Customer had extension wired by 'less than reputable electrician'

Inspected by LABC electrician who merely states "Zs too high on sockets".
There were no values stated on his report, perhaps he had a Megger and used no-trip setting and got even higher value.

The highest one was 0.68Ω.

Whilst this may be higher than expected, though approximately half the maximum allowed, is it reasonable to just state "too high" and offer the customer no advice other than get someone to 'repair'

I discovered why it was that high but could not 'repair'.
It was an extension to the circuit of the half the bungalow.
The original ring (now two thirds of the circuit) is wired in 2.5mm² with 1.0mm² cpc. and long.

Any views?

I think they need to justify it.

"Too high" is a bit limp really.

As long as the extension is wired correctly (ie, end to end OK and it is a true RF circuit) and it has RCD protection PEB's etc... then I can't see a problem.

Is it a C type breaker?? Maybe that's why.

Ask for a regulation number, also the reading he got and the reading in the regs that is permitted, see what comes back. Hes missing out details and you say there are not problems (which I believe) but perhaps this guy has taken a test on a socket which may be concealed somewhere that you cant find and perhaps the homeowner is unaware. It may be something as simple as a socket in the loft for an areal booster and this may even be fed from the lighting circuit which would explain the high reading.

If the reading is 0.68Ω and can I assume 32A type B BS60898?
and this is the highest reading on circuit.
It is compliant.
Have you taken r1+r2 and Ze readings?
LABC electrician, needs to be asked some questions?
are sure he is an electrician?

Thanks for replies. That's what I thought.

Yes, B32 60898. All RCD. Ze 0.07Ω. Zs 0.68Ω is the highest

Only three new DSOs in extended lounge.

All r1, rn & r2 end to end match.
(I even separated old and new cables and measured each end to end - all match and add up to total)
It's just that at first r2 'seems' high because of (unexpected) 1mm² cpc but it is visible in CU and I noticed.

R1+R2 + Ze matches measured Zs (near enough - good old Fluke)


Have to go back tomorrow because "IR on lighting circuit 'too low'"

LABC sparks really needs to raise his game and start being more specific.
what next 'wiring is too wirey'?

To be honest, it was very wirey.

The last LABC inspection I had to endure, the inspector was a plumber and not an electrician!

Thinking alound (as asking questions), as an outsider ...

If Zs is low enough to satisfy disconnection times, then that it surely 'it' as far as that consideration is concerned, and I'm almost certain that no-one could find any regulation which said otherwise.

However, if given a known Ze, the Zs of a circuit is 'unexpectedly high', even though low enough for disconnection times, that will usually (unless problem is in CU devices or upstream of that) mean that R1+R2 is also 'unexpectedly high' That presumably raises a concern that there might be a poor connection which needs to be investigated and rectified. After all, just 0.25 of 'unexpected impedance' at a connection would, at, say 20A, mean that 10W was being dissipated in that connection - plenty, I would have thought, to create a potential fire risk. Is that correct?

The question, of course, is whether R1+R2 really is 'unexpectedly high' in relation to the cabling concerned.

Kind Regards, John.

John, with respect, should you wish to use this forum for your own educational purposes, i see no problem with that, (I believe everyday should be a school day) but can you put your thoughts and postulations into your own threads instead of constantly hijacking other peoples posts and taking them on a tangent which results in the main message of the OP being lost.

I imagine there have been a number of threads where there may have been more valid information still to come, but when people have to sift through lots and lots of excessively verbose, irrelevant (to the OP) musings, they begin to lose the will to live, let alone bother to bring forth any more worthy info.

Please note forum rules 1 and 6.

regards

Mik