SparkyNinja Webinars

[SparkyChick]

Hi all,

SparkyNinja is running some webinars, you can check them out here:-

SparkyNinja Webinars

sparkyninja.com

I think there will be more added to the list as it sounds like he's got some planned for next week as well.

 

[Zdb]

I watched the thermal imaging one yesterday. Very informative.

Also booked a slot on an SPD internet training session. Details in the image below:

 

[Lou]

Great find chick

 

[goasis]

Hi all,

SparkyNinja is running some webinars, you can check them out here:-

SparkyNinja Webinars

sparkyninja.com

I think there will be more added to the list as it sounds like he's got some planned for next week as well.

I joined the amd 1 webinar today, having read it and not really understood it.
He went through the reg and explained it as best as anyone could but it seems to be written in such a way as to pose more questions than answer them! Esp with ref to car chargers and pme earthing arrangements.

 

[Ian1981]

I turned off as soon as they started banging on about testing main protective bonding conductors and that they have to be no more than 0.05 ohms. They are as bad as the training providers they slag off by which I mean providing incorrect information to the masses but refused to acknowledge my questions regarding how they came to that conclusion.

 

[SparkyChick]

All I can say @Ian1981 is they actually went on to say you should estimate the length of the bonding, calculate the expected resistance and compare that against what you actually measure.
[automerge]1585896610[/automerge]
They were mainly talking about what you should be doing and how a lot of training is lacking when it comes to qualifications like 2391.

 

[gazdkw82]

I watched the bs7909 one.

Brilliant. Very useful

 

[SparkyChick]

I watched the bs7909 one.

Brilliant. Very useful

I watched that one as well... very interesting.

 

[Sparky Ninja]

I turned off as soon as they started banging on about testing main protective bonding conductors and that they have to be no more than 0.05 ohms. They are as bad as the training providers they slag off by which I mean providing incorrect information to the masses but refused to acknowledge my questions regarding how they came to that conclusion.

Ian, I have to say that I have attempted to respond to every question on these webinars and have admitted to not know answers when I'm not sure on what response to give.

Could you give me a more precise understanding on the question you gave, as there is nothing like that here in the chat log or Q/A and if you are one the three Ian's that attended, all of the questions you asked were answered, and you were logged in for 71, 74 or 78 minutes.

I'm sorry that you thought the free training and engagement opportunity wasn't worth your time.

Noted.

 

[Lister1987]

I want watched the EICR Missing Tests one and created a new EICR form off the back of it - chances are good I've missed or duplicated bits but the bit about taking a reading and not recording it I thought was very valid, same with the calculation to compare against, so now my form has space for it.

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

Sparky ninja does seem to get some bad press and seems a bit marmite for some.
A bit like the whole e5 idea. People seem to not like it and criticise it. Any improvement in skills or raising of standards and subsequently pay must surely be a good thing.
Personally I think the guy is just doing his best to improve an industry that has a few issues. No ulterior motive or aim to get rich.
Haven't had a chance to do these webinars.
Are they still available to rewatch online or YouTube?

 

[SparkyChick]

@widdler is posting many of them on his YouTube channel.

 

[Lister1987]

Are they still available to rewatch online or YouTube?

Playlist here;

View: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLg1OV4f2xHzWDKnUKdWSCgp-7yzbGMESH

 

[Sparky Ninja]

Sparky ninja does seem to get some bad press and seems a bit marmite for some.
A bit like the whole e5 idea. People seem to not like it and criticise it. Any improvement in skills or raising of standards and subsequently pay must surely be a good thing.
Personally I think the guy is just doing his best to improve an industry that has a few issues. No ulterior motive or aim to get rich.

This is the main problem many have - they just don't get it.

Voluntary bodies, committee members and many electricians don't want this industry to change, or they need to be the ones to make the change.

It's never been about a seat at the table but the message from e5 and discussions we have - unlike the committees - have all been made public as best we can.

 

[JAWS]

I have really enjoyed watching the Sparky Ninja Webinars, superb in fact but must admit I do get annoyed watching how much knowledge him and his old man have and thinking to myself how the hell I am going to ever reach that level.

 

[Mark Wright]

I've only just started watching and got some answers I've been looking for.

I turned off as soon as they started banging on about testing main protective bonding conductors and that they have to be no more than 0.05 ohms. They are as bad as the training providers they slag off by which I mean providing incorrect information to the masses but refused to acknowledge my questions regarding how they came to that conclusion.

"In order to achieve this it is recomended that the resistance of the bonding conductors doesn't exceed 0.05Ω. Chapter 54 of BS 7671 covers the requirements of protective bonding. Chapter 4 of the On-site Guide is also useful....."

Quote Chris Kitcher

 

[Ian1981]

I've only just started watching and got some answers I've been looking for.


"In order to achieve this it is recomended that the resistance of the bonding conductors doesn't exceed 0.05Ω. Chapter 54 of BS 7671 covers the requirements of protective bonding. Chapter 4 of the On-site Guide is also useful....."

Quote Chris Kitcher

There’s no requirement or regulation that states that a protective bonding conductor has to be or must not exceed 0.05 ohms.
This has been done to death on this forum and is a common misconception within the industry.
Chapter 54 gives sizes for protective bonding conductors but nothing about their lengths/maximum resistance because they are not limited by length.
The measured R2 reading from the MET to the bonding conductor should reflect its length or if unknown, an engineering judgment made for the effectiveness of the connection/conductor taking into account its CSA.

 

[Mark Wright]

GN3

"When testing the effectiveness of main equipotential bonding conductors, the resistance value between a service pipe or other extraneous-conductive-part and the main earthing terminal should be of the order of 0.05 ohm or less"

Basically To exceed 0.05 you would have quite a long if you've used the correct CSA a negligible resistance should exist i.e 0.05.

 

[Ian1981]

GN3

"When testing the effectiveness of main equipotential bonding conductors, the resistance value between a service pipe or other extraneous-conductive-part and the main earthing terminal should be of the order of 0.05 ohm or less"

Basically To exceed 0.05 you would have quite a long if you've used the correct CSA a negligible resistance should exist i.e 0.05.

GN3 is not a regulation tho may state regulations from bs7671, it’s a guidance note only and does not overrule or exceed a British standard, that said it is an excellent book for inspection and testing guidance.
Now read the rest of that extract from GN3.
It states that the 0.05 value is NOT from the MET to the bonding conductor, it is a measurement between pipework that is ‘built in’ so a reading in the order of 0.05 ohms can be assumed to mean that the pipework is effectively connected together by a suitably low impedance in the order of say ‘0.05 ohms’ when testing between pipework.
Now go read chapter 54 protective bonding conductors and the regulations which state the CSA required for PME and non PME conditions and tell me where it states that a CSA should be increased if you go over a value of 0.05, which appears nowhere within bs7671?

 

[Mark Wright]

"A satisfactory test result for the bonding conductors will be in the order of 0.05"
Quote "Trevor Linsley"

anyway it doesn't matter if your getting over 0.05 ohms you probably have a very long run if not you should investigate, As I question the clarity on the subject of Bonding and Earthing in BS7671 i'm not defending anything or anything but seems 0.05 is a rule of thumb type value.

and it's from the MET to the furthest point.