On Sat, 14 May 2016 14:00:53 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 14/05/2016 05:27, Rod Speed wrote:

For replacement car parts there is. 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.

If you run a business, yes. If you are private householder, no. not
following a servicing manual (or more usually not having one to begin
with) will not invalidate any insurance you have unless you have
deliberately incorrectly answered a specific and relevant question on
the proposal. For consumer insurance Uberrimae Fidei no longer
applies.

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
As usual, you miss the point entirely. Why fit fuses - where there's no
fire risk - if there is no method given for replacing them in service?

Why, so that a potential fault doesn't cause a fire. Making the fuse a
serviceable item, doesn't remove the original fault.

A good example is here;
http://www.vauxhall.co.uk/zafiracustomeradvice.html

There is no high current source on a boiler PCB, unlike a car. The mains
side has a user replaceable fuse.

I've had a couple of dimmers fail recently - after a halogen bulb has
failed and shorted for an instant. Just burnt out a track on the PCB - no
fuse there.

If the PCB is scrap after any fault, a cheaper way of doing it than PCB
fuses.

--
*Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Saturday, 14 May 2016 17:24:20 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:

As usual, you miss the point entirely. Why fit fuses - where there's no
fire risk - if there is no method given for replacing them in service?

Why, so that a potential fault doesn't cause a fire. Making the fuse a
serviceable item, doesn't remove the original fault.

A good example is here;
http://www.vauxhall.co.uk/zafiracustomeradvice.html

There is no high current source on a boiler PCB, unlike a car. The mains
side has a user replaceable fuse.

I've had a couple of dimmers fail recently - after a halogen bulb has
failed and shorted for an instant. Just burnt out a track on the PCB - no
fuse there.

Sounds like the track is the fuse.

If the PCB is scrap after any fault, a cheaper way of doing it than PCB
fuses.

Is there a need for a dimmer fuse? If the triac pops it just makes the output full on, no harm done.


NT

wrote in message
...
On Friday, 13 May 2016 15:06:50 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 13/05/2016 14:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
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.

It's very odd. As you say most makers only supply new ones. No need to
go
to the bother of fixing them if they can con you into paying for new.

My Viessmann PCB hasa several PCB fuses - the soldered in sort so not
user
replaceable, unlike the main one. Yet they don't offer a repair service
for it. So why make it more expensive to manufacture than actually
needed
- if it is a throw away part when faulty?

I entirely agree with your sentiment, hence why I wholeheartedly support
the likes of Geoff.

Not so long ago, circuit diagrams were published for TVs and video
recorders and the like. If we truly want to stop the unnecessary wastage
of raw materials through premature scrapping old items, perhaps one
thing a company who claims to be green could do, is to publish their
diagrams. Those diagrams sometimes highlighted safety critical items to
help select alternative components.

The issue is that it is usually cheaper to replace with new than to
fault find and repair.

For cheap goods that's true.

It isnt just cheap goods, its true of almost all pcbs now,
even in computers and has been for decades now.

For goods like boilers, electronic repairs make a lot more sense.

Like hell it does for the manufacturer. It is MUCH cheaper to
just churn out a new one using the manufacturing process
that is used to make them in the first place than to employ
skilled people to diagnose and repair pcbs that have failed.

The computer industry worked that out decades ago now.

Same with all the domestic appliances too.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
For goods like boilers, electronic repairs make a lot more sense.

Like hell it does for the manufacturer. It is MUCH cheaper to
just churn out a new one using the manufacturing process
that is used to make them in the first place than to employ
skilled people to diagnose and repair pcbs that have failed.

Then companies like Geoff's couldn't survive.

Your hypothesis would only hold if the company sold spare PCBs at or near
cost.

--
*All generalizations are false.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote:

I just don't 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.

You can believe what you want.

Same with you.

I'd rather believe Geoff, who does such things for a living.

Doesn't matter what he claims. What matters is whether
any law or regulation that prevents him from using better
rated components to replace the ones that have failed
with stuff like the temperature rating of caps and the
current rating of relays etc.

There is no such law or regulation.

If there was, someone would have listed it by now.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

My Viessmann PCB hasa several PCB fuses - the soldered in sort
so not user replaceable, unlike the main one. Yet they don't offer
a repair service for it. So why make it more expensive to manufacture
than actually needed - if it is a throw away part when faulty?

Basically its much cheaper for them to make a new pcb than it is to
employ skilled people to diagnose and repair pcbs that have failed.

As usual, you miss the point entirely.

We'll see...

Why fit fuses - where there's no fire risk

They are fitted BECAUSE there is a fire risk.

- if there is no method given for replacing them in service?

The replacement in service is a new pcb.

All that does is make the board more expensive to manufacture.

Wrong, it prevents a fault from setting fire to the pcb and preventing
a simple replacement of the pcb when some of them will inevitably fail.

"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.

On Sunday, 15 May 2016 02:43:48 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

I'd rather believe Geoff, who does such things for a living.

Doesn't matter what he claims.

If it doesn't matter what he claims then it doesn't matter what some idiot windbag claims either.


NT

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
wrote just the puerile ****
any 2 year old could leave for dead.

On 15/05/2016 02:43, Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote:

I just don't 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.

You can believe what you want.

Same with you.
I'd rather believe Geoff, who does such things for a living.

Doesn't matter what he claims. What matters is whether
any law or regulation that prevents him from using better
rated components to replace the ones that have failed with stuff like
the temperature rating of caps and the
current rating of relays etc.
There is no such law or regulation.
If there was, someone would have listed it by now.

It's already explained to you, however, again.

If Geoff uses parts specified by the manufacturer and anything goes
wrong, then it become very difficult for a customer to make any claim
against Geoff for when his house burnt down.

If Geoff chooses non specified components, and the customer's house
burns down, the onus will be on Geoff to prove that the component he
used was fit for purpose.

The manufacturer will have a ream of paper to exemplify the due
diligence of the choice of component, Geoff won't. His insurance
company will be aware of that and will most likely make it a condition
of insurance cover to used identical components.

On 15/05/2016 08:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"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.

********, I cannot legally change my quartz halogen for HID lamps.

Perhaps you can in developing countries like yours?

Even sillier than you normally manage.

On 15/05/16 11:40, Fredxxx wrote:
If Geoff uses parts specified by the manufacturer and anything goes
wrong, then it become very difficult for a customer to make any claim
against Geoff for when his house burnt down.

If Geoff chooses non specified components, and the customer's house
burns down, the onus will be on Geoff to prove that the component he
used was fit for purpose.

The manufacturer will have a ream of paper to exemplify the due
diligence of the choice of component, Geoff won't. His insurance
company will be aware of that and will most likely make it a condition
of insurance cover to used identical components.

This is a classic example of how regulation becomes a tool of would-be
monopolies.

Make up a bunch of regulations about 'safety' or some warm and fuzzy
'social good'

Make them incredibly difficult to comply with so only the largest
manufacturer can meet them.

Welcome de facto monopoly and price gouging.




--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
********, I cannot legally change my quartz halogen for HID lamps.

Not so. I have HID headlamps on my Rover. They weren't invented when it
was built. No problem at MOT time.

--
*It is wrong to ever split an infinitive *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
This is a classic example of how regulation becomes a tool of would-be
monopolies.

Make up a bunch of regulations about 'safety' or some warm and fuzzy
'social good'

Make them incredibly difficult to comply with so only the largest
manufacturer can meet them.

Welcome de facto monopoly and price gouging.

Yes - far better to allow any backstreet organisation to fix them any old
how. And cause an explosion. Let's just hope it is your neighbour who does
this.

It's the problem with the likes of you. Only thing that matters is making
a fast buck. Regardless of who get hurt down the line. Typical Fascist
prat.

--
*If a thing is worth doing, wouldn't it have been done already?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 15/05/2016 11:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/05/16 11:40, Fredxxx wrote:
If Geoff uses parts specified by the manufacturer and anything goes
wrong, then it become very difficult for a customer to make any claim
against Geoff for when his house burnt down.

If Geoff chooses non specified components, and the customer's house
burns down, the onus will be on Geoff to prove that the component he
used was fit for purpose.

The manufacturer will have a ream of paper to exemplify the due
diligence of the choice of component, Geoff won't. His insurance
company will be aware of that and will most likely make it a condition
of insurance cover to used identical components.

This is a classic example of how regulation becomes a tool of would-be
monopolies.

If you can only recall just the name of one boiler manufacturer I might
sympathise with your assertion. However, my recollection is there are
quite a few.

Make up a bunch of regulations about 'safety' or some warm and fuzzy
'social good'

I'm sure if an avoidable disaster happens to your family you'd be
singing another tune.

Regulation is there for good reasons, whether its a one-way sign or the
CAA on flight worthiness, regulation enhances our wellbeing, assuming
you want to have a longer prosperous life?

Make them incredibly difficult to comply with so only the largest
manufacturer can meet them.

I repeat; if you can only recall the name of one boiler manufacturer I
might agree with you. However, my recollection is there are quite a few.

Welcome de facto monopoly and price gouging.

The fact that Geoff has a business is testimony to the nonsense of your
claims.

On 15/05/2016 12:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
********, I cannot legally change my quartz halogen for HID lamps.

Not so. I have HID headlamps on my Rover. They weren't invented when it
was built. No problem at MOT time.

If you have self levelling suspension and headland washers then they are
legal. MOT doesn't check for lamp type, only beam pattern.

Otherwise they are not legal; and you wouldn't want to be in a prang
when the third party says your headlamps were blinding him, and so
contributed/caused the accident.

If you want to take the risk of your insurance company taking away
everything you own, then so be it. You have told them, haven't you?

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 15/05/2016 12:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
********, I cannot legally change my quartz halogen for HID lamps.

Not so. I have HID headlamps on my Rover. They weren't invented when it
was built. No problem at MOT time.

If you have self levelling suspension and headland washers then they are
legal. MOT doesn't check for lamp type, only beam pattern.

As it happens, it does have both. But the regs on that have been changed
anyway.

Otherwise they are not legal; and you wouldn't want to be in a prang
when the third party says your headlamps were blinding him, and so
contributed/caused the accident.

Why would correctly set headlamps blind you simply because they are
slightly more powerful? It's a poor beam pattern and or setting which
causes that - covered at MOT time. And I wonder how some modern cars pass
it.

If you want to take the risk of your insurance company taking away
everything you own, then so be it. You have told them, haven't you?

Do you work for an insurance company? It seems to be your standard comment
on everything. Luckily, the law tends to ignore such nonsense. The
insurance company would have to prove it was a relevant factor.

--
*Husbands should come with instructions

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 15/05/2016 14:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 15/05/2016 12:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
********, I cannot legally change my quartz halogen for HID lamps.

Not so. I have HID headlamps on my Rover. They weren't invented when it
was built. No problem at MOT time.

If you have self levelling suspension and headland washers then they are
legal. MOT doesn't check for lamp type, only beam pattern.

As it happens, it does have both. But the regs on that have been changed
anyway.

Then to my knowledge your conversion is legal, unless you can think of a
reason otherwise.

Otherwise they are not legal; and you wouldn't want to be in a prang
when the third party says your headlamps were blinding him, and so
contributed/caused the accident.

Why would correctly set headlamps blind you simply because they are
slightly more powerful? It's a poor beam pattern and or setting which
causes that - covered at MOT time. And I wonder how some modern cars pass
it.

One reason is simply dirty headlamp lenses, scattering light outside the
beam pattern.

If you want to take the risk of your insurance company taking away
everything you own, then so be it. You have told them, haven't you?

Do you work for an insurance company? It seems to be your standard comment
on everything. Luckily, the law tends to ignore such nonsense. The
insurance company would have to prove it was a relevant factor.

No, but then I might be more risk averse than you and prefer to have
good night's sleep.

Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote:

I just don't 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.

You can believe what you want.

Same with you.

I'd rather believe Geoff, who does such things for a living.

Doesn't matter what he claims. What matters is whether
any law or regulation that prevents him from using better
rated components to replace the ones that have failed
with stuff like the temperature rating of caps and the
current rating of relays etc.

There is no such law or regulation.

If there was, someone would have listed it by now.

It's already explained to you,

CLAIMED, not explained. And erroneously claimed too.

however, again.

You can flaunt your pig ignorance till the cows
come home if you like, changes nothing.

If Geoff uses parts specified by the manufacturer and anything
goes wrong, then it become very difficult for a customer to
make any claim against Geoff for when his house burnt down.

And when he uses higher rated components than the manufacturer
has used which have failed, not only wont that component fail again,
no house will burn down either, so no one will be making any claim
against Geoff because no damage as been suffered.

If Geoff chooses non specified components,
and the customer's house burns down,

It won't, because when HIGHER RATED components
are used, not only won't it fail again, no house will
burn down because nothing has failed.

the onus will be on Geoff to prove that the
component he used was fit for purpose.

And that is completely trivial to do when
a higher rated component is used.

The manufacturer will have a ream of paper to exemplify
the due diligence of the choice of component, Geoff won't.

There will be no claim because no house burns down.

His insurance company will be aware of that and will most likely
make it a condition of insurance cover to used identical components.

And when no house will burn down when higher rated components
are used, the insurance company is completely irrelevant.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 15/05/2016 08:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"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.

********, I cannot legally change my quartz halogen for HID lamps.

You are free to do plenty of other changes to better performing components.

And you are free to use better caps on a pcb than the
**** it was originally supplied with that have failed too.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 15/05/2016 11:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/05/16 11:40, Fredxxx wrote:
If Geoff uses parts specified by the manufacturer and anything goes
wrong, then it become very difficult for a customer to make any claim
against Geoff for when his house burnt down.

If Geoff chooses non specified components, and the customer's house
burns down, the onus will be on Geoff to prove that the component he
used was fit for purpose.

The manufacturer will have a ream of paper to exemplify the due
diligence of the choice of component, Geoff won't. His insurance
company will be aware of that and will most likely make it a condition
of insurance cover to used identical components.

This is a classic example of how regulation becomes a tool of would-be
monopolies.

If you can only recall just the name of one boiler manufacturer I might
sympathise with your assertion. However, my recollection is there are
quite a few.

Make up a bunch of regulations about 'safety' or some warm and fuzzy
'social good'

I'm sure if an avoidable disaster happens to your family you'd be singing
another tune.

And avoidable disaster is much more likely to happen if the underspecified
component is replaced with an identical component when it fails than if
it is replaced by a better rated component that will not fail, on the pcb.

Regulation is there for good reasons, whether its a one-way sign or the
CAA on flight worthiness, regulation enhances our wellbeing, assuming you
want to have a longer prosperous life?

Irrelevant to whether it makes sense to replace an underspecified
component with the same component when it has failed or with
a better rated component that will not fail on that pcb.

Make them incredibly difficult to comply with so only the largest
manufacturer can meet them.

I repeat; if you can only recall the name of one boiler manufacturer I
might agree with you. However, my recollection is there are quite a few.

Welcome de facto monopoly and price gouging.

The fact that Geoff has a business is testimony to the nonsense of your
claims.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 15/05/2016 12:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
********, I cannot legally change my quartz halogen for HID lamps.

Not so. I have HID headlamps on my Rover. They weren't invented when it
was built. No problem at MOT time.

If you have self levelling suspension and headland washers then they are
legal. MOT doesn't check for lamp type, only beam pattern.

Otherwise they are not legal;

BULL****. If they pass the MOT they are legal.

and you wouldn't want to be in a prang when the third party says your
headlamps were blinding him, and so contributed/caused the accident.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

If you want to take the risk of your insurance company taking away
everything you own,

No insurance company can do that.

then so be it. You have told them, haven't you?

No legal requirement to do that.

If they don’t ask about it, there is no legal
requirement to tell them about that.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 15/05/2016 14:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 15/05/2016 12:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
********, I cannot legally change my quartz halogen for HID lamps.

Not so. I have HID headlamps on my Rover. They weren't invented when it
was built. No problem at MOT time.

If you have self levelling suspension and headland washers then they are
legal. MOT doesn't check for lamp type, only beam pattern.

As it happens, it does have both. But the regs on that have been changed
anyway.

Then to my knowledge your conversion is legal, unless you can think of a
reason otherwise.

Otherwise they are not legal; and you wouldn't want to be in a prang
when the third party says your headlamps were blinding him, and so
contributed/caused the accident.

Why would correctly set headlamps blind you simply because they are
slightly more powerful? It's a poor beam pattern and or setting which
causes that - covered at MOT time. And I wonder how some modern cars pass
it.

One reason is simply dirty headlamp lenses, scattering light outside the
beam pattern.

If you want to take the risk of your insurance company taking away
everything you own, then so be it. You have told them, haven't you?

Do you work for an insurance company? It seems to be your standard
comment
on everything. Luckily, the law tends to ignore such nonsense. The
insurance company would have to prove it was a relevant factor.

No, but then I might be more risk averse than you and prefer to have good
night's sleep.

In fact you don’t have a ****ing clue how the law operates in that
situation.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Fredxxx wrote

As usual, you miss the point entirely. Why fit fuses - where there's no
fire risk - if there is no method given for replacing them in service?

Why, so that a potential fault doesn't cause a fire. Making the
fuse a serviceable item, doesn't remove the original fault.

A good example is here;
http://www.vauxhall.co.uk/zafiracustomeradvice.html

There is no high current source on a boiler PCB, unlike a car.

Irrelevant to whether a couple of pico fuses can be useful to
prevent anything catching fire when something fails and making
it much harder to fix than just by replacing the pcb when it fails.

The mains side has a user replaceable fuse.

Which wont necessarily prevent something catching
fire if something on the pcb or which is wired to it
fails, so you can't JUST replace the pcb when it fails.

I've had a couple of dimmers fail recently - after a
halogen bulb has failed and shorted for an instant.
Just burnt out a track on the PCB - no fuse there.

Sure, but those are much cheaper pcbs than you get in a boiler,
so those pico fuses may not be economically viable with those.

Different with a much more expensive boiler pcb where the
extra cost of a couple of pico fuses is bugger all in the total
cost of the pcb and so worth having so that you can be sure
that however it fails, you can always just replace the pcb
without having to clean up the mess that was produced
when the pcb caught fire without any fuses to stop that.

If the PCB is scrap after any fault, a
cheaper way of doing it than PCB fuses.

But nothing like as good at preventing the pcb itself
catching fire on a component failure and making it much
harder to just swap the pcb and get it going again.

On 5/12/2016 6:04 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.



Actually the definition of "like for like" is not so straightforward. To
take a slightly silly example for convenience, you can get an unbranded
13A socket from B&Q to a given BS, or you can get an MK one meeting the
same BS. We all *know* that the MK one is likely to be better made. So
if the OEM uses unbranded, but Geoff uses MK he is actually making an
expert judgement being made that he has met the "like for like"
criterion, and has improved on the original. If it went to court, I am
sure he would not have much difficulty finding an FIEE to support his
decision, and no insurance company would in practice ever try to fight it.

In my industry (nuclear power) it is frequently necessary, when a piece
of now obsolete hardware is being replaced, to obtain a statement from a
professional engineer that the replacement is "like for like" to avoid
having to go back through all the system proving tests which might have
been carried out decades ago.

There is always an element of risk in such exercises. For example, going
back to 13 amp sockets, irrespective of the BS requirements the
flashover voltage of a B&Q socket *might* be greater than the MK one.
So, if the fault case involved overvoltage then the B&Q socket might
actually be better than the MK even though they both meet the same BS.
But by using a chartered engineer to review the case, you should
normally go past the "box ticking" stage and confirm whether the correct
selection criteria are being used.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

For goods like boilers, electronic repairs make a lot more sense.

Like hell it does for the manufacturer. It is MUCH cheaper to
just churn out a new one using the manufacturing process
that is used to make them in the first place than to employ
skilled people to diagnose and repair pcbs that have failed.

Then companies like Geoff's couldn't survive.

Wrong. He doesn’t have the factory that can churn out a new one.

He doesn’t have the overheads that the manufacturer would have if
they employed people to repair failed pcbs instead of making a new one.

Your hypothesis would only hold if the
company sold spare PCBs at or near cost.

Wrong when many are not aware that they can get a repaired one
from Geoff cheaper than the new one from the manufacturer.

That's why there are **** all that repair TVs now, very few are
prepared to pay to have their TV repaired if it fails unless it is a
very simple fault that is very easy to fix, they just buy a new one.

And even with failures under warranty, the manufacturer doesn’t
pay a skilled person to diagnose and repair the pcb anymore, they
just pay a much less skilled person to swap the pcb or power supply
with a new one. And that individual can just look at list of the
symptoms and what needs to be swapped and only need very
basic skills to swap the pcb that has failed or the power supply.

With cars, the computer tells you which sensor has failed when
you plug the car into the diagnostic system and anyone with
even the most basic skills can swap the sensor that has failed
for a new one.

In article ,
newshound wrote:
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.



Actually the definition of "like for like" is not so straightforward. To
take a slightly silly example for convenience, you can get an unbranded
13A socket from B&Q to a given BS, or you can get an MK one meeting the
same BS. We all *know* that the MK one is likely to be better made. So
if the OEM uses unbranded, but Geoff uses MK he is actually making an
expert judgement being made that he has met the "like for like"
criterion, and has improved on the original. If it went to court, I am
sure he would not have much difficulty finding an FIEE to support his
decision, and no insurance company would in practice ever try to fight
it.

Things sharing the same BS number can hardly be described as 'uprating'.
I'd also dispute that MK always produces a better product than others.

Uprating would be changing, say, a 5 amp relay known to give problems for
perhaps a 10 amp one. That sort of thing. Which might even involve
producing a new PCB.

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Like hell it does for the manufacturer. It is MUCH cheaper to
just churn out a new one using the manufacturing process
that is used to make them in the first place than to employ
skilled people to diagnose and repair pcbs that have failed.

Then companies like Geoff's couldn't survive.

Wrong. He doesn’t have the factory that can churn out a new one.

You've been there, have you? Odd Geoff hasn't mentioned it. He'd have
dined out on that story for ages.

--
*What boots up must come down *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
newshound wrote:
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.



Actually the definition of "like for like" is not so straightforward. To
take a slightly silly example for convenience, you can get an unbranded
13A socket from B&Q to a given BS, or you can get an MK one meeting the
same BS. We all *know* that the MK one is likely to be better made. So
if the OEM uses unbranded, but Geoff uses MK he is actually making an
expert judgement being made that he has met the "like for like"
criterion, and has improved on the original. If it went to court, I am
sure he would not have much difficulty finding an FIEE to support his
decision, and no insurance company would in practice ever try to fight
it.

Things sharing the same BS number can hardly be described as 'uprating'.
I'd also dispute that MK always produces a better product than others.

Uprating would be changing, say, a 5 amp relay known to give problems for
perhaps a 10 amp one. That sort of thing.

And there is no legal problem with doing that.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Like hell it does for the manufacturer. It is MUCH cheaper to
just churn out a new one using the manufacturing process
that is used to make them in the first place than to employ
skilled people to diagnose and repair pcbs that have failed.

Then companies like Geoff's couldn't survive.

Wrong. He doesn't have the factory that can churn out a new one.

You've been there, have you?

Don't have to have been there to know
that he isnt anything like the same size
of operation as the boiler manufacturer.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Uprating would be changing, say, a 5 amp relay known to give problems
for perhaps a 10 amp one. That sort of thing.

And there is no legal problem with doing that.

Probably not in your third world country. Where you need to get a pro in
to change a fuse. Things like relays are unheard of.

--
*A backward poet writes inverse.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Uprating would be changing, say, a 5 amp relay known to
give problems for perhaps a 10 amp one. That sort of thing.

And there is no legal problem with doing that.

Probably not in your third world country.

Where the standard of living leaves yours for dead.

Not in that soggy little frigid island of yours either.

Where you need to get a pro in to change a fuse.

More of your pig ignorant lies.

reams of your trademark desperate attempt at insults any
2 year old could leave for dead flushed where they belong