IR Testing... Am I missing a trick here?

[uksparks]

Hi,

I know this may seem like a stupid question, but here goes.

Example...

You have an existing RFC and spur off to a SFCU to feed a flood light for example.

Connect it up, do R1+R2, Zs etc,

but IR, I disconnect N and then run 250v as a start between L-N, then L-E, then N-E, then if all clear (acceptable reading say >100M), I do it at 500v and take the risk.

But first I go round the entire flaming house unplugging everything as there's no telling whats on what circuit, if its SP or DP sockets and just switching off may not be safe, or have missed something.

I know I can do it LN-E @ 500v, but am I missing a trick here?

My issue is, I get a lot of customers wondering why I am essentially interfering with the the rest of the house (unplugging stuff) just because I have fitted an outside light... People don't want me traipsing round their house when all they want is a new light.

I explain it to them, but what do you do? I feel I am doing too much.

 

[telectrix]

IR test the wiring to the new light before you connect it to the existing wiring. then if you're fussy. test LN-E of the whole circuit with appluances left in.

 

[uksparks]

Am I not right though, in thinking you are supposed to test the entire circuit correctly?

 

[telectrix]

LN-E is a perfectly acceptable test for existing circuits. you only need a L-N teat for new installations.

 

[uksparks]

Well I guess at least doing what I am doing is better than doing it incorrectly so to speak.

 

[uksparks]

LN-E is a perfectly acceptable test for existing circuits. you only need a L-N teat for new installations.

Ill look tomorrow, but is that what it says in the regs?

 

[telectrix]

IMO, you need to fully test what you are installing new. then ensure that the installation ( inc. the circuit you are adding to) is safe to connect to and is safe for continued use. this includes, of course checking earthing and bonding. sometimes common sense overrules blind obedience to regs.

 

[uksparks]

Well quite, I think my problem is that I always go on the side of caution and do a full job on it.

yes any new work or cables etc get the full job without question.

i think I'll revise my testing procedures slightly.

thanks

 

[Deleted member 26818]

1. Before conducting an alteration or making an addition to an existing installation, you will have first determined that the existing installation is in a satisfactory condition for you to make the alteration or addition.
2. You are required to inspect and conduct appropriate tests on the work you have conducted, recording the results on the certification.
3. It is prohibited to use either an EIC or MWEIC for the inspection and testing of an existing installation.

 

[Leesparkykent]

1. Before conducting an alteration or making an addition to an existing installation, you will have first determined that the existing installation is in a satisfactory condition for you to make the alteration or addition.
2. You are required to inspect and conduct appropriate tests on the work you have conducted, recording the results on the certification.
3. It is prohibited to use either an EIC or MWEIC for the inspection and testing of an existing installation.

But not for an addition on or alteration of an existing circuit.

 

[Midwest]

What Lee said above? If I was doing Uksparks job, I would do what Tel said. If I was doing something more extensive, major alteration of ring final, then I would do L-L, L-E, N-E test. What you feel is appropriate before re -energising circuit.

 

[uksparks]

But not for an addition on or alteration of an existing circuit.

I was just going to say that, otherwise you would never be able to do any tests and fill in a cert for an existing installation.

 

[uksparks]

What Lee said above? If I was doing Uksparks job, I would do what Tel said. If I was doing something more extensive, major alteration of ring final, then I would do L-L, L-E, N-E test. What you feel is appropriate before re -energising circuit.

That's it, if I have extended a ring around another room or something like that, then it warrants a full set of tests.

 

[Midwest]

I was just going to say that, otherwise you would never be able to do any tests and fill in a cert for an existing installation.

Oohhh heaven!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

But not for an addition on or alteration of an existing circuit.

Nope applies in all cases.

 

[Leesparkykent]

Nope applies in all cases.

Care to explain in your usual obnoxious fashion?

 

[Hellmooth]

Looking forward to hearing this one.........what do you fill out if you're altering a circuit?

 

[Midwest]

Nope applies in all cases.

Okay, is this a play on words? Perhaps you can enlighten us all. Just reading page 418 BYB; MWC is intended to be used for additions & alterations to an installation, that do not extend to the provision of a new circuit. Examples include the addition of socket outlets or lighting points to an existing circuit'. Your just playing with us, aren't you.

 

[davesparks]

3. It is prohibited to use either an EIC or MWEIC for the inspection and testing of an existing installation.

Well you could have phrased that a bit better.
Of course an EIC or MWC can't be used for reporting on an existing install, in the same way an EICR cannot be used to certify new work.
But that is irrelevant to the thread, uksparks is asking about the testing of alterations to an existing circuit, not reporting on an installation.
The whole point of an MWC is to certify alterations to existing installations!

 

[Deleted member 9648]

He's posted this sort of tosh before....most noticeably on RCD protection in bathrooms....don't take it too seriously.