IR testing an individual circuit within con/unit

[driverman]

Hi,
When carrying out an IR test on a circuit within a consumer unit, can it be carried out safely with all the other circuits on?
Can the circuit under test be isolated by switching off protective device (MCB)? Under 2395 exam would MCB have to be locked off also?
Or would it be better to isolate the whole installation and lock off at main switch. Thanks

 

[Brightspark2]

So, if your on a 3 phase Dis/ Board and you want to carry out an IR test on 1 particular circuit but without switching all circuits off, do you just lock off circuit under test? Would that conform to GN3 BS7671? I'm only asking this as I'm sat here revising 2395.
According to previous Test feedback...Many people are getting this typical question wrong.

If its for the 2395 then you'd isolate the whole DB. :thumbup:

 

[telectrix]

I would suggest you don't need to lock off the MCB as you will obviously have isolated the whole board and locked it off and placed signs etc before you took the lid off.

On an open internet forum where anyone could be watching no sensible person will ever admit that they would even consider opening an enclosure without isolating the supply to it first.

how do you isolate the supply to a domestic CU, remove the DNO fuse???

 

[driverman]

how do you isolate the supply to a domestic CU, remove the DNO fuse???

Re post 5........I basically want to know under exams conditions. Hence asking if the main switch on the con/unit requires locking off before removing the cover.

 

[davethsparky]

Oops, my mistake. Should have added something like 'unless its the firs fuseboard in the install when you would isolate at the main switch'

Would that make it betterer?

 

[davethsparky]

Re post 5........I basically want to know under exams conditions. Hence asking if the main switch on the con/unit requires locking off before removing the cover.

Carry out safe isolation before removing the cover, could it be any simpler?

 

[Des 56]

I would suggest you don't need to lock off the MCB as you will obviously have isolated the whole board and locked it off and placed signs etc before you took the lid off.

On an open internet forum where anyone could be watching no sensible person will ever admit that they would even consider opening an enclosure without isolating the supply to it first.

I guess I am one of those not sensible persons lol

 

[driverman]

OK sorry but just to recap..This is a domestic consumer unit. No DNO double pole isolator fitted. So....the only switch available to isolate the supply to the consumer unit is the 100amp DP switch in the con/unit. Therefore, does that switch require locking off before cover removed?

 

[Des 56]

What are you doing about the neutral conductor of this circuit that is being tested

 

[driverman]

I was reading a 2395 question earlier about testing for IR on a particular circuit. I've come to the conclusion that the whole consumer unit Dis/board must be safely isolated to carry out such test.

 

[davethsparky]

If you are going to state publicly (this forum) that you are guilty of doing something which could easily be construed as evidence of working dangerously or breaking H+S laws/guidelines by someone at any future point in time who wishes to discredit your professionalism or ability to work safely. Then yes I would say you are not acting very sensibly.<br>

<br>The real name, address and a whole host of other information about every member of this forum is freely available to anyone who wants to look for it with very little effort. Hiding behind a username doesn't stop anyone but the casual observer

 

[netblindpaul]

The means of isolation of an energy source only requires locking off, & tagging, if, it is not under the direct supervision of the person working on that energy source AT ALL TIMES.

 

[davethsparky]

I was reading a 2395 question earlier about testing for IR on a particular circuit. I've come to the conclusion that the whole consumer unit Dis/board must be safely isolated to carry out such test.

You were told the answer in posts 2 and 20, hardly coming to the conclusion yourself is it?

 

[Des 56]

If you are going to state publicly (this forum) that you are guilty of doing something which could easily be construed as evidence of working dangerously or breaking H+S laws/guidelines by someone at any future point in time who wishes to discredit your professionalism or ability to work safely. Then yes I would say you are not acting very sensibly.<br>

<br>The real name, address and a whole host of other information about every member of this forum is freely available to anyone who wants to look for it with very little effort. Hiding behind a username doesn't stop anyone but the casual observer

I am not "guilty",I am an electrician.it is my trade,it is what I was taught,it is my occupation,it is within my skill set
there again I may still be not sensible to the H+S brigade :clap::clap:



Its better that the "common sense" be applied to the work we carry out
We should work within our skill set which should provide us with that level of safety

An electrician should be "capable of" and is permitted to work live,where conditions of working live are met

The real world tends to differ somewhat from H+S text books that have the compensation culture as its driving force
I can imagine shutting down production to diligently follow the procedures discussed

 

[moospark]

If I isolate the supply, I cannot listen to Radio 2, surely?

 

[davethsparky]

All I am saying is that if in the future some blood sucking vampire (lawyer) is looking to discredit your professional ability , likely for a case where someone is making you the scapegoat for managements cost cutting or blame shifting, then posts on here statign that you work other than in strict accordance with the EAWR could be used against you.

Bearing in mind that economical reasons are not allowed as a reason for working live. And yes I do know that in the real world we'd all be on the dole for daring to suggest such a thing to those above us.