Revamped EICR Model Schedule of Test Results - "Missing Tests" 0.01

[Lister1987]

Lister1987 submitted a new resource:

Revamped EICR Model Schedule of Test Results - "Missing Tests" - Added "Missing Tests" as highlighted on an SN Podcast - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Hj5K5cbdk

This modifed form has been created to attempt to encompass the so called "missing tests" in the video link above.

This willl not be perfect and the purpose of this download is to get feedback and correction where mistakes exists

The ZIP contains the form in 3 formats;

.xlsx (This is were it was orignally transposed from a .doc version of the standard form
.pdf (This is where editable PDF functionality was partially added - Not completed
.docx (This is the "finished" product which can be...

Read more about this resource...
[automerge]1588358874[/automerge]
This exists to attempt to get the "Missing Tests" in the recent SparkyNinja EICR podcast into the standard EICR test results form.

A point was raised about real estate on the form itself and fitting everything on so i thought i'd give it a bash.

Feedback, corrections and critiques are most welcomed and encouraged.

 

[davesparks]

Why on earth have you added main bonding into the test results schedule? That's a waste of time, it doesn't change with every circuit.

I dont see the point of itemising every test you do in the results schedule as 99% of the time most of these will just be filled with N/A LIM or just ditto/copied through.

It looks like you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist and fix sometjing that isn't broken.

 

[Lister1987]

Why on earth have you added main bonding into the test results schedule? That's a waste of time, it doesn't change with every circuit.

I dont see the point of itemising every test you do in the results schedule as 99% of the time most of these will just be filled with N/A LIM or just ditto/copied through.

It looks like you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist and fix sometjing that isn't broken.

It's in there so it's value an be recorded, granted it might not be the best place for it but it gives you a plac to record CSA, bonding applications and an IR value - the latter giving you some to compare to on follow visits, a deviation might indicate degradation in the conductor or a loose connection.

Most of them may be lim or n/a but it's somewhere to record them then they Do apply, which current forms may not allow for. Sure it's an exercise in futility but it gave me something to do and raised some interesting points for me to take onward in my journey.

I'll polish this up and play with layout some more so the one-shot items are given an appropriate part of the layout.

If it gets me thinking more about the why behind the what we test then I don't consider it too much of a waste.

 

[davesparks]

It's in there so it's value an be recorded, granted it might not be the best place for it but it gives you a plac to record CSA, bonding applications and an IR value - the latter giving you some to compare to on follow visits, a deviation might indicate degradation in the conductor or a loose connection.

So include it in the appripriate section of the certificate, not on the schedule of test results. You could easily have hundreds of schedules of test results for the DBs in an installation, are you going to record the same information on every single one?

Plus of course you've missed a lot of the parts which may need bonding and not allowed anywhere to record other parts.
What happens if you have both LPG and oil in the same installation. You've missed out lightning protection, hot water service, heating service, air con ducting etc

 

[glowingember]

You've obviously put a lot of work into getting this right so good work. Just a couple of typos I spotted if you haven't seen them already. On the pfc measurement at the DB it looks to be LPF not Ipf and a few too many t's in conductors worth just opening in Word so spellchecker can help resolve