Hi when doing R1 R2 you should always disconnect the CPC from the earth bar to eliminate parallel paths 10:51. Particularly in this example as gas hob will have an earth via gas pipe and therefore via ignition lead to to circuit. If you disconnected cooker circuit CPC at cooker isolator and tested as you did you would still get an R1 R2 via gas pipe parallel path. The CPC may be loose in isolator or there may be a poor joint somewhere along the run from the CU ie a round joint box under kicker. Or am I missing something? I enjoy your content - always brave putting anything up on RUclips as people tend to criticise and nit pick. I'm just here to learn and share info, and see how other people do things.
Yeah I thought the same. My understanding was not only are you looking for a low resistance for a high fault current but also that the cpc is continuous throughout its length. Having parallels in place doesn't reveal this, as you said .
@@MJW-h5i I’m in 2 minds with this, I used to do that and test each circuits CPC by removing the cpc from the met, which proved that circuit wasn’t getting its earth from any parallel paths. I got pointed out that all the testing guides say just link to the MET, so I started doing that as no one should be touching the circuit, so if it’s earthed it’s earthed. If there was a lighting circuit for example where it turns out the cpc is taken from a different circuit. It’s earthed, it’s taken from another circuit. Would you disconnect that parallel path and run in a new 1mm from the board to that lighting circuit and put it into that circuits cpc terminal in the board? Or would you just put it down as a C3 and leave it? If you choose the latter then I don’t see the point of testing for parallel paths as it’s the same result. Bit long winded I know my answer haha 😜
@@finneyelectrical Hi I agree and disagree, how far do you go with and EICR. However with a gas hob, it could be changed for induction and there goes your parallel path, if it's not fitted by a competent person it will never be tested. I am guilty, in the past of block testing, but with a bit more knowledge and thoughts from others have changed how I do things. We can all go above the minimum standards, and guides are just guides.
Good video and very interesting how you go about testing.So am I right in saying that you carry out the EICR noting down the values you obtain and then you flag up anything that is suspect eg bathroom light not IP rated and then you notify the customer of any remedial work to bring the installation up to the wiring regs etc. Is it up to the customer then to decide to go ahead or can you enforce it if they refuse due to finance etc. Thankyou again superb content.
The spur off the ring main in the consumer unit goes to a switched fused spur first doesnt it? Therefore, you can add as many sockets as you like after that as the cable is protected by the 13amp fuse. I know it is not ideal, but im sure it is within the regs?
@@jamesgrandon4407 that fused spur was for the light above, the other was for some random led strip, wiring in and out was a bit sketchy not being down rated
Zs is just r1+r2 and your ze. So doing either is fine. But some would say not removing the circuits cpc from the met, doesn’t prove partallel paths. What you think?
Nice video as you have a wander lead why do you do R1+R2 it’s a lot easier to just do a R2 and you are checking earth to any metal device at the same time
@@M0PAX so we do both as it’s quicker to r1+r2 and calculate zs than do a live zs test. you have to have the cables out anyway to do the insulation resistance test. So do your percentages on r1+r2 then r2 the rest so anything is covered.
I really like your video. Regards the insulation test.just wondering why yo are not doing.line neutral to earth. Looping out your line and neutral. To earth.
Surely Ze should be measured at the meter not after a run to the Fuseboard, as it's a dno reading!? If you move more circuits to a single RCD then that can create nuisance tripping!
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Hi when doing R1 R2 you should always disconnect the CPC from the earth bar to eliminate parallel paths 10:51.
Particularly in this example as gas hob will have an earth via gas pipe and therefore via ignition lead to
to circuit.
If you disconnected cooker circuit CPC at cooker isolator and tested as you did you would still get an R1 R2 via gas pipe parallel path.
The CPC may be loose in isolator or there may be a poor joint somewhere along the run from the CU ie
a round joint box under kicker.
Or am I missing something?
I enjoy your content - always brave putting anything up on RUclips as people tend to criticise and nit pick.
I'm just here to learn and share info, and see how other people do things.
Yeah I thought the same. My understanding was not only are you looking for a low resistance for a high fault current but also that the cpc is continuous throughout its length. Having parallels in place doesn't reveal this, as you said .
Spot on. I thought the same. Finney's a clever guy. He might of done it on purpose to hi light it, n increase comments. Good video though.
@@peterbradley4916 haha 🤫
@@MJW-h5i I’m in 2 minds with this, I used to do that and test each circuits CPC by removing the cpc from the met, which proved that circuit wasn’t getting its earth from any parallel paths. I got pointed out that all the testing guides say just link to the MET, so I started doing that as no one should be touching the circuit, so if it’s earthed it’s earthed.
If there was a lighting circuit for example where it turns out the cpc is taken from a different circuit. It’s earthed, it’s taken from another circuit. Would you disconnect that parallel path and run in a new 1mm from the board to that lighting circuit and put it into that circuits cpc terminal in the board? Or would you just put it down as a C3 and leave it? If you choose the latter then I don’t see the point of testing for parallel paths as it’s the same result.
Bit long winded I know my answer haha 😜
@@finneyelectrical Hi
I agree and disagree, how far do you go with and EICR. However with a gas hob, it could be changed for induction and there goes your parallel path, if it's not fitted by a competent person it will never be tested.
I am guilty, in the past of block testing, but with a bit more knowledge and thoughts from others have changed how I do things.
We can all go above the minimum standards, and guides are just guides.
Good video and very interesting how you go about testing.So am I right in saying that you carry out the EICR noting down the values you obtain and then you flag up anything that is suspect eg bathroom light not IP rated and then you notify the customer of any remedial work to bring the installation up to the wiring regs etc. Is it up to the customer then to decide to go ahead or can you enforce it if they refuse due to finance etc. Thankyou again superb content.
Good description, which software do you use?
Top electrician
@@ian.M440 cheers!
Its good your software comes up with the 80% Zs valves . I assume you can change it to the max tabulated or 80% as you need it?
Heya yea there’s a drop down at the top, nice bit of kit really 😀 what do you use?
👍👍
@@billybulmer7386 cheers billy! Normaton this job, but away from York
@@finneyelectrical the land of the coal miner-- or coil meener as they say in Normanton!
The spur off the ring main in the consumer unit goes to a switched fused spur first doesnt it? Therefore, you can add as many sockets as you like after that as the cable is protected by the 13amp fuse. I know it is not ideal, but im sure it is within the regs?
@@jamesgrandon4407 that fused spur was for the light above, the other was for some random led strip, wiring in and out was a bit sketchy not being down rated
Great content
@@shiamjad thank you! And cheers for commenting helps the views
I thought r1+r2 is not required on an eicr, rather should do live test to get proper realistic Zs no ?
Zs is just r1+r2 and your ze. So doing either is fine. But some would say not removing the circuits cpc from the met, doesn’t prove partallel paths. What you think?
Your high Zs could be down to the Fluke. Did you null out the three leads using the Fluke metal adaptor first?
Nice video as you have a wander lead why do you do R1+R2 it’s a lot easier to just do a R2 and you are checking earth to any metal device at the same time
@@M0PAX so we do both as it’s quicker to r1+r2 and calculate zs than do a live zs test. you have to have the cables out anyway to do the insulation resistance test. So do your percentages on r1+r2 then r2 the rest so anything is covered.
I really like your video. Regards the insulation test.just wondering why yo are not doing.line neutral to earth. Looping out your line and neutral. To earth.
@@aidanmulvaney9789 so we do line to earth and neutral to earth separately which is the same thing tbf
If you do line neutral to end you can do test across the load.
adding ciruit resistance to ZE on a eicr is a no no, only on intial verification
Surely Ze should be measured at the meter not after a run to the Fuseboard, as it's a dno reading!?
If you move more circuits to a single RCD then that can create nuisance tripping!