Ah, don't say that. I'm literally in the practical exams next week
But it is good to get me looking through the regs and understanding what they mean.
Electric test fail.
- Thread starter daveg
- Start date
Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:
But it is good to get me looking through the regs and understanding what they mean.
Ah, don't say that. I'm literally in the practical exams next week
NAPIT code breakers has been compiled, on the basis that pretty much all pre 18th edition installs are a fail - which of course is nonsense
pre amd2... work to 18th original & amd1 are now failures
Exactly. The NAPIT crew should be ashamed of themselves.
They do not up hold safety, they are ONLY interested in making money
https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media/mi1oqkur/best-practice-guide-4-issue-7-1.pdf
This is a better guide as its been worked on by several partners.
This is a better guide as its been worked on by several partners.
Unfortunately all the schemes appear to be just in this buisness to make money out of us. I'm a Napit member and it works for me. But would I use their coding book as definitive guide. No.
Both publications are guides. If you have the relevant experience then you understand what to code what.
If your unsure then they can be a useful reference point but every eicr is different and what code is correct in one installation is not necessarily correct in another.
I follow this and it works for me.
C1 Danger is present now. Danger of electrocution or risk of injury with nothing else apart from continued use.
C2 Danger is potentially present but something else has to occur for the situation to become a risk to life.
C3 Item does not match current regulations, but the installation safety would be improved if it was upgraded.
We say it on here loads. Just because an installation is to 14/15/16/17th edition doesn't mean it became unsafe when the 18th edition was published.
Weekend wonders and new apprentices don't seem to realise this. This is where pure experience is required, you can't teach an understanding of previous regs as that would get confusing, but you should at least be taught that older compliant installations are not unsafe !
I think that codebreakers could be used against sparks in court as their guidance is suspect to say the least.
What a mess
What a mess
Nicky Tesla
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 1,652
- Reaction score
- 12
Live & cpc
I have just had the satisfactory report after the remedial work has been done. Looking at the report it looks to me that the broken ring circuit is the kitchen sockets as there are 3 values >2000. The solution if I understand what was proposed was to change the breaker from a 32A to a 20A - "no ring continuity - BG B20 MCB needed" but the breaker is still listed as 32A.
Does the fact that all 3 measurements are >2000 imply there is a serious break somewhere rather than just a loose connection on one wire?
The letting agent sent me a picture of the meter cupboard and the tails have been changed and now go through a single hole but the resolution is not good enough to see what breakers are fitted,
Does the fact that all 3 measurements are >2000 imply there is a serious break somewhere rather than just a loose connection on one wire?
The letting agent sent me a picture of the meter cupboard and the tails have been changed and now go through a single hole but the resolution is not good enough to see what breakers are fitted,
I guess your best next step is get a clearer picture to see if the breaker has been changed and if it has ask for the EICR to be updated
Lack of continuity is a C2
Lack of continuity is a C2
The flat will be empty in a couple of weeks so I will try and get there then and check what value breaker is fitted. I am more curious as to what has happened to break the ring circuit. Here are the measurements from the previous report. The kitchen is circuit 2.
Am I correct in thinking the fact that all 3 readings are >2000 means a wire has been cut through somewhere? No major work has been done to the flat between the two reports.
Am I correct in thinking the fact that all 3 readings are >2000 means a wire has been cut through somewhere? No major work has been done to the flat between the two reports.
Needs to be investigated properly before making any decisions.
Could be 3 loose connections anywhere on the ring - so a simple split may be hard to achieve
Could be 3 loose connections anywhere on the ring - so a simple split may be hard to achieve
its unusual to have all 3 open circuit. single fault would only affect one of them. 3 individual faults, one on each its not so common. most likely someone's changed a socket or something and left half them out. or there's been a fault and a section of cable has been intentially disconnected making 2x radials but breakers not changed
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 14,320
- Reaction score
- 969
I would agree with your assumption..
A typical broken ring fault rarely has all three conductors totally open circuit..??
I have been on faults with similar symptoms to yours, which have been due to a socket front removed because it was going to be inaccessible behind some furniture..
But all they had done was wrap some PVC tape around each individual conductor, then put a blanking plate on the front of the old socket box!
And another one where two new sockets had been attempted to add to a ring...
But all they had done under the floor was cut the ring circuit cable..
Add two new junctions boxes on each half of the ring...
(which was good compared to the very common connector strip wrapped in tape joint found far to often!!)
Then connect the new socket cables onto the two new boxes..
BUT.. forget the join the two new sockets together as well to complete the ring..!!!!
{obviously no ring continuity dead testing before re-energising...
But it must have been correct as everything worked and the plug-in polarity tester gave all the right light indications!}
Basically, I have got to the stage now where very little stupid wiring surprises me especially where ring circuits are concerned and adding accessories spurred off rings!!!
I still can't see how a satisfactory EICR has been issued for a broken ring on a 32A protective device!??
Especially when they have written in black and white that a 32A 60898 type B MCB is connected to 2.5mm circuit with a 1.5mm CPC.. That simply CANNOT be satisfactory to any competent person!
The protective device MUST be a lower rating than the cable capacity to prevent damage to the circuit wiring..
More investigations are needed!
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,775
- Reaction score
- 243
I recently had a broken ring fault at my mates house, to be fair my mate suspected something was up when he saw the plumber mucking about with a Wago box a month earlier when he was fitting a new boiler. I checked it out yip open circuit on ring.
What I suspect happened was the plumber core drilled through the cable when he has fitting an oil burner flue so he Wagoed one side of the cable and he just removed the other leg from the boiler fused connection unit which was for the boiler.
I sorted it by fitting another socket using the leg he had put into the Wago box hiding in the wall and fitting another bit of t&e into the fcu and the new socket.
Ring now complete.
What I suspect happened was the plumber core drilled through the cable when he has fitting an oil burner flue so he Wagoed one side of the cable and he just removed the other leg from the boiler fused connection unit which was for the boiler.
I sorted it by fitting another socket using the leg he had put into the Wago box hiding in the wall and fitting another bit of t&e into the fcu and the new socket.
Ring now complete.
surely a socket on each end and a short length of flex with 2x plugs would have been easier?
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,775
- Reaction score
- 243
Ah a nice wee widow maker
Similar threads
- Locked
