'Lamps removed' - IR testing

[sparc]

Just finished testing after new CU install in a 3 bed house where every - every - light fitting was either ELV (with transformer built into base) or a strip light. So removing 'lamps' became a fairly length task in itself -especially as most of the fittings with the 12V transformer in base had been bodged in place in the first place, requiring remedial work as I went along. One fitting had no less than six screws holding body to ceiling plate, and its was stuffed full of wires and connectors and a b*****r to get back in place! A right pain in the neck - literally!

I love the way the IET still shows in its diagrams an old GLS bulb next to the tag: 'lamps removed'.

Isn't it about time the IET and appropriate standards body for these products took a look at this? It wouldn't be beyond the wit of man to incorporate a means of both isolating the lives and providing test ports. I suppose it comes down to cost, and the fact that most of these things are made in China.

 

[malcolmsanford]

Well Sparcs you must be having a quiet day ............ because there is no way on this earth I would be taking the lamps out of lights within the installation when doing a CU change......

 

[sparc]

It's a quite week, Malcolm, but next week is manic - fortunately. Still, busy or quiet, I see no way around need to do IR tests, even if I write up EIC as 'CU change only' - which I do.

 

[IQ Electrical]

It's a quite week, Malcolm, but next week is manic - fortunately. Still, busy or quiet, I see no way around need to do IR tests, even if I write up EIC as 'CU change only' - which I do.

The recommended protocol in this situation is for an insulation resistance test with the line & neutral conductors connected together and the protective conductor connected to the earthing arrangement.

 

[sparc]

The recommended protocol in this situation is for an insulation resistance test with the line & neutral conductors connected together and the protective conductor connected to the earthing arrangement.

Acknowledged - and thanks IQ - in fact first test I do is is between all L + N and E at the board. I was more making a point that the design of these fittings should be improved to allow full testing to be done, as it would have when ordinary GLS bulbs could be easily removed. Ganging the live conductors and testing against E may be a way around it, but it's a sub-optimum test of the wiring.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

The ONLY time I test L-N is on a new install where I can test in full awareness on what is connected,and can arrange testing before lamps and equipment are connected. L-N testing an existing install is far too much hassle and far too risky, just not worth it.

 

[Jimmy Boy]

Test method 2 is accepted practice and shouldn't be looked at as 'Sub standard' test ( My words not the OP's) in fact so is a 250V test under the right conditions.
ATB J

 

[sparc]

I understand you points, Jimmy Boy - and I'm being deliberately pedantic here for a reason - but you don't sign-off an EIC or EICR to 'accepted practice', but to BS7671:2008.

612.3.1 in BGB doesn't seem to give much leeway here....

 

[Jimmy Boy]

I understand you points, Jimmy Boy - and I'm being deliberately pedantic here for a reason - but you don't sign-off an EIC or EICR to 'accepted practice', but to BS7671:2008.

612.3.1 in BGB doesn't seem to give much leeway here....

I'd never criticise someone for wanting to do the job properly, as for 612.3.1, whats the problem ? " Where appropriate during this measurement, Line and Neutral conductors may be connected together"
J

 

[sparc]

Fair comment, JB - it's the "appropriate" part I wouldn't like to have to argue in court. If I'm seeing a load between L and N but can't find anything further to disconnect I will use L+N and 250, but I then find myself 'looking over my shoulder' for weeks! Guess it's not being in the job long enough...

 

[Jimmy Boy]

Fair play to you for wanting to do the job thoroughly..When you see some of the lash ups
J

 

[Spudnik]

If i am doing a CU change, Method 2 is what i use.

Nothing wrong with using it and its in the regs.

I would like to see this method being disputed in court - if it ever came to it.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Just finished testing after new CU install in a 3 bed house where every - every - light fitting was either ELV (with transformer built into base) or a strip light. So removing 'lamps' became a fairly length task in itself -especially as most of the fittings with the 12V transformer in base had been bodged in place in the first place, requiring remedial work as I went along. One fitting had no less than six screws holding body to ceiling plate, and its was stuffed full of wires and connectors and a b*****r to get back in place! A right pain in the neck - literally!

I love the way the IET still shows in its diagrams an old GLS bulb next to the tag: 'lamps removed'.

Isn't it about time the IET and appropriate standards body for these products took a look at this? It wouldn't be beyond the wit of man to incorporate a means of both isolating the lives and providing test ports. I suppose it comes down to cost, and the fact that most of these things are made in China.

This raises another issue of how far you go on a cu change (unrelated to IR testing)....removing accessories and lights is liable to open a can of worms,stripped threads,damage to decor etc etc. A whole load of extra work made for yourself.

 

[Guitarist]

I always do a full spread of tests after a CU change, just for my own piece of mind. That said, I go into a lot of properties where the electrician has changed a CU and I doubt if he did any test other than checking the amount of cash he was being given.