2391-52 practical exam help

[Deleted member 26818]

I always took that 0.05 Ohms to mean the continuity between the conductor and the extraneous conductive-part.
Not the resistance of the conductor.

 

[Ian1981]

I always took that 0.05 Ohms to mean the continuity between the conductor and the extraneous conductive-part.
Not the resistance of the conductor.

Agree but the apprentice at work is taught and from what I read on other sites is that the resistance from the MET to the extraneous conductive part (or the protective bonding conductor) must not be greater than 0.05 ohms, which is the wrong advice

 

[L1Jay1]

Just taken 2391 practical and failed it , my brain stopped functioning , didnt realise i was going to find it that difficult , normally testing isnt a problem for me. Was told on exam that i only needed to test one lighting circuit , the was a one way and a two way lighting circuit . couldnt work out which circuit was which , not marked up on board or at DB .

 

[JBW175]

Just taken 2391 practical and failed it , my brain stopped functioning , didnt realise i was going to find it that difficult , normally testing isnt a problem for me. Was told on exam that i only needed to test one lighting circuit , the was a one way and a two way lighting circuit . couldnt work out which circuit was which , not marked up on board or at DB .

Sorry to hear you’ve failed. surely you should have picked it up when dead testing continuity? And the cable size & MCB size should have given a good indication of the circuit?

when I did mine, I’m sure one of the faults on the rig was no continuity at one of the battens when R1R2 testing of the lighting circuits.

 

[whiteelectrical]

lightmates are a brilliant idea.pity they won't work with megger leads.

I think they work with Meggers if you reverse the leads

 

[whiteelectrical]

lightmates are a brilliant idea.pity they won't work with megger leads.

I think they work with Meggers if you reverse the leads