Printable View
We all know and are fully aware of the prices,but we all know of some equipment that is so badly designed it's leakage rate just exceeds it's warranty in the times of the USA versus VW and other manufacturers of competitive to the US ,why are these people not brought to book for marketing equipment not fit for purpose or am I missing something?
I was informed that 404 A has gone up due to it being phased out, I thought it was being banned in about 5 years. If this is the case then why are they still producing equipment containing it?
When R22 was being phased out, its virgin use was stopped and only reclaimed/purified was obtainable, but a few years before there wasn't much if no equipment at all being manufactured designed specifically to run or containing it when purchased.
It all seemed to be 410 A by the mid noughties regarding high temp.
Even the drop ins and retrofit for 404 A have gone up in price.
I have come across equipment that contains 134 a and is CE marked and states it has been tested to 7 bar and therefore compliant with BS/EN 378 due to its CE marking?
I'm sure that the last time I looked at the PH table for 134 a, its low side at 32 deg ambiance was higher than this without applying the 1.1-1.4 multiplier for tightness and strength testing. Maybe the rumor regarding the fine being cheaper for non compliance with CE marking rather than paying for putting the equipment through for laboratory testing and gaining the benchmark could be true?
I'm sure we all have wondered how most of the equipment gets allowed into the UK when obviously the build quality and the leak rate is much higher than before the bench marking came into force. In my experience low and mid range cabinets tend to be low or totally void of charge when they are out of warranty by only a few months.
I suppose when HFCs are phased out and only HCs are being used on cabinets, any investigations into the matter will probably cool off as their GWP is less than marginal, so any leaks due to poor build quality will more than likely cause concern of fire risks. Eventually giving rise to another investigation to build quality causing a risk of danger, but more than likely backed by the loss prevention council, the HSE and association of fire prevention officers, Who in turn made a recommendation followed by a decree, that plastic consumer units are not to be fitted in domestic dwellings, despite being CE marked.
All the said organisations have more clout than a bench marking organisation preventing leaks that might add to an environmental issue in the next century.
This could be the only way build quality is improved, and maybe with the UK rejecting the CE mark and going back to recognising only the BS kite mark gained through laboratory testing, and stricter licencing controls and any complaints dealt with them directly.
IMO.