Solutions for Surface mount to conduit.

[westward10]

How are they rigidly joined, they aren't it contact with each other.

 

[7029 dave]

Why can't you put a surfaced mounted box , with knock outs then away you go.

 

[Andy78]

Like a said being picky but there is no containment for the conductors between the existing back box and the new box aside from butting them together.

What potential issues can you see arising from this ?

 

[Octopus]

How are they rigidly joined, they aren't it contact with each other.

So the metal box is in the ball and the surface box is attached firmly to the wall - whats the problem?

You HAVE to apply common sense. Its not as it we were talking about metal containment and lack of continuity.

 

[Midwest]

Give me an instance where a door may not be an escape route. If you have passed through it there may be a requirement for you to pass back through it an emergency situation, even the door to a toilet cubicle. You are sitting on the loo and the fire alarm goes off that cubicle door is your escape route, far fetched but true.

Going a bit off tangent.....but.

I don't do commercial/industrial, so my exposure to escape routes is limited. However, premises covered by The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (FSO) & Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 etc, perhaps as the picture posted, require the designation of escape routes as part of the risk assessment for those premises. So it would easy for an installer to identify 'such doors', by referring to the documented risk assessment for the premises.
I would suggest a door to an airing cupboard, would not be, but at the other end of the scale, a door to the outside would form part of an escape route. To simply state a door, as per definition, most be part of an escape route, would make a premise unviable in terms of all the other paraphernalia & equipment required.

So yes, there will be doors that do not form part of an escape route, designated for escape to a place of safety in the event of an emergency.

 

[westward10]

What potential issues can you see arising from this ?

None just wanted other people's views on it, I have often thought there is that no man's land between the two enclosures.

 

[mattg4321]

My view is you're probably bored and trying to create conversation where there is none to be had. You're going on about containment but why would this enclosure not meet the relevant IP ratings?? It looks pretty good to me. If you first fix a property and come back to find the plasterer has added an extra 10mm depth of plaster, I presume you remove all your KO boxes and pack them out by 10mm?

 

[westward10]

My view is you're probably bored and trying to create conversation where there is none to be had. You're going on about containment but why would this enclosure not meet the relevant IP ratings?? It looks pretty good to me. If you first fix a property and come back to find the plasterer has added an extra 10mm depth of plaster, I presume you remove all your KO boxes and pack them out by 10mm?

I was genuinely curious because I have been asked this in the past and thought it was an opportunity to get other views. If a plasterer has added to the depth of plaster then you should fit back box spacers.

 

[HandySparks]

None just wanted other people's views on it, I have often thought there is that no man's land between the two enclosures.

Take a look at 526.5 iii:
Every termination or joint...shall be made within one of the following...An enclosure partially formed or completed with building material which is non-combustible...

 

[mattg4321]

Don't want to be rude but we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

A back box spacer at 10mm deep? I've not seen one of them.