Testing RCD, The manufacturers response!

Adam W · May 30, 2016

Jay Sparks said:
Of course it can be easier to test via a socket but when you have rcbo's, it would be mad to try and test at a light fitting or switch (depending how it has been wired). Or even a cooker circuit or boiler spur. In these cases, it would be easier and safer to test at the rcbo, surely?

But like so many other things in the great byb, this is another grey one, were everyone interprets it in a different way.

Jay

These would be the situations where there's no socket on the rcd, as I've described.
If there were a socket on the rcd it would be safer and easier to plug in a socket adaptor and test like that.

Jay Sparks · May 30, 2016

I'd like to think I am competent enough to be able to test at a cu/db that is live. And most cu's now have barriers/guards for the busbars. So for I.V, I will always test at the device.

This thread was more about what the manufacturers recommend, as I have seen people in other threads on here say the MI's say to test at the device but I couldn't find this written any where.

davesparks · May 30, 2016

If I am testing a cable, I connect my tester to that cable.
If I am testing an electronic component i connect my tester to the component.
If I am testing an installed circuit I connect my tester to that circuit.
So to test an RCD do I connect my tester to the RCD, or to a remote point on the wiring connected to the RCD?

Midwest · May 30, 2016

Jay Sparks said:
I'd like to think I am competent enough to be able to test at a cu/db that is live. And most cu's now have barriers/guards for the busbars. So for I.V, I will always test at the device.

This thread was more about what the manufacturers recommend, as I have seen people in other threads on here say the MI's say to test at the device but I couldn't find this written any where.

Did you spend the time to read the other thread I posted? Whilst I respect the knowledge of those leg-ends on this forum sometimes their views are personalised.

Jay Sparks · May 31, 2016

Midwest said:
Did you spend the time to read the other thread I posted? Whilst I respect the knowledge of those leg-ends on this forum sometimes their views are personalised.

Yes, I did read it. But that was also inconclusive. Neither manufacturer gave a solid answer, same as the ones I asked.

Midwest · May 31, 2016

Jay Sparks said:
Yes, I did read it. But that was also inconclusive. Neither manufacturer gave a solid answer, same as the ones I asked.

Think that's the point really. Although GN3 & OSG are both quoted with the test method, is ambiguous to say the least, compared to the methods for other tests, and manufactures are pretty much the same. I think for the most part, both methods are acceptable (as per the answers I received). I prefer testing an RCD at a socket or accessory; acceptable method, safer, no dismantling of CU parts to test (who can say, it has been reassembled correctly, without retesting

).

Hope you find a definitive answer.

Jay Sparks · May 31, 2016

Midwest said:
Think that's the point really. Although GN3 & OSG are both quoted with the test method, is ambiguous to say the least, compared to the methods for other tests, and manufactures are pretty much the same. I think for the most part, both methods are acceptable (as per the answers I received). I prefer testing an RCD at a socket or accessory; acceptable method, safer, no dismantling of CU parts to test (who can say, it has been reassembled correctly, without retesting ).

Hope you find a definitive answer.

This I think is unlikely.lol But thanks for yours and everyone else's input on this subject.

westward10 · Jul 21, 2016

Makes no difference where you test it, the only aspect which may affect the test is the half times test where there may already be some leakage present already. The manufacturer will not give advise as they cannot anticipate or control your actions taken from their advise in terms of safety, any advise would probably be 500 pages long, most of it safety procedures.