Mains cable marked "Atlas Kablo" and "2010" may be sub-standard.

BBC : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41391343

Google : https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Atlas+Kablo%22

BASEC : https://www.basec.org.uk/uploads/doc...tober-2017.pdf

FP Cables : http://www.fpcables.co.uk/AcantsAtlasKablo.html

Maybe there should be a note in the FAQ?

--
SL

On 07/10/2017 10:11, wrote:

Mains cable marked "Atlas Kablo" and "2010" may be sub-standard.

This has been done to death in the "Bigger Oh ****" thread from a few
days ago...

Maybe there should be a note in the FAQ?

Perhaps, but I am not sure what useful information we could add at this
stage. I have not been able to find the original information from their
we site with the batch numbers affected.

Also it would be handy to know exactly what level of discrepancy we
are talking about (e.g. if it was a case of the wire diameter was
undersized, then the actual amount so that one could decide if
identification from a simple measurement would be possible).


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Also it would be handy to know exactly what level of discrepancy we
are talking about (e.g. if it was a case of the wire diameter was
undersized, then the actual amount so that one could decide if
identification from a simple measurement would be possible).

The bit I heard about it on the radio suggested the copper wasn't of a
high enough purity. Introducing more resistance. So not easy to check
yourself - unless the colour was very different.

--
*No radio - Already stolen.

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

On Saturday, 7 October 2017 11:45:13 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 07/10/2017 10:11, SL wrote:

Mains cable marked "Atlas Kablo" and "2010" may be sub-standard.

This has been done to death in the "Bigger Oh ****" thread from a few
days ago...


It is a pity that the OP did not choose a helpful subject line.

And, yourself naturally excepted, most responders seem not to have looked for anything more technically authoritative than that the BBC page.


Maybe there should be a note in the FAQ?

Perhaps, but I am not sure what useful information we could add at this
stage. I have not been able to find the original information from their
we site with the batch numbers affected.

There's no need to add detailed information; a warning about "Atlas Kablo" and "2010" with a link to one or two authoritative Web sites should be perfectly adequate. For example, I first found :-

Basec Note On Atlas Kablo Cable 3 October 2017 (PDF 183KB)
https://www.basec.org.uk/uploads/doc...tober-2017.pdf

FP Cables : http://www.fpcables.co.uk/AcantsAtlasKablo.html

Also it would be handy to know exactly what level of discrepancy we
are talking about (e.g. if it was a case of the wire diameter was
undersized, then the actual amount so that one could decide if
identification from a simple measurement would be possible).

The cited pages say that the problem is insufficient copper, not impure copper.

--
SL

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 07/10/2017 10:11, wrote:

Mains cable marked "Atlas Kablo" and "2010" may be sub-standard.

This has been done to death in the "Bigger Oh ****" thread from a few days
ago...

Maybe there should be a note in the FAQ?

Perhaps, but I am not sure what useful information we could add at this
stage. I have not been able to find the original information from their we
site with the batch numbers affected.

Also it would be handy to know exactly what level of discrepancy we are
talking about (e.g. if it was a case of the wire diameter was undersized,
then the actual amount so that one could decide if identification from a
simple measurement would be possible).

I am surprised that the original news story on the BBC didn't give any
specific details, either aimed at the end user or else at electricians - and
any information about where to find out further details.

On 07/10/2017 13:10, wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 11:45:13 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 07/10/2017 10:11, SL wrote:

Mains cable marked "Atlas Kablo" and "2010" may be sub-standard.

This has been done to death in the "Bigger Oh ****" thread from a
few days ago...


It is a pity that the OP did not choose a helpful subject line.

And, yourself naturally excepted, most responders seem not to have
looked for anything more technically authoritative than that the BBC
page.

I pulled what I could from the wayback machine to see if they had a
capture of the atlas web site with the advisory on it, but have not
found it yet.

Maybe there should be a note in the FAQ?

Perhaps, but I am not sure what useful information we could add at
this stage. I have not been able to find the original information
from their we site with the batch numbers affected.

There's no need to add detailed information; a warning about "Atlas
Kablo" and "2010" with a link to one or two authoritative Web sites
should be perfectly adequate. For example, I first found :-

Basec Note On Atlas Kablo Cable 3 October 2017 (PDF 183KB)
https://www.basec.org.uk/uploads/doc...tober-2017.pdf

FP Cables : http://www.fpcables.co.uk/AcantsAtlasKablo.html

Also it would be handy to know exactly what level of discrepancy
we are talking about (e.g. if it was a case of the wire diameter
was undersized, then the actual amount so that one could decide if
identification from a simple measurement would be possible).

The cited pages say that the problem is insufficient copper, not
impure copper.

Which was how remembered it from when it was first mentioned in 2010. If
that is the case then there are two approaches for identification of
problem cables (having identified it first by makers stamp and date
code). One would be if the diameter is measurably different - probably
only useful at non stranded CSAs. The other would be with a R1+R2, or
possibly Zs measurement. However that only yields a useful result if you
also know the circuit length.

I *suspect*[1] that the risk is probably being overstated. It would have
to be very undersized to lose fault protection in most cases. So that
leaves some overload scenarios. Again its likely that we are talking
cable life expectancy reductions from higher than expected conductor
temperatures, rather than catastrophic failure.

[1] the devil will be in the detail - if we can find it.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

wrote:

The cited pages say that the problem is insufficient copper, not impure copper.

The wayback machine has an archive of an ACI page about the flex

"identified an irregular strand formation on the 1.5 sqmm conductor of
27 strands of 0.19 mm diam €“ most manufacturers use 27-30 strands of
0.25 mm diam for a 1.5 sqmm nominal cross section."

But doesn't seem to have the corresponding page for the T&E in the archive

fication from a simple measurement would be possible).

The cited pages say that the problem is insufficient copper, not
impure copper.

Which was how remembered it from when it was first mentioned in 2010. If
that is the case then there are two approaches for identification of
problem cables (having identified it first by makers stamp and date
code). One would be if the diameter is measurably different - probably
only useful at non stranded CSAs. The other would be with a R1+R2, or
possibly Zs measurement. However that only yields a useful result if you
also know the circuit length.

I *suspect*[1] that the risk is probably being overstated. It would have
to be very undersized to lose fault protection in most cases. So that
leaves some overload scenarios. Again its likely that we are talking
cable life expectancy reductions from higher than expected conductor
temperatures, rather than catastrophic failure.

[1] the devil will be in the detail - if we can find it.

Adam will be able to tell by biting it with his teeth, the same as he
does with the plug nickels he is offered ;-)

--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

On 07/10/2017 18:48, Andy Burns wrote:
wrote:

The cited pages say that the problem is insufficient copper, not
impure copper.

The wayback machine has an archive of an ACI page about the flex

"identified an irregular strand formation on the 1.5 sqmm conductor of
27 strands of 0.19 mm diam €“ most manufacturers use 27-30 strands of
0.25 mm diam for a 1.5 sqmm nominal cross section."

That's quite a significant drop - in fact that could be only 50% of the
expected CSA. I don't recall the T&E figures being that poor, but I
don't think I had previously seen any for flex.

But doesn't seem to have the corresponding page for the T&E in the archive

Using those numbers, I found this:

http://www.pbsionthenet.net/article/...d-cabling.aspx



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

Using those numbers, I found this:

I found that using the ACI report's author "peter smeeth" in
combinations with copper, cable, aci, kablo etc turned up various
snippets. But it seems 7 years is longer than content survives on
corporate web sites nowadays, and most of them weren't scraped by WBM.

On 08/10/2017 08:52, Andy Burns wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

Using those numbers, I found this:

I found that using the ACI report's author "peter smeeth" in
combinations with copper, cable, aci, kablo etc turned up various
snippets.Â* But it seems 7 years is longer than content survives on
corporate web sites nowadays, and most of them weren't scraped by WBM.

There is a gap in consumer protection. Manufacturers/suppliers are
expected to make available product recall data. But when they are no
longer trading the data may - as with Atlas Kablo - simply vanish.

There is the EU RAPEX system but that didn't capture the data and I
suspect might not if a similar fault was spotted today.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Andy Burns wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

Using those numbers, I found this:

I found that using the ACI report's author "peter smeeth" in
combinations with copper, cable, aci, kablo etc turned up various
snippets. But it seems 7 years is longer than content survives on
corporate web sites nowadays, and most of them weren't scraped by WBM.

Since there is now this 7 years "testing period", there ought to be a
case history of fires traced back to such poor quality cabling... Or,
more likely, not(!)

--
Scott

Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

On Sunday, 8 October 2017 09:49:16 UTC+1, Scott M wrote:
Since there is now this 7 years "testing period", there ought to be a
case history of fires traced back to such poor quality cabling... Or,
more likely, not(!)

Perhaps some of the consumer unit fires have actually been due to poor quality cable going high resistance at the terminals.

Owain

On 07/10/2017 20:08, Graham. wrote:
fication from a simple measurement would be possible).

The cited pages say that the problem is insufficient copper, not
impure copper.

Which was how remembered it from when it was first mentioned in 2010. If
that is the case then there are two approaches for identification of
problem cables (having identified it first by makers stamp and date
code). One would be if the diameter is measurably different - probably
only useful at non stranded CSAs. The other would be with a R1+R2, or
possibly Zs measurement. However that only yields a useful result if you
also know the circuit length.

I *suspect*[1] that the risk is probably being overstated. It would have
to be very undersized to lose fault protection in most cases. So that
leaves some overload scenarios. Again its likely that we are talking
cable life expectancy reductions from higher than expected conductor
temperatures, rather than catastrophic failure.

[1] the devil will be in the detail - if we can find it.

Adam will be able to tell by biting it with his teeth, the same as he
does with the plug nickels he is offered ;-)


I can tell a 2.5mm from a 1.5mm and 1.5mm from a 1.0mm by my teeth, but
alas should there be any 2.25mm (or whatever they sold) out there I
would not be able to tell it from 2.5mm. The cable was also labelled up
with the size it was supposed to be and with the manufacturers name and
date of production on it.

It's now on our hit list of things to look for when at work, especially
as many places that might have fitted it are getting ready for a 10 year
inspection.

--
Adam

On Saturday, 7 October 2017 18:16:46 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:

If
that is the case then there are two approaches for identification of
problem cables (having identified it first by makers stamp and date
code). One would be if the diameter is measurably different - probably
only useful at non stranded CSAs.

The O.D. does not really matter; for stranded cables, just measure the O.D. of a strand (with a sufficiently good micrometer or otherwise) and multiply by the square root of the strand count.

--
SL

On 10/10/2017 17:25, wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 18:16:46 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:

If that is the case then there are two approaches for
identification of problem cables (having identified it first by
makers stamp and date code). One would be if the diameter is
measurably different - probably only useful at non stranded CSAs.

The O.D. does not really matter; for stranded cables, just measure
the O.D. of a strand (with a sufficiently good micrometer or
otherwise) and multiply by the square root of the strand count.

Indeed you could, but the measurement accuracy required gets harder to
achieve.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Kind of makes you wonder if these cables are faulty or just incorrectly
classified by the distributors.Also a bit of a worry if a lot has already
been used before anyone found a problem. In practice I'd suggest it will
never come to light, but who knows, you can hardly recall cable once its
been fitted, who keeps records of which make of cable they put in to a given
installation.
Brian

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

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 10/10/2017 17:25, wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 18:16:46 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:

If that is the case then there are two approaches for
identification of problem cables (having identified it first by
makers stamp and date code). One would be if the diameter is
measurably different - probably only useful at non stranded CSAs.

The O.D. does not really matter; for stranded cables, just measure
the O.D. of a strand (with a sufficiently good micrometer or
otherwise) and multiply by the square root of the strand count.

Indeed you could, but the measurement accuracy required gets harder to
achieve.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
news
Kind of makes you wonder if these cables are faulty or just incorrectly
classified by the distributors.Also a bit of a worry if a lot has already
been used before anyone found a problem. In practice I'd suggest it will
never come to light, but who knows, you can hardly recall cable once its
been fitted, who keeps records of which make of cable they put in to a
given installation.

But not hard to check what was used after a recall.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 10/10/2017 17:25, wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 18:16:46 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:

If that is the case then there are two approaches for
identification of problem cables (having identified it first by
makers stamp and date code). One would be if the diameter is
measurably different - probably only useful at non stranded CSAs.

The O.D. does not really matter; for stranded cables, just measure
the O.D. of a strand (with a sufficiently good micrometer or
otherwise) and multiply by the square root of the strand count.

Indeed you could, but the measurement accuracy required gets harder to
achieve.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 11/10/2017 10:05, Brian Gaff wrote:

Kind of makes you wonder if these cables are faulty or just incorrectly
classified by the distributors.

Fraudulent might be a better term. They are (for example) marked up as
being 2.5mm^2 T&E, but have a CSA of less than that.

Also a bit of a worry if a lot has already
been used before anyone found a problem. In practice I'd suggest it will
never come to light, but who knows, you can hardly recall cable once its
been fitted, who keeps records of which make of cable they put in to a given
installation.

Indeed... The recall resulted in a significant quantity being scrapped.
However some will have got through the supply chain and into use.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/