We had a discussion recently about grading etc and i wrongly stated there was an application standard that prescribes things in some detail. However we have decided not to adopt this.

The point i was discussing was the following

As you can see this makes it simple like 5839 imo

Thus deleting the post would unmuddy the subject ?

you lost me?

I think what james it trying to say is that L1 L2 L3 are all specific to what you install in 5839, and now they have done something similar with 50131 only James (like most of us will) has decided not to adopt the minimum requirements.

Is that about it James?

Its not my decision the uk has decided not to adopt the reg. Id like too but with a few changes of course. Its all about design, installation, documentation and service etc. Theres a lot of stuff to like in it imho

Its not my decision the uk has decided not to adopt the reg. Id like too but with a few changes of course. Its all about design, installation, documentation and service etc. Theres a lot of stuff to like in it imho

Here li my point. It's may appear a good idea but it's not a reg so no point in muddying the waters with an irelavence

i can see that jef, but as you are imo part of the grade 2 that will do brigade, surly this brigs some legislation to the current mad consensus that is again imho wrong?

i can see that jef, but as you are imo part of the grade 2 that will do brigade, surly this brigs some legislation to the current mad consensus that is again imho wrong?

You may well have a good point but as its not a reg your opinion is mute

Lol Jef.

For whats its worth James I think you made it clear that the UK have decided against it. You seem to just be trying to gage opinion on the theory behind it.

As you say it would need to be clear on how they expect detection to be implemented.

should make it easier for end users to compare like for like in theory.