When does a domestic property need a rewire ???

[Dozer 73]

see a lot of different threads on here , where people asking for advice on old installations , one tonight even about moving sockets installed in the70’s in metal conduit and 2 core cable
It’s a funny game where not every one thinks the same , know wiring lasts a long time but the accessories get worn , make bad connections to plugs , lamps , switches etc
Personally I’m quite quick to advice a rewire , not for my personal gain tbh
Just wanted to know at what point other people advice a rewire

 

[Dozer 73]

Pretty sure niceic recommend r1 r2 method to loop on Old periodic tests , more accurate and safer method ,(don’t quote me on this )
If you measure a Zs then how do you know it is done thru a cpc of the cct under test and not from supp bonding or from fortuitous indirect contact from another cpc ?

If no existing test sheet’s provided to compare your results against

 

[Risteard]

Pretty sure niceic recommend r1 r2 method to loop on Old periodic tests , more accurate and safer method ,(don’t quote me on this )
If you measure a Zs then how do you know it is done thru a cpc of the cct under test and not from supp bonding or from fortuitous indirect contact from another cpc ?

The NICEIC always suggested R2 testing, and not (R1+R2) testing for periodic inspection and testing where dead continuity testing was to be carried out. You don't want to be dismantling half of the installation for periodic inspection.

Guidance Note 3 specifically states that in a live installation (e.g. one being periodically inspected) that cpc continuity could be verified through live testing (i.e. Earth Fault Loop Impedance testing). Of course this should be agreed beforehand, but there is no particular reason to conduct either R2 or (R1+R2) testing during periodic inspection and testing. Yes it is true that there could be fortuitous paths, but without dismantling the installation that could be the case even with dead testing where another route is enabling a reading to be taken.

I presume you have accepted the point about insulation testing between live conductors being nearly impossible in all but the most simple installation, and not something generally undertaken during periodic inspection and testing?

 

[Dozer 73]

The NICEIC always suggested R2 testing, and not (R1+R2) testing for periodic inspection and testing where dead continuity testing was to be carried out. You don't want to be dismantling half of the installation for periodic inspection.

Guidance Note 3 specifically states that in a live installation (e.g. one being periodically inspected) that cpc continuity could be verified through live testing (i.e. Earth Fault Loop Impedance testing). Of course this should be agreed beforehand, but there is no particular reason to conduct either R2 or (R1+R2) testing during periodic inspection and testing. Yes it is true that there could be fortuitous paths, but without dismantling the installation that could be the case even with dead testing where another route is enabling a reading to be taken.

I presume you have accepted the point about insulation testing between live conductors being nearly impossible in all but the most simple installation, and not something generally undertaken during periodic inspection and testing?

No I don’t accept it’s nearlt impossible to test between live conductors
1 immersion heater, turn off dp switch then test
2 ring , items will be unplugged any way from sockets , test
Lighting yes time consuming , would do l and n to earth
No tools needed once DB cover off

 

[Dozer 73]

No I don’t accept it’s nearlt impossible to test between live conductors
1 immersion heater, turn off dp switch then test
2 ring , items will be unplugged any way from sockets , test
Lighting yes time consuming , would do l and n to earth
No tools needed once DB cover off

No I don’t accept it’s nearlt impossible to test between live conductors
1 immersion heater, turn off dp switch then test
2 ring , items will be unplugged any way from sockets , test
Lighting yes time consuming , would do l and n to earth
No tools needed once DB cover off

Agree you don’t really need to do this on a conditional test when you have existing test results , but I am referring to a post on this thread about an installation that has been given an unsatisfactory

 

[Dozer 73]

The NICEIC always suggested R2 testing, and not (R1+R2) testing for periodic inspection and testing where dead continuity testing was to be carried out. You don't want to be dismantling half of the installation for periodic inspection.

Guidance Note 3 specifically states that in a live installation (e.g. one being periodically inspected) that cpc continuity could be verified through live testing (i.e. Earth Fault Loop Impedance testing). Of course this should be agreed beforehand, but there is no particular reason to conduct either R2 or (R1+R2) testing during periodic inspection and testing. Yes it is true that there could be fortuitous paths, but without dismantling the installation that could be the case even with dead testing where another route is enabling a reading to be taken.

I presume you have accepted the point about insulation testing between live conductors being nearly impossible in all but the most simple installation, and not something generally undertaken during periodic inspection and testing?[/QUOTE

The NICEIC always suggested R2 testing, and not (R1+R2) testing for periodic inspection and testing where dead continuity testing was to be carried out. You don't want to be dismantling half of the installation for periodic inspection.

Guidance Note 3 specifically states that in a live installation (e.g. one being periodically inspected) that cpc continuity could be verified through live testing (i.e. Earth Fault Loop Impedance testing). Of course this should be agreed beforehand, but there is no particular reason to conduct either R2 or (R1+R2) testing during periodic inspection and testing. Yes it is true that there could be fortuitous paths, but without dismantling the installation that could be the case even with dead testing where another route is enabling a reading to be taken.

I presume you have accepted the point about insulation testing between live conductors being nearly impossible in all but the most simple installation, and not something generally undertaken during periodic inspection and testing?

as for dismantling half installation for doing r1 r2 , I personally find it more accurate , safer and quick , one link at dB and your away doing a 2 lead test

 

[Dozer 73]

The level of testing required for an electrical installation condition report will usually be far less than that required for initial verification; this is providing of course that previous inspection and test documentation is available. If it is not, then it will be necessary to carry out a full survey, and the complete range of tests must be carried out on the installation. This will be necessary to provide circuit charts and a comprehensive set of test results.
The level of testing will depend largely on what the inspector discovers during the visual inspection, and the value of any test results obtained while carrying out sample testing. If any tests show significantly differing results from previously recorded results for no apparent reason, then further tests may need to be carried out.
In some cases, up to 100 per cent of the installation will need to be tested, particularly where the past documentation is not available. Periodic inspecting and testing can be dangerous, and due consideration must be given to safety.
Persons carrying out the inspection and testing must be competent and experienced in the type of installation being inspected and also in the use of the test instruments being used.
Periodic inspection and testing does not require the tests to be carried out in any set sequence for the completion of the condition report. The sequence of tests is left to the person carrying out the inspection and testing to decide upon. For this type of inspection and testing it is usual for the installation to be live, and personally the first test which I normally carry out is an earth loop impedance test close to the origin of the supply. This is just to ensure that there is in fact an earth on the installation and that the polarity is correct before I start.
As previously mentioned it is down to the person carrying out the inspection to decide on the level of testing required when test results

 

[Dozer 73]

The NICEIC always suggested R2 testing, and not (R1+R2) testing for periodic inspection and testing where dead continuity testing was to be carried out. You don't want to be dismantling half of the installation for periodic inspection.

Guidance Note 3 specifically states that in a live installation (e.g. one being periodically inspected) that cpc continuity could be verified through live testing (i.e. Earth Fault Loop Impedance testing). Of course this should be agreed beforehand, but there is no particular reason to conduct either R2 or (R1+R2) testing during periodic inspection and testing. Yes it is true that there could be fortuitous paths, but without dismantling the installation that could be the case even with dead testing where another route is enabling a reading to be taken.

I presume you have accepted the point about insulation testing between live conductors being nearly impossible in all but the most simple installation, and not something generally undertaken during periodic inspection and testing?

Why is there a column on ins resistance on a conditional report for L to L , so you can waste ink and time writing NA down the column

 

[Risteard]

Why is there a column on ins resistance on a conditional report for L to L , so you can waste ink and time writing NA down the column

The Schedule of Test Results is the same for all work - that doesn't mean that every field is necessarily relevant. If you want to go into a department store and carry out insulation testing between phases; between phases and neutral; between phases and earth and between neutral and earth throughout the distribution circuits with all final circuits connected then be my guest. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't caution you against that approach though...

 

[Dozer 73]

The Schedule of Test Results is the same for all work - that doesn't mean that every field is necessarily relevant. If you want to go into a department store and carry out insulation testing between phases; between phases and neutral; between phases and earth and between neutral and earth throughout the distribution circuits with all final circuits connected then be my guest. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't caution you against that approach though...

I love a good debate , what are we talking Debenhams

 

[DPG]

Are you just trolling?

 

[telectrix]

Why is there a column on ins resistance on a conditional report for L to L , so you can waste ink and time writing NA down the column

L-L is there for 3 phase installations.

 

[Dozer 73]

L-L is there for 3 phase installations.

Page 94 guidance notes 3 ins resistance
Insulation resistance
All voltage sens devices to be disconnected or test between live conductors ( line and neutral ) connected together and earth
The insulation resistance between live conductors (l and n) is to be inserted in column 9

 

[Dozer 73]

Page 94 guidance notes 3 ins resistance
Insulation resistance
All voltage sens devices to be disconnected or test between live conductors ( line and neutral ) connected together and earth
The insulation resistance between live conductors (l and n) is to be inserted in column 9

A 3 phase test sheet rather than domestic has more columns for the phases(lives)

 

[Dozer 73]

Are you just trolling?

Dangling the bait , you do get an interesting debate on here , all good fun

 

[Dozer 73]

The Schedule of Test Results is the same for all work - that doesn't mean that every field is necessarily relevant. If you want to go into a department store and carry out insulation testing between phases; between phases and neutral; between phases and earth and between neutral and earth throughout the distribution circuits with all final circuits connected then be my guest. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't caution you against that approach though...

Department store yes I agree , every job will be different and approached different by the inspector , a big work shop with lots of 3 phase equipment for instance , you would have a different approach , also you would agree a percentage of circuits to be tested , I’m only giving different opioids for arguments sake