Niceic cert filling in on software programme

[Mike Johnson]

Except that in general terms when referring to an RCD most mean a unit without overload protection, but when referring to an RCBO most mean a different type of unit.

 

[Deleted account]

Im agreeing to disagree on this one.

 

[dodger421]

What sort of meltdowns over terminology are we going to experience when AFDD RCBO boards become the norm?

 

[Mike Johnson]

Will AFDD's ever become the norm, or will the manufacturers take the bull by the horns and combine them?

 

[dodger421]

Will AFDD's ever become the norm, or will the manufacturers take the bull by the horns and combine them?

That’s my point. Most that I’ve seen are combined devices, so do we need a new form for a board filled with AFDDRCBO’s as well as a different one for split load boards, and another one for all RCBO boards?

Or can we agree that the current forms have space to record the required information for each part of the device as required and keep on using them?

 

[Ian1981]

For when it askes for the BSEN number and if you have a combination of an AFDD and RCBO then write them both in the box
62606/61009

 

[Risteard]

Wondering why they isn’t a Zs box to fill in,& if Connected to origin do not fill in box.
Also altered the Rcd times,now just entering the x5 trip time.
Why is there no N-E insulation reading ,& a L-L entry,which I would take to be L-N.
Just pondering these thoughts,will phone helpline next time in office,but any ideas.

Live/Earth includes the neutral to Earth insulation resistance, as well as the line (phase) to Earth. Live/Live is not only phase to neutral, but also between all phases, and these to the neutral.

 

[Risteard]

It's probably the Aspergers kicking in, everything must be correct and in order, to me an RCD does not do the same job as an RCBO therefore should not be listed in the same way.

RCD is a generic term. What you are describing as an "RCD" is, in fact, an RCCB (residual current circuit breaker). This is merely one type of RCD.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Of course there is, but as we deal in specifics on everything else why don't we when describing the units we put into a DB?

 

[Grant1987]

So why do we recommend an all RCBO board and not a all RCD board?

This is my point I don’t do an all rcbo board I do a split load rcd but I see the pros and cons of both, on the test form if it’s rcbos you will enter each rcbo reading individually normally round about the same, and then rcd covering few circuits is the same for each circuit

 

[Ian1981]

I write the rccb in the circuit column if it’s a split load board, 61008, it’s current rating etc then I record only one rcd trip time measurement,I do not repeat the measurement to correspond to each circuit, for the column that covers 60898 devices I put N/A as it’s an mcb and not an rcbo.

 

[loz2754]

I write the rccb in the circuit column if it’s a split load board, 61008, it’s current rating etc then I record only one rcd trip time measurement,I do not repeat the measurement to correspond to each circuit, for the column that covers 60898 devices I put N/A as it’s an mcb and not an rcbo.

I've seen this done before. Surely though we are recording the circuit details on each line, not just the device details. Every circuit under the RCD is protected by the RCD and therefore it is appropriate to enter the I delta n, and trip time on each of these circuits.
That's how I see it anyway.

 

[Ian1981]

I've seen this done before. Surely though we are recording the circuit details on each line, not just the device details. Every circuit under the RCD is protected by the RCD and therefore it is appropriate to enter the I delta n, and trip time on each of these circuits.
That's how I see it anyway.

I do record each circuit on each line but above I record the rccb, it’s rating, it’s I delta N etc then the circuits it protects underneath with its circuit number. One rcd, one trip time measurement, it’s just the way I do it, I used to do it that way before.
If they are rcbos then there’s an rcd trip time for each circuit corresponding to each line.

 

[loz2754]

I do record each circuit on each line but above I record the rccb, it’s rating, it’s I delta N etc then the circuits it protects underneath with its circuit number. One rcd, one trip time measurement, it’s just the way I do it, I used to do it that way before.
If they are rcbos then there’s an rcd trip time for each circuit corresponding to each line.

So how do you show on the circuit schedule that the circuits following the RCD are in fact RCD protected?
Do you record the RCD as something like "RCD for circuits 5 to 10"?

 

[Ian1981]

So how do you show on the circuit schedule that the circuits following the RCD are in fact RCD protected?

Because I write the circuits underneath, then if there’s another rcd the other circuits are written under that one,
Just how I do it, by no means am I suggesting that it’s the be all and end all of doing it, as long as the information is recorded.

 

[loz2754]

Because I write the circuits underneath, then if there’s another rcd the other circuits are written under that one,

For me that's not clear enough for someone else to interpret. Each to his own way I guess.

 

[Ian1981]

For me that's not clear enough for someone else to interpret. Each to his own way I guess.

The other way it’s written to me suggests that the circuit have individual rcd protection as you have written 30mA for each 60898 and a trip time but there’s only one or two rcd’s etc.
so to me it’s written for rcbos when they’re are not any.

 

[Mike Johnson]

I have looked at three different Software program's for EICR reports, the best so far is "EasyCert" on a laptop or desktop, but not on a iPhone, the screen is too small, the software itself is quite intuitive and follows logical progress, but still has the annoying tick list page's, how much of that guff is really needed or even read by anyone that come's after? I suppose if you are that person that comes after and find a fault it may be useful, but then again you are going to do the whole tests yourself and not take a lot of notice of previous tests, or are you?

 

[Risteard]

I don't believe that the ticks lists have any real merit and need a serious rethink. I'd be more in favour of a simple declaration that the works have been verified in accordance with the Standard and comply fully with it. This would not affect how the initial verification is carried out, but I think the paperwork is out of control.

 

[Mike Johnson]

I don't believe that the ticks lists have any real merit and need a serious rethink. I'd be more in favour of a simple declaration that the works have been verified in accordance with the Standard and comply fully with it. This would not affect how the initial verification is carried out, but I think the paperwork is out of control.

I think the whole of the legislation is out of control, can anyone answer "Why Part P"?