Electrical Test sheets & Fudged Figures

[Des 56]

I'm looking at it the other way
The tester has measured and recorded R1+R2 and added it quite legitimately to the also measured Ze.
He comes up with a perfect Zs,whereas the op thinks that measured Zs is dodgy (because he thinks R1+R2 and adding Ze is a calculated reading)

I'm now getting flummoxed by what is being suggested
I think the op needs to expand on what he thinks is actually being fudged

 

[Pete999]

I'm looking at it the other way
The tester has measured and recorded R1+R2 and added it quite legitimately to the also measured Ze.
He comes up with a perfect Zs,whereas the op thinks that measured Zs is dodgy (because he thinks R1+R2 and adding Ze is a calculated reading)

I'm now getting flummoxed by what is being suggested
I think the op needs to expand on what he thinks is actually being fudged

I'm going for a lie down in a dark room

 

[Des 56]

I'm going for a lie down in a dark room

Move over,I think we could all now do with a lie down

 

[Pete999]

Move over,I think we could all now do with a lie down

Not on your life matey

 

[westward10]

This is clearly a case of measure Zs and deduct Ze for the continuity no one surely does it the other way on a Periodic. So OP are there no insulation resistance readings.

 

[Des 56]

This is clearly a case of measure Zs and deduct Ze for the continuity no one surely does it the other way on a Periodic. So OP are there no insulation resistance readings.

I think what you state is spot on ,however,he can only prove its fudged if new tests contradict the readings he has been given
I am making the point to him that what he has been given is a legitimate if unusual means of obtaining Zs on a periodic but there are 2 ways to skin the cat

 

[Ian1981]

Zs-ze should not be used to calculate R1+R2 on any test as zs is a live test done with all bonding conductors in place.
Parallel paths will affect your zs result and will always be lower than the zs=ze+R1+R2 calculated method.
Is that what we are on about ha?

 

[Pete999]

Zs-ze should not be used to calculate R1+R2 on any test as zs is a live test done with all bonding conductors in place.
Parallel paths will affect your zs result and will always be lower than the zs=ze+R1+R2 calculated method.
Is that what we are on about ha?

Don't know, got a headache now

 

[Ian1981]

Is this a eicr or a eic?
R1+R2 is not a required test on a eicr only on initial verification

 

[Beyond Espresso]

I'm back. I'll SS the results and put on here in a moment

 

[westward10]

Zs-ze should not be used to calculate R1+R2 on any test as zs is a live test done with all bonding conductors in place.
Parallel paths will affect your zs result and will always be lower than the zs=ze+R1+R2 calculated method.
Is that what we are on about ha?

In the great scheme of things the continuity reading for radial circuits on an EICR schedule is pretty irrelevant however it was achieved whether you view the method rightly or wrongly let's face it some people just tick the column or leave it blank as the Zs proves continuity.

 

[Ian1981]

In the great scheme of things the continuity reading for radial circuits on an EICR schedule is pretty irrelevant however it was achieved whether you view the method rightly or wrongly let's face it some people just tick the column or leave it blank as the Zs proves continuity.

Agreed. The zs test alone is required to verify that the protective device will operate within the required time allowed.

 

[Beyond Espresso]

I've attached SS PDF - Without giving any details away

regards

and Thank you everyone who has contributed so far.

 

[Beyond Espresso]

Is this a eicr or a eic?
R1+R2 is not a required test on a eicr only on initial verification

Full electrical Installation report.

 

[SparkyChick]

I'd be suspicious of the RCD test result times if I was handed that.