Recently had to have my dead boiler repaired. and was set to have the main
PCB replaced with a (self-sourced) reconditioned one rather than a brand
new one at an eye-watering price.

In the end the problem turned out to be something else; however my point in
posting is that the engineer tried to warn me off using the reconditioned
part because he says that he's heard of somebody having had a house fire
caused by one, followed by the resulting insurance claim being turned down
due to the boiler not having been properly repaired by a standard
manufacturer-supplied part.

A fire is plausible I suppose, but as to the last bit I smell bull****.
Could it be any way legit for an insurer to reject a claim on the above
basis (unless presumably they had highly specific and restrictive small
print in their policy wording?)


--
David

On 12/05/2016 09:26, Lobster wrote:
Recently had to have my dead boiler repaired. and was set to have the main
PCB replaced with a (self-sourced) reconditioned one rather than a brand
new one at an eye-watering price.

In the end the problem turned out to be something else; however my point in
posting is that the engineer tried to warn me off using the reconditioned
part because he says that he's heard of somebody having had a house fire
caused by one, followed by the resulting insurance claim being turned down
due to the boiler not having been properly repaired by a standard
manufacturer-supplied part.

A fire is plausible I suppose, but as to the last bit I smell bull****.
Could it be any way legit for an insurer to reject a claim on the above
basis (unless presumably they had highly specific and restrictive small
print in their policy wording?)



Errr, how would the insurance company know? You are right to smell BS.

On 5/12/2016 11:40 AM, wrote:
On 12/05/2016 09:26, Lobster wrote:
Recently had to have my dead boiler repaired. and was set to have the
main
PCB replaced with a (self-sourced) reconditioned one rather than a brand
new one at an eye-watering price.

In the end the problem turned out to be something else; however my
point in
posting is that the engineer tried to warn me off using the reconditioned
part because he says that he's heard of somebody having had a house fire
caused by one, followed by the resulting insurance claim being turned
down
due to the boiler not having been properly repaired by a standard
manufacturer-supplied part.

A fire is plausible I suppose, but as to the last bit I smell bull****.
Could it be any way legit for an insurer to reject a claim on the above
basis (unless presumably they had highly specific and restrictive small
print in their policy wording?)



Errr, how would the insurance company know? You are right to smell BS.

Pretty hard to see how a boiler PCB failure could cause a serious fire, too.

On Thu, 12 May 2016 08:26:22 +0000 (UTC), Lobster
wrote:

Recently had to have my dead boiler repaired. and was set to have the main
PCB replaced with a (self-sourced) reconditioned one rather than a brand
new one at an eye-watering price.

In the end the problem turned out to be something else; however my point in
posting is that the engineer tried to warn me off using the reconditioned
part because he says that he's heard of somebody having had a house fire
caused by one,

Probably the safest place to start an unintended fire in a house would
inside a boiler. Other than in the combustion chamber they have very
little which will burn and a steel case to contain anything which
could. A PCB failure, no matter how catastrophic, would not cause
anything more than smoke and sparks.

followed by the resulting insurance claim being turned down
due to the boiler not having been properly repaired by a standard
manufacturer-supplied part.

Standard scaremongering by boiler fitters (they are not engineers) .
From a purely practical point of view there is very little visible
difference between a "new" and refurbished part and certainly none
after either had been in a fire. It is highly improbable that the
insurer would know the part was refurbished or would care. Fires are
not inspected that closely unless there is obvious evidence of arson.

A fire is plausible I suppose, but as to the last bit I smell bull****.
Could it be any way legit for an insurer to reject a claim on the above
basis (unless presumably they had highly specific and restrictive small
print in their policy wording?)

No, insurance contracts used to be "contracts of utmost good faith",
the purchaser had to tell the insurance company anything the insurer
might consider to be relevant (but the insurer didn't have to say what
they might consider to be relevant). This created significant
problems as insurers would try to use non disclosure of unrelated
factors to cancel policies after claims were made.

This changed in the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and
Representations) Act 2012, which came into force in April 2013.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/6/enacted

This replaced the traditional principle of utmost good faith in
consumer insurance contracts with a duty by the consumer to take
reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation to the insurer.
Basically the insurer now has to ask specific questions and the
consumer has to answer them honesty but they no longer have a general
duty to try to guess what the insurer wanted. An insurer cannot void
the insurance contract because they were not told something they
didn't ask about.

In article ,
Lobster wrote:
Recently had to have my dead boiler repaired. and was set to have the
main PCB replaced with a (self-sourced) reconditioned one rather than a
brand new one at an eye-watering price.

In the end the problem turned out to be something else; however my point
in posting is that the engineer tried to warn me off using the
reconditioned part because he says that he's heard of somebody having
had a house fire caused by one, followed by the resulting insurance
claim being turned down due to the boiler not having been properly
repaired by a standard manufacturer-supplied part.

Most 'reconditioned' PCBs are repaired originals. So the fire could just
as likely caused by poor initial design/manufacture of the PCB than any
repair.

A fire is plausible I suppose, but as to the last bit I smell bull****.
Could it be any way legit for an insurer to reject a claim on the above
basis (unless presumably they had highly specific and restrictive small
print in their policy wording?)

And just how would the insurer know a 'non maker part' had been fitted?

It's just a typical case of an unscrupulous 'engineer' spreading scare
stories to bump up his profits.

--
*Cleaned by Stevie Wonder, checked by David Blunkett*

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

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.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Lobster" wrote in message
.75...
Recently had to have my dead boiler repaired. and was set to have the main
PCB replaced with a (self-sourced) reconditioned one rather than a brand
new one at an eye-watering price.

In the end the problem turned out to be something else; however my point
in
posting is that the engineer tried to warn me off using the reconditioned
part because he says that he's heard of somebody having had a house fire
caused by one, followed by the resulting insurance claim being turned down
due to the boiler not having been properly repaired by a standard
manufacturer-supplied part.

A fire is plausible I suppose, but as to the last bit I smell bull****.
Could it be any way legit for an insurer to reject a claim on the above
basis (unless presumably they had highly specific and restrictive small
print in their policy wording?)


--
David

"Lobster" wrote in message
.75...
Recently had to have my dead boiler repaired. and was set to have the main
PCB replaced with a (self-sourced) reconditioned one rather than a brand
new one at an eye-watering price.

my point in
posting is that the engineer tried to warn me off using the reconditioned
part because


Ask Geoff CET but as far as im aware nobody makes pattern boiler PCBs they
are all repaired OEM boards using excitedly the same parts, so impossible
for any insurance inspection to notice, even in the unlikely event they
wanted to





-

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.

--
*A journey of a thousand sites begins with a single click *

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

"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.



That is exactly what he said.

--
Adam

"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 wouldn’t allow that ? No one gets to not allow that.

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 wouldn’t 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.

In article ,
Rod Speed 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.

Who did he claim wouldn’t allow that ? No one gets to not allow that.

Anything is allowed in your third world country, Wodney?

--
*Even a blind pig stumbles across an acorn now and again *

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

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
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 wouldn’t 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.

I just don’t believe that Geoff ever had to do anything of the sort.

On 13/05/2016 10:57, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
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 wouldn’t 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.

I just don’t believe that Geoff ever had to do anything of the sort.

The UK and EU have rules that replacement parts are of the same
specification for certain items including car parts etc.

Perhaps you're getting mixed up with other countries that are less
discerning?

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?


NT

On 13/05/2016 11:16, 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.

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.


NT

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.

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?
Voltage rating is just one aspect of a specification.

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.

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?

--
*If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before

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

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.

On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 3:06:50 PM 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.


My old (1976) Tandberg reel-to-reel came with a full circuit diagram. The design was very simple and easy to work on. I was told this was because the director of Tandberg back then (who had a fairly simple knowledge of electronics) would only allow the manufacture of things that he could personally understand and fix.

Robert

On 13/05/2016 15:19, RobertL wrote:
On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 3:06:50 PM 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.


My old (1976) Tandberg reel-to-reel came with a full circuit diagram.
The design was very simple and easy to work on. I was told this was
because the director of Tandberg back then (who had a fairly simple
knowledge of electronics) would only allow the manufacture of things
that he could personally understand and fix.

That is because they were simple, in fact incredibly simple.

I'd be surprised if anyone here could explain the intricacies of speech
compression in terms that could be transcribed into software.

In article ,
Fredxxx 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?

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.

To be fair, TVs etc were once much easier to repair than now they use
machine made surface mount boards. But of course needed to be.

--
*All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand *

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

In article ,
RobertL wrote:
My old (1976) Tandberg reel-to-reel came with a full circuit diagram.
The design was very simple and easy to work on. I was told this was
because the director of Tandberg back then (who had a fairly simple
knowledge of electronics) would only allow the manufacture of things
that he could personally understand and fix.

But if you decided to make a similar device today, you'd eliminate all the
costly to make and unreliable switching, and replace with solid state
microprocessor controlled. Cheaper to make and much more reliable. But
very much more difficult to repair in the unlikely event it needed it.

--
*I got a job at a bakery because I kneaded dough.*

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

On 13/05/2016 17:21, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx 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?

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.

To be fair, TVs etc were once much easier to repair than now they use
machine made surface mount boards. But of course needed to be.

I find surface mount components easier to remove and replace than
through hole.

There are enough youtube videos of component changing.

Most unreliability is still associated with heat!

On Friday, 13 May 2016 13:28:09 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 13/05/2016 13:05, tabbypurr 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.

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?
Voltage rating is just one aspect of a specification.

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.

Those of us with an elec eng background are familiar with capacitor types & issues, and are capable of selecting a cap that's equally suitable. FUD doesn't really cut it.


NT

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


NT

On Friday, 13 May 2016 18:04:08 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:

Most unreliability is still associated with heat!

People do sometimes become unreliable when they get hot.


NT

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed 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.

Who did he claim wouldn't allow that ? No one gets to not allow that.

Anything is allowed in your third world country ?

There you go with your flagrant dishonesty, as always.

On 13/05/2016 20:01, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed 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.

Who did he claim wouldn't allow that ? No one gets to not allow that.

Anything is allowed in your third world country ?

There you go with your flagrant dishonesty, as always.

Just the impression you give of a country that has relaxed laws
associated with safety.

Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
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 wouldn’t 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.

I just don’t believe that Geoff ever had to do anything of the sort.

The UK and EU have rules that replacement parts are of the same
specification for certain items including car parts etc.

That has nothing to do with the replacement of electronic components
on a PCB that have a higher temperature rating than what was originally
there which had a lower temperature rating.

Perhaps you're getting mixed up with other countries that are less
discerning?

You're confusing car parts with electronic components.

There is no legal problem with using a higher rated
starting or running capacitor in an electric motor either.

Or with better rated fans in a computer either.

Or with using higher temperature rated caps
in any switch mode power supply either. Or with
the replacement of caps in electronic devices. Or
with the use of higher current switching relays either.

On 13/05/2016 20:21, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
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 wouldn’t 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.

I just don’t believe that Geoff ever had to do anything of the sort.

The UK and EU have rules that replacement parts are of the same
specification for certain items including car parts etc.

That has nothing to do with the replacement of electronic components
on a PCB that have a higher temperature rating than what was originally
there which had a lower temperature rating.

Sourcing a component is everything. You're obviously not aware of
components with fake marking or that are substandard.

Perhaps you're getting mixed up with other countries that are less
discerning?

You're confusing car parts with electronic components.

You're confusing electronics with safety critical components.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 13/05/2016 11:16, 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,

Building control isn't involved when you install an old boiler
after the previous one has failed and isn't economic to fix.

then I suspect it will already have get a Gas Council certificate.

Which isn't voided if the pcb is repaired by using better rated
components to replace the ones that failed with caps and relays.

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 13/05/2016 20:01, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed 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.

Who did he claim wouldn't allow that ? No one gets to not allow
that.

Anything is allowed in your third world country ?

There you go with your flagrant dishonesty, as always.

Just the impression you give of a country that has relaxed laws
associated with safety.

And no grain in its wood.

--
*You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers

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

"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.

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.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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?

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.

That's the way the entire industry that uses pcbs has operated for decades
now.

Corse that doesn’t mean that skilled individuals like Geoff can't make a
very decent business repairing pcbs, but the boiler manufacturers can't.

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

--
*Venison for dinner again? Oh deer!*

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

In article ,
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. Why fit fuses - where there's no
fire risk - if there is no method given for replacing them in service?

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

--
*Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view

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

On 14/05/2016 12:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
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. 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

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. 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 don't care and don't have insurance, then you are entitled to
repair your goods with whatever components you choose. However if next
door burn down as well as yours, expect them or their insurers to
bankrupt you.

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.