozidriv with the correct screwdriver allows a screw to be tightened correctly far more easily than a slot type. But not without the correct screwdriver. Then they should be using torx screws as they are far more positive than pozidrive. Don't do much in the way of DIY, dennis? Much easier to locate a PZ in the head than a Torx. Your incompenence astounds me continuously. Torx gives much better control wwhen clamping wires. |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
On 27/07/15 15:39, John Rumm wrote:
On 7/26/2015 8:40 PM, Tim Watts wrote: http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure. Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non flammable enclosure means? eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the regulation? Another question it raises is the lack of mention of how "insulated" CUs will be constructed for use with high Ze installations (e.g. most TT installs) And even if you put the RCCB in a separate enclosure, technically this rule applies to that as well! |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
On 27/07/2015 16:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , John Rumm wrote: On 7/27/2015 11:13 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Tim Watts wrote: It's not just that - many modern CU components are utter crap compared to the old stuff. If you go over to the IET forums, many people want to see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main earthing blocks) - with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive). Pozidriv with the correct screwdriver allows a screw to be tightened correctly far more easily than a slot type. But not without the correct screwdriver. +1 - you can get massive torque on a well fitted posi screw - but not if using a philips driver. Yup. PZ is probably the most common head by far in the UK, but you'll find lots of Phillips screwdrivers on sale in the sheds. But try buying true Phillips screws. ;-) Just buy plasterboard screws, they are phillips and designed to cam out. |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
... In article , Charles Hope wrote: In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Tim Watts wrote: It's not just that - many modern CU components are utter crap compared to the old stuff. If you go over to the IET forums, many people want to see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main earthing blocks) - with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive). Pozidriv with the correct screwdriver allows a screw to be tightened correctly far more easily than a slot type. But not without the correct screwdriver. which might be why I saw pozidrivers with integral torque adjustment at the Tool Fair last year Odd I'm just a simple DIYer, but manage to tighten terminal screws so they neither break or come loose. Torque screwdrivers presumably aimed at Adam's apprentices? Torque screwdrivers are "pushed" for by the industry. And I am sure one day you will have to fill in the torque settings on an installation certificate. -- Adam |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
... http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure. Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non flammable enclosure means? eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the regulation? 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. -- Adam |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
On 27/07/15 20:36, ARW wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message ... http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure. Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non flammable enclosure means? eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the regulation? 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. 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... |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
On 27/07/15 20:30, ARW wrote:
And I am sure one day you will have to fill in the torque settings on an installation certificate. 4 tick boxes? [ ] The wire fell out [ ] The wire did not fall out [ ] Some proper welly [ ] I snapped the head off... |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
On Monday, 27 July 2015 20:31:00 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
And I am sure one day you will have to fill in the torque settings on an installation certificate. And supply a calibration certificate for the torque driver. Owain |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 07:43:31 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
So to my mind, the IET have done a knee jerk and solved the wrong problem - the damn things should not be getting hot, let along catching fire in the first place. +1 Poacher and game keeper to some extent. -- Cheers Dave. |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Tim Watts wrote: If you go over to the IET forums, many people want to see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main earthing blocks) - with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive). Pozidriv with the correct screwdriver allows a screw to be tightened correctly far more easily than a slot type. But not without the correct screwdriver. 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 |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
Andy Burns wrote:
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 Sorry hit send while trying to find a better photo than Wera's own http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th/id=OIP.M6dff3f723b20f876650a94678dd78bd0o0&pid=15. 1 |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 05:57:32 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
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 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. http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th/id=OIP.M6d...4678dd78bd0o0& pid=15.1 Waiting for ts1.mm.bing.net ... blank page Well not quite jpeg 1x1 pixels. -- Cheers Dave. |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
On Sunday, 26 July 2015 20:40:37 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure. 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 |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
In article ,
ARW wrote: Torque screwdrivers are "pushed" for by the industry. And I am sure one day you will have to fill in the torque settings on an installation certificate. 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. -- *Dancing is a perpendicular expression of a horizontal desire * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
On 7/27/2015 7:34 PM, dennis@home wrote:
On 27/07/2015 16:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , John Rumm wrote: On 7/27/2015 11:13 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Tim Watts wrote: It's not just that - many modern CU components are utter crap compared to the old stuff. If you go over to the IET forums, many people want to see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main earthing blocks) - with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive). Pozidriv with the correct screwdriver allows a screw to be tightened correctly far more easily than a slot type. But not without the correct screwdriver. +1 - you can get massive torque on a well fitted posi screw - but not if using a philips driver. Yup. PZ is probably the most common head by far in the UK, but you'll find lots of Phillips screwdrivers on sale in the sheds. But try buying true Phillips screws. ;-) Just buy plasterboard screws, they are phillips and designed to cam out. and decking screws... -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
On 28/07/2015 14:53, John Rumm wrote:
On 7/27/2015 7:34 PM, dennis@home wrote: On 27/07/2015 16:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , John Rumm wrote: On 7/27/2015 11:13 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Tim Watts wrote: It's not just that - many modern CU components are utter crap compared to the old stuff. If you go over to the IET forums, many people want to see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main earthing blocks) - with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive). Pozidriv with the correct screwdriver allows a screw to be tightened correctly far more easily than a slot type. But not without the correct screwdriver. +1 - you can get massive torque on a well fitted posi screw - but not if using a philips driver. Yup. PZ is probably the most common head by far in the UK, but you'll find lots of Phillips screwdrivers on sale in the sheds. But try buying true Phillips screws. ;-) Just buy plasterboard screws, they are phillips and designed to cam out. and decking screws... Are you sure, all the decking screws I have seen recently are pozi or torx if I buy them. |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
In article om,
dennis@home wrote: Just buy plasterboard screws, they are phillips and designed to cam out. and decking screws... Are you sure, all the decking screws I have seen recently are pozi or torx if I buy them. 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. -- *Born free...Taxed to death. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
On 28/07/15 12:58, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , ARW wrote: Torque screwdrivers are "pushed" for by the industry. And I am sure one day you will have to fill in the torque settings on an installation certificate. 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. 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. |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Plasterboard screws I've got here don't seem to cam out when using a PZ bit - which seems a perfect fit. 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. |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
... 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. The whole set up would be reliable as the emmisions test during MOT time at a mates garage. -- Adam |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
In message , Andy
Burns writes Dave Plowman (News) wrote: Plasterboard screws I've got here don't seem to cam out when using a PZ bit - which seems a perfect fit. 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. 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. http://www.screwfix.com/p/phillips-2...-pack-of-5/750 85 -- Chris French |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
Chris French wrote:
I prefer to use the plasterboard screw bits http://screwfix.com/p/drywall-bits/75085 I *intended* to include a link to those very bits ... |
(Adam?) IET 17th Amendment 3 Jan 2016 - Non flammable CUs
In message , Andy
Burns writes Chris French wrote: I prefer to use the plasterboard screw bits http://screwfix.com/p/drywall-bits/75085 I *intended* to include a link to those very bits ... :-) 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.... -- Chris French |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:27 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter