Rcd tripping times on EIC

[cliffed]

Testing Rcd trip times would you write down 28.4ms or 28ms
If say 28.6 would you write down 29ms.

 

[plugsandsparks]

Generally you write down what your meter is capable of measuring, mine does not do fractions of a mS.

 

[cliffed]

Generally you write down what your meter is capable of measuring, mine does not do fractions of a mS.

Ok.. just a bit of a debate @ work, the sparks puts down the actual measurement 26.2ms.. I differ by just putting 26ms. Which caused a bit of why!!!

 

[westward10]

I round it down if 28.4 (28) or below and round it up if 28.5 (29) and above.

 

[buzzlightyear]

My inspector told me put down what ever comes on the tester, but if 28.4 just put 28.

 

[cliffed]

Cheers guys ..people get stroppy easily these days

 

[plugsandsparks]

Same as Buzz, inspector advised same, he quoted a couple of court cases he attended as a "expert witness" where the prosecutor made a meal out of the results written on the cert and the type of meter stated, was being used (sort of suggesting that if you dont write down exactly whats on the meter you can be accused of making the readings up)

Funnily, i took it to the other extreme because i know you can get different readings for ZS (low trip), continuity (by how much you squeeze the croc clip), IR depending on how long you wait etc etc..... so even if the readings are not perfect i write it down, waiting for the inspector to query them... but he never did, lol

I only really get excited if the readings are close to limits (or not what i am estimating they should be)

 

[littlespark]

For rounding, I would always round up, to give a worst case scenario. Ie, 26.4 up to 27

 

[Petej999]

Testing Rcd trip times would you write down 28.4ms or 28ms
If say 28.6 would you write down 29ms.

NO 28.6MS

 

[littlespark]

I still see people write down >200 on their IR results when the meter says >999

Maybe just enter “<40” for RCD trip time as that’s the maximum.


I’m being pedantic this morning…. Haha

 

[Julie.]

NO 28.6MS

It should be a time measurement, not 28.8 Mega Siemens

That works out about 0.034 micro ohms!!

 

[Petej999]

point takenIt should be a time measurement, not 28.8 Mega Siemens

That works out about 0.034 micro ohms!!

OK

 

[Anthonyorton]

Ok.. just a bit of a debate @ work, the sparks puts down the actual measurement 26.2ms.. I differ by just putting 26ms. Which caused a bit of why!!!

Just put down what Meyer reads