Roller Shutter 1 Or 2 Contacts?

[9651]

iirc beams at still under bs not en yet under pd. The argument is a g3 device needs rear tamper and i dont know of one with a back tamper. Ade is better on regs in his head than me, id need to look at current pd

 

I was under the assumption there wasnt any graded beams available

 

Bit like you cant get a g3 chubblock? 

[Nova-Security]

iirc beams at still under bs not en yet under pd. The argument is a g3 device needs rear tamper and i dont know of one with a back tamper. Ade is better on regs in his head than me, id need to look at current pd

 

Optex have rear tampers

 

I was under the assumption there wasnt any graded beams available

 

 

 

 

Must be G3 as you cant mask them

Edited June 9, 2015 by Nova-Security

[james.wilson]

technically a beam will show being open either by masking or being removed

but not in day mode.

 

I was under the assumption there wasnt any graded beams available

 

Bit like you cant get a g3 chubblock? 

you cant get a graded shunt lock afaik, but you dont need one as there is no en for shunt locks so its old regs.

 

We must bear in mind that the uk is different to europe in what we do. ie grade 2x which is uk only, which will change to 2f (i think on the new table 10) to add it to en not making it a 6662 thing. Same with the grade 1t that has been added into the new proposed table 10.

[abbz]

And why is it 99% of times when roller shutters get repaired the magnet never aligns up after they've left !

[james.wilson]

Rich which ones model number wise?

[goncall]

but not in day mode.

 

 

will still prevent setting tho

And why is it 99% of times when roller shutters get repaired the magnet never aligns up after they've left !

think yourself lucky its still attached to the shutter 

[james.wilson]

it would id agree.

[charlie6]

I've seen plastic roller shutter contacts..honestly..probably in the maplin catalogue or something like that..Many years ago though !!

[james.wilson]

no reason not to use plastic for shutter contacts from a reg view. You may choose not to use them but no reason they cant meet the requirement. afaik material used in manufacture is down to the manufacturer.

However we currently allow (as we always did under 4737) self certification and any installer relies on the fact that the device they are using is actually compliant to the reg.

Now i 'could' as sw self certificate a device as any grade. But... approved installers are the ones issuing the final certificate.

That means the installer is responsible to ensure that a device meets that grade.

With 3rd party certification from those that do you have proof you have passed that responsibility onto the test house.

Anyone that uses non 3rd party tested equipment is taking the compliance test on themselves.

Can any of us test it actually meets the component standard it claims reagrdless of the bit of kit?

[AdrianMealing]

There is currently no product standard for beams, so the only claim that can be made is against the -1 system standard or PD6662, any claim cannot be third party tested because there is no product standard.

The working group I am on in Europe have just published for comment a standard for beams, but only in the context of EN50131 so only for devices inside the supervised premises. The whole external thing is another ball game, standards are under way but we are years off having anything.