I guess you and I have a different view on the triviality of using incorrect formulae.
Basic installation testing with minimal disturbance
- Thread starter SimonH2
- Start date
Sponsored Links
No, I imagine that we probably have the same view on that. However, I would suggest that when EFLI wrote "Zs=PEFC" he was not specifying a formula but, rather, was using 'shorthand' for "Zs corresponds to PEFC" - and, in context, I imagine that the great majority of readers, including yourself, actually understood that.
Kind Regards, John
They'll not be damaged at 250v with the earth lead connected (they would be at 500v), but they'll read right down. In the same way that if you connected your TV live to earth and tested at 250v, it won't be damaged because its designed for 250v, but dont expect a good reading!
So the intention here is to do a half hearted attempt at a EICR
?
Or is it just to play with the MFT?
Are you going to actually have a proper report done on the property prior to new tenants?
The property has had previous tenants and they get up to all sorts of stuff and some like to play with the electrics! So don't take anything for granted!
I suggest you follow the correct procedures as you would on a proper inspection and test of an existing installation, if it's knowledge and practice you are after it's the only way forward for you.
And it also provides evidence that you made every effort to assure that the installation was safe/suitable for continued service. Providing no issues and done correctly.
?
Or is it just to play with the MFT?
Are you going to actually have a proper report done on the property prior to new tenants?
The property has had previous tenants and they get up to all sorts of stuff and some like to play with the electrics! So don't take anything for granted!
I suggest you follow the correct procedures as you would on a proper inspection and test of an existing installation, if it's knowledge and practice you are after it's the only way forward for you.
And it also provides evidence that you made every effort to assure that the installation was safe/suitable for continued service. Providing no issues and done correctly.
Sponsored Links
And in that one statement, you demonstrate beyond any doubt that your opinion in this thread can (and should) be disregarded. Anyone who claims that a dismantling operation can be done without any risk whatsoever of introducing a fault that wasn't previously present is a danger to himself and others.
And those readers who don't understand that and are hoping to learn things?
Oh - I see.
My apologies - I hadn't realised you were opposed to any proper testing ever being done, and had set yourself against the prescriptions of the Wiring Regulations, the advice of the Guidance Notes, the accumulated wisdom of the text books and the teachings of lecturers.
I don't think you do ...
Yup, you don't see what I wrote. You've addressed something I didn't mention at all, drawn incorrect conclusions based on incorrect assumptions, and are using that to suggest I'm trying to do something I'm not.
What I said is that your claim that there are no risks means you don't understand the concept of risk and risk mitigation.
You see zero risk in disturbing wiring to perform tests. I see a small but non-zero risk.
There is a small but non-zero risk from doing no testing at all - IF the installation has developed a fault since it's last full inspection/test. There is a small but non-zero risk that in inspecting/testing to try and find those potential faults, a new fault may be introduced.
Just taking a socket off the wall for example - it may look fine, but can you be 100% (not 99.9%) certain that when you put it back, one if the wires doesn't decide that's it and snap where it's been squashed by the terminal screw ?
IMO a full EIC is not warranted - there are many things that can be left out, and indeed when employing a spark to perform an EIC, things will be left out (based on his judgement).
For example, I won't be doing energy let-through calculations on the submain that feeds the CU. Why, well it's been done before and unless the laws of physics have changed in 18 months then it will be perfectly OK now.
I don't intend to split the RFCs to separately measure r1, rn, r2 - testing R1+R2 (and Rn+R2) at the sockets will tell me if they are all reasonably close to what they were (if R1+R2 = Rn+R2 at the furthest outlet from the CU, then Rn=R1 and both L & N are continuous around the ring).
I don't intend taking every socket, switch, etc off to check that (eg) there is the right sleeving on the wires - that's highly unlikely to have changed.
And so on.
As an analogy, I don't have a full structural survey done every year. I don't dig a test hole to see if the foundations are up to standard - they were checked by BC during build and aren't likely to have disappeared.
I look round the property for tell-tale signs that something has changed. IF there are signs that something has changed (eg new cracks in walls, which there hasn't been) then further investigation is merited and that may involve professional services and/or intrusive inspection.
Similarly with the electrics, I'm looking for a balance that involves looking for tell-tale signs that something has changed (eg R1+R2 has gone up) without being intrusive.
Earlier, asked
Yes indeed, what would a judge think if in doing intrusive testing I managed to introduce a fault that fried a tenant ?
You're entitled to that opinion.
It is at variance with that of the IET, which would mean that things would go badly for you if any problems arose which would not have done had you followed the recommended procedure.
He would probably conclude that you were not competent to be making testing decisions or carrying out testing.
A conclusion which had already been reached by others.
I apologise. I was merely using the same format as the OP, albeit technically incorrect.
Nevertheless, thank you John.
However, does a Zs of 0.23Ω not equal a PEFC of 1kA (I suppose not semantically).
I should have written:
230/Zs = PEFC
230/Zn = PSCC
(Where '/' means 'divided by' and '=' means 'equal to')
Greater of these products = PFC
Is it actually possible to divide a volt by an ohm and get an ampere or do we disregard the dimensions,
use the numbers and
then apply a new dimension?
Ah, so we now get to the nub of it - you believe that "fully qualified" people are incapable of creating faults during testing. A belief that makes you dangerous, as I've mentioned earlier.
Now if you've got anything constructive to add to the thread I'll be happy to consider it. As long as you want to be your normal unhelpful self, then STFU would be an appropriate response.
Consider this then you incompetent and dangerous landlord:
You may not refuse to carry out, or have carried out, proper testing because of an irrational fear that it will be damaging.
You may not refuse to carry out, or have carried out, proper testing because of an irrational fear that it will be damaging.
You're welcome, but I fear that he might 'have you' again - 230/Zs is not a 'product', it's a quotient
Kind Regards, John
I will leave others to make their own mind up about your attitude - though I think most people made their minds up a long time ago.
Personally I fail to see why doing testing over and above that which is required makes me an "incompetent and dangerous landlord" - a description which could well be considered offensive, but I'll let it go because I know it's "just how you are". Of course, if you would like to justify that statement with facts, rather than opinions, it might be interesting to read.
Personally I fail to see why doing testing over and above that which is required makes me an "incompetent and dangerous landlord" - a description which could well be considered offensive, but I'll let it go because I know it's "just how you are". Of course, if you would like to justify that statement with facts, rather than opinions, it might be interesting to read.
Depends on your definition of "required".
If you take it to mean "as recommended by the IET" then the testing you propose is under and below that which is required.
If you decide to define it as "below the level recommended by the IET" then you, and your tenants, had better hope that nothing goes wrong which would have been prevented had the testing regime been as recommended by the organisation responsible for the Wiring Regulations.
Personally I do not fail to see why hoping that your tenants' safety wont be compromised by an engineering decision based on an irrational fear makes you incompetent and dangerous.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
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
Sponsored Links
