No one near me wants this job - New ground rod

Well if you are reying on an RCD (which is almost always the case with an TT earth rod or plae etc) then an Earth Electrode tester and an Earth Loop tester is probably the best way to consider. ... You also need to consider the variation that might occour throughout the year (or its lifetime!).
Above 200 ohms should cause concern but above 100 ohms would be a better benchmark. ... Around here 50 to 60 ohms is usually achieveable ....
All true - and I think most of us would like to see less than 100 Ω - not the least because, as you imply, the figure might increase appreciably over time, and particularly during periods of very dry weather.

However, to put things into some perspective, even if supply voltage were as low as 216.2 V (the lowest 'permissible') the EFLI (hence the rod's resistance/impedance) would have to be above 7,000 Ω to prevent RCDs working as they should.

Kind Regards, John
 
Yes John.
But it`s like as me old grandad used to say when drinking pints with his pals in the pub - "Never trust a man who drinks halves!"
 
, I am not really worried about type AC RCDs as they are secondary protection, but with a TT supply I would be changing to type A at least.
with TT I`d be worried about the 7% possible failure rate and have two RCDs in tandem (hopefully different locations if one is a kitchen)
 
with TT I`d be worried about the 7% possible failure rate and have two RCDs in tandem (hopefully different locations if one is a kitchen)
That "7%" figure has been knocking around for very many years and I think was based on a fairly limited survey (and, I believe, not even in UK, and probably related to 'slightly out-of-spec' as well as 'not working at all'). I would therefore suggest that we "don't really know".

It sounds as if you probably would not have similar worries with TN - does that mean that you have reason to believe that the 'failure' rate of ('essentially untestable') MCBs is less than 7% (or whatever)?

Having said all that, I cannot knock the concept of redundancy in 'safety' systems - so could not argue against having pairs of RCDs (or MCBs) in series. However, whether the risk of faults being un-cleared by faulty devices (RCDs or MCBs) is high enough to justify such a practice is, I would have thought, pretty debatable.

Kind Regards, John
 
That "7%" figure has been knocking around for very many years and I think was based on a fairly limited survey (and, I believe, not even in UK, and probably related to 'slightly out-of-spec' as well as 'not working at all'). I would therefore suggest that we "don't really know".

It sounds as if you probably would not have similar worries with TN - does that mean that you have reason to believe that the 'failure' rate of ('essentially untestable') MCBs is less than 7% (or whatever)?

Having said all that, I cannot knock the concept of redundancy in 'safety' systems - so could not argue against having pairs of RCDs (or MCBs) in series. However, whether the risk of faults being un-cleared by faulty devices (RCDs or MCBs) is high enough to justify such a practice is, I would have thought, pretty debatable.

Kind Regards, John
Yes John I agree with all of your points there.

Yes surveys are limited so it`s a guess at best.

RCD failure is not working to spec not just non functioning at all therefore could still save a life or worst effects anyways.

No we do not test MCBs out in the field, we rely on type testing - how accurate is that?
 
Yes John I agree with all of your points there. ... Yes surveys are limited so it`s a guess at best.
That's obviously true of any sort of surveys in general. However, in thi case I think we're talking about one small servery, conducted very many years ago, in a foreign country, so i don't think it should be regarded as anything but a major 'guess'!
RCD failure is not working to spec not just non functioning at all therefore could still save a life or worst effects anyways.
Sure, but the "30 mA" spec is merely a semi-arbitrary 'compromise' (between safety and convenience), in the face of something which 'varies'. One could argue that one which did not trip until, say, 32 mA, might not 'save a life' which would have been saved by one which tripped at 30 mA - but that will to some extent be 'balanced'/'cancelled' by the fact that one which (as is common) trips at 25 mA might 'save a life' which might not have been saved if it has not tripped until the (required by spec) 30 mA!
No we do not test MCBs out in the field, we rely on type testing - how accurate is that?
I'm sure it's accurate enough within its own context, but it tells one nothing definite about how the devices behave in service 'in the field'. Given that, as far as I am aware, a substantial proportion of out-of-spec (or not working at all) RCDs are in that state because of 'stiction', I might guess that the same thing might be at least as common with MCBs - possibly more common since, unlike RCDs, they cannot be regularly tested/'exercised' by use of a test button.

It's not something I lose any sleep over, but it would not surprise me if MCBs becoming 'faulty' (out-of-spec) were actually just as common with MCBs as with RCDs, yet people (I would say 'naively') get concerned about the RCDs but not the MCBs, seemingly because we can test the in-service RCDs (hence identify the faulty ones) but not the MCBs ! In other words, they are seemingly more 'comfortable' when they bury their heads in the sand :-)

Kind Regards, John
 

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Back
Top