schedule of test results

[Goldberg]

EFLI gets you the Ze at the source of the CU.

It does if you do it at the source of the CU.

which added to the R1+R2 of the circuits gives you the calculated Zs.

It does if you calculate it.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't do Zs with the meter on individual circuits

No, but Sparkyspike was.

just pointing out that you're trying to make Sparkyspike look contradictory when he hasn't been.. his argument is consistent.

His statements (regarding live testing and EFLI) were wrong - whether you regard them as consistent or otherwise is neither here nor there.

I didn't mean the "EFLI is a live test" in the manner that it appears you've taken it.. I was merely pointing out that measuring R1+R2 and EFLI are 2 different things..
I agree that live testing is not illegal and does not constitute live working.

OK.

 

[ColJack]

your coments of...

No - you're not supposed to measure EFLI on individual circuits.

So for a lighting circuit for example, you would do R1+R2+Ze.

So which is it? If you're not supposed to measure an individual circuit then why are you giving an example of lighting circuit?

And another thing - how do you measure R1 and R2 unless it's on an individual circuit?

were quite clearly trying to make sparkyspike seem to contradict himself even though one quote says no individual EFLI tests, and the other is about measuring R1+R2 on individual circuits.

 

[Goldberg]

were quite clearly trying to make sparkyspike seem to contradict himself even though one quote says no individual EFLI tests, and the other is about measuring R1+R2 on individual circuits.

You're very wide of the mark there.

I posted sparkyspike's two seemingly conflicting statements because they seemed, to me, to be conflicting. If you find them to be consistent then so be it, but if you think that all of them were 100% correct, then you're both wrong.

 

[sparkyspike]

Using a non-tripping EFLI tester is not live working.

So opening a switch or pendant and putting probes on a live circuit isn't working live?

So which is it? If you're not supposed to measure an individual circuit then why are you giving an example of lighting circuit?

Did I say at any point that you should use an EFLI tester to measure R1+R2?

And another thing - how do you measure R1 and R2 unless it's on an individual circuit?

I was referring to measuring Ze, which is why I put it in bold.

And before you point it out, I also said that live testing should be avoided where possible. Ze and RCD testing must obviously be done live.

 

[ColJack]

fair enough, you misinterpreted / misread what he wrote and were not deliberately trying to make him seem contradictory.

I don't agree with him, and said as much in the earlier post.. I was merely defending his consistency, not his point of view..

 

[sparkyspike]

CJ, I don't mind that you disagree with me and thanks for the support.

I was under the impression that live work is to be avoided where possible. This has consistently been the advice of tutors, assessors and other electricians.

I will be the first to admit that I undertake live testing myself. I do it often. But I wouldn't recommend to anybody that they do the same, particularly not the OP who clearly was after some sound advice.

 

[ColJack]

live work and live testing are 2 different beasties..
they even made a special set of rules for testing live ( GS38 )

 

[Goldberg]

Using a non-tripping EFLI tester is not live working.

So opening a switch or pendant and putting probes on a live circuit isn't working live?

By "opening a switch", do you mean unscrewing a switch plate? If so, why can't you do this with the circuit isolated, like you would when changing a faulty switch plate?

I don't know which tester you use, but mine works perfectly happily if I attach the probes before energising the circuit.

Did I say at any point that you should use an EFLI tester to measure R1+R2?

I see no point in you asking me whether or not you wrote something that you clearly did not write, and that I didn't imply that you wrote, so let's not go there.

And another thing - how do you measure R1 and R2 unless it's on an individual circuit?

I was referring to measuring Ze, which is why I put it in bold.

No, you were referring to measuring R1 and R2, which is why you wrote "R1+R2+Ze".

And before you point it out, I also said that live testing should be avoided where possible. Ze and RCD testing must obviously be done live.

That doesn't answer anything - it's perfectly safe, and permissible, to carry out EFLI tests using a purpose made tester, but this is exactly the kind of testing that you said was not supposed to be done. Therefore, you were wrong. And FYI, I wasn't the only person to point out that you were wrong.

If your obscure point is that it's reasonable to measure R1/R2 using a meter on a dead circuit, and measure Ze using an EFLI tester on a live supply, then you're correct, but it doesn't explain why you wrote this:

You're not supposed to undertake live testing if it can be avoided. So for a lighting circuit for example, you would do R1+R2+Ze.

... since it's perfectly acceptable to use a purpose-made EFLI tester to measure/confirm Zs on a live circuit.

The bottom line is that you seem not to understand that an EFLI test, using an approved tester and safe working methods, is not "live working".

 

[sparkyspike]

Did I say at any point that you should use an EFLI tester to measure R1+R2?

I see no point in you asking me whether or not you wrote something that you clearly did not write, and that I didn't imply that you wrote, so let's not go there.

Yes you did.

If your obscure point is that it's reasonable to measure R1/R2 using a meter on a dead circuit, and measure Ze using an EFLI tester on a live supply, then you're correct,

Thank you

but it doesn't explain why you wrote this:

You're not supposed to undertake live testing if it can be avoided. So for a lighting circuit for example, you would do R1+R2+Ze.

Yes it does.

 

[Goldberg]

If your obscure point is that it's reasonable to measure R1/R2 using a meter on a dead circuit, and measure Ze using an EFLI tester on a live supply, then you're correct,

Thank you

My comment was the opposite of a compliment, since your point is the epitome of obscurity.

but it doesn't explain why you wrote this:

You're not supposed to undertake live testing if it can be avoided. So for a lighting circuit for example, you would do R1+R2+Ze.

Yes it does.

No. It doesn't. One explanation is that you don't understand the difference between live working and live testing. The only other one is that were pretending to not understand.

 

[sparkyspike]

I stand by what I say that live testing should be avoided where possible. Particularly in this instance where we are discussing measuring Zs with a loop impedance tester. R1+R2+Ze is a perfectly acceptable method and is preferred by tutors, assessor and some electricians.

I am quite happy to be in disagreement with you and with CJ and others.

However, the majority of your arguments tend to revolve around semantics to the extent that we are losing sight of the discussion (and the enthusiasm for it). I don't mind people being exact (to the point of pedantry), but you seem to use this to read what you like into other people's posts and skirt around the gist of their arguments in order to do this.

 

[Goldberg]

I stand by what I say that live testing should be avoided where possible.

Then I also stand by my assertion that you're wrong, and that you don't understand what live testing means.

Particularly in this instance where we are discussing measuring Zs with a loop impedance tester.

What, in this particular instance, makes the measurement of Zs with a EFLI tester undesirable, unacceptable, or any non-pedantic word of your choice that equates to your clear intention of discouraging it?

R1+R2+Ze is a perfectly acceptable method and is preferred by tutors, assessor and some electricians.

I didn't ever say that the calculation method is unacceptable, only that you were wrong to say we were "not supposed to" carry out live testing.

I am quite happy to be in disagreement with you and with CJ and others.

In that case it would have much simpler if you'd said that earlier, instead of you (and ColJack) pursuing what is now turning out to be a pointless discussion.

However, the majority of your arguments tend to revolve around semantics to the extent that we are losing sight of the discussion (and the enthusiasm for it). I don't mind people being exact (to the point of pedantry), but you seem to use this to read what you like into other people's posts and skirt around the gist of their arguments in order to do this.

This is wholly incorrect. You and ColJack are the ones who have introduced specious sub-threads to the original point, and who are incapable of promptly and consisely answering direct questions.

If you really want to stick, or return, to the original point, then please explain how this:

No - you're not supposed to measure EFLI on individual circuits. Measure Ze with your tester (nothing will trip) and then measure R1+R2 to get Zs. This is the correct way to do it.

...is consistent with your latest statement:

R1+R2+Ze is a perfectly acceptable method and is preferred by tutors, assessor and some electricians.

... or how it has any relationship to any set of regulations or any legislation.

 

[ricicle]

The judgement is the tester's. If you decide it is unsafe to teeter at the top of a pair of steps trying to do a live test on a chandalier then there is no harm in calculating it where as sticking your tester in a live switch following safety procedures carries less risk.

 

[Goldberg]

In case you didn't know, it's actually illegal for a contractor or an employee to "teeter at the top of a pair of steps" under any circumstances.

 

[ricicle]

In case you didn't know, it's actually illegal for a contractor or an employee to "teeter at the top of a pair of steps" under any circumstances.

Exactly.