AFDD and RCD Test Rig Explanation
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 июл 2019
- This test rig will be used in a number of other videos. This is an overview of how it works, to avoid having to explain it each time in other videos.
This is NOT a 'how to' video, or instructions on how to make such a device. Using this does have certain risks as live parts are exposed and incorrect use can cause damage to connected equipment.
Therefore you should NOT attempt to construct this or anything similar unless you fully understand how it works and the risks involved in using it.
► Support this channel:
Patreon: / jwflame
PayPal Donations: xo4.uk/?PPP
► Social Media:
Twitter: / jwflame
Facebook: / jwflame
Instagram: / jwflame
► Contact info, sending stuff in: etc.:
xo4.uk/?YTT
► Website - More on this video and many other subjects
Website: www.flameport.com 
Наука
![Roddy Ricch - Survivors Remorse [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/J5IeFzr2GgE/mqdefault.jpg)
Looking forward to seeing you use this rig. Great vid as always John.
Thanks JW. Looking forward to the testing series and your take on the performance of these devices.
Thank you John for the video. That is quiet a rig , look forward to see it being used & to see how sensitive RCD's & AFDD's really are .
I watched the John Wick film the other day and was disappointed that at no point did he introduce himself with the words " Hello, I'm J W.
This is going to be a fascinating little series :) Looking forward to it. Thanks JW. I did squirm though when I saw the looped N/L British plug...
Why would you squirm?
When you get around to testing the arc fault device, I would recommend also trying it with an inductive load too. I often notice that when switching off a group of fluorescent lights in many offices, if the switch is a bit old and lacking a decisive switching action it tends to arc quite badly if you aren't quick enough with your finger. The loud crackling sound always makes me jump! I guess they are using inductive ballasts and cutting the power causes the voltage across the switch contacts to rise enough that it can arc more easily than it would with a resistive load.
Looking forward to your next video , hope to see your new Megger 1741 being used in these tests .
Its always so educational watching your videos
Looking forward to the upcoming videos JW.
Awesome. Can’t wait for the testing...
He's just teasing us 😂
Looking forward to the testing JW 👍
I love your testing setup, but I would connect the series plug via the neutral and earth connectors, just so if someone was to plug it into a regular outlet, it wouldn’t short out (even though the RCD might trip)
If someone breaks into an electrician's shed and is stupid enough to plug in the things they stole, I think they deserve what they get... Which in this case would be a tripped breaker and *maybe* a fused switch or somewhat amusingly the plug may weld itself into the socket so they can't remove it and thus can't turn the breaker back on either!
Seriously though connecting the earth and neutral in the plug would be much more dangerous because depending on where it got plugged in and what appliances were operating at the time, it may do nothing at first but then if an earth fault happens half the fault current could go via neutral instead, which means the RCD may not trip until a much greater fault current was passing (e.g. 60 mA if it was evenly split between earth and neutral). At least by connecting live and neutral you will immediately know something is wrong.
Berkeloid, my point was that instead of gong bang it does nothing and so you will, just unplug it and not have a burnt socket, but that's a fair point, even though it's more likely that the return current instead of going to the neutral goes to the earth and just trips the RCD, suppose only 1% of the neutral current goes through the earth via the plug, having a 1kW load on the line would be enough to trip the RCD, and if it was a 50/50 split, just two LED lamps would be enough, but yes, assuming no load if someone touched the live wire they would get more current before the RCD tripped
I will be most interested in the results you will obtain using this very nicely constructed setup.
✅ look forward to the testing
That looks bloody lethal! What’s next home made electric chair 😂😂
Will this test rig allow you to test the AFDD's effectiveness when powerline adaptors are used in the circuit too?
Typical awesomeness from you 👍
Hi John it may be interesting if have a appropriate cap (a decent sized motor run cap maybe) or ever two electrolytic cap back to back, to plug it in parallel with the load (when series diode is used) to test smooth DC response of D.U.T. love your vids fella thanks
Hi John, I'm a big fan of your videos. When RCD cut out time testing a Type AC Inter Différentiel, my Kewtech KT64 is giving me the UC>UL VOLTAGE précaution preventing the test being conducted. Can you share more info on the issue and how to proceed? Thanks.
Watching from Zealand⚡🇳🇿
Can you protect more then one circuit with a afdd ??
For example one afdd and 2 rcbo or MCBs?
Thank you
No. it's one AFDD = one circuit. The AFDD contains an MCB and RCD, everything in one device.
Nice. I understand what the virtual earth does , but not how it does it.
Will the diode plugs get warm.
Earth and neutral are bonded (connected) at the main switchboard, so electrically the earth and neutral are the same in the building's wiring. This is necessary because if a live wire connects to earth, a circuit needs to be completed in order for current to flow (and thus trip the breaker). Since the current must flow in a loop through the live and neutral wires, one of them has to be connected to earth in order to make current flow during an earth fault situation.
Here, the neutral goes into the apparatus on two wires (one coloured blue and one coloured yellow and green, with blue bands) with only the blue one passing through the RCD. This emulates what happens with a building's wiring (namely that neutral and earth are the same before the RCD, but only neutral passes through the RCD). To the RCD and any downstream devices, this neutral and virtual earth look exactly the same as the real ones (i.e. they are the same electrical connection but only one of them is monitored by the RCD).
If there is any leakage current from live to earth, in this apparatus the current will go through the virtual earth wire (which is just the neutral connection remember) and the circuit will be completed normally. To the building's wiring, a 30 mA RCD test on this device will just look like a 30 mA load between live and neutral. But because this current returns on the yellow-and-green neutral wire, it does not pass through the RCD in the apparatus - so that RCD under test will see current come in on live, but not return via the blue neutral (because it returns on the yellow-and-green neutral instead), and thus the RCD under test trips due to the perceived current imbalance. But the building's RCD does not trip because no current was actually leaked to the real earth connection, all current was between live and neutral just like an appliance operating normally.
@@Berkeloid0 PME
Hi john, could you possibly draw out your test rig, showing exactly what you have done in the back of the sockets. I have watched the video twice & still confused.
Cheers
What part isn't making sense to you?
The earthing part of the install is confusing me.
The "Real earth" conductor is connected to the MET, the "other earth" is connected to the Neutral at source, effectively providing TNS & TNC for test purposes, so he doesn't trip his 30mA RCD (unless TT) in his CU, he will be using a proper MFT for testing no doubt, so it won't be an issue with either DNO or his own safety. chin up :-)
Might be an idea to wrap a turn or two of insulation tape around the redundant faces of that brass arc-test setup you've got there.
I think that would prevent them from getting close enough together to arc. With a device like this, if you need to put electrical tape there, you probably should not be operating the device!
@@Berkeloid0 I was referring to the spanner-flat areas of the brass fittings. Can't see how that would obstruct the crucial faces from mating. And even the very experienced JW can have a slip of the hand. I'd rather he remove unnecessary risk and keep making videos rather than the other way around. :D
@@philjordan1749 I agree that we should take reasonable precautions to reduce the risk of touching live parts when doing tests like this. GS38 is a respected publication from the HSE, and it describes scenarios which are relevant to this test rig. I reckon those large brass surfaces are unnecessary hazards and probably contravene the Electricity at Work Regulations. I regard John's opinions on matters such as this to be as authoritative as any of the IET's or HSE's publications, so I'd be interested to hear his thoughts on this particular matter.
@@philjordan1749 But you either have the tape sticking past the ends where it gets in the way, or it's far enough back that it doesn't fully protect the exposed sides anyway. Plus you still have the exposed faces to deal with. If you really wanted it to be completely safe you'd just put a transparent box over that central part so that you can't touch any of the live parts, but where's the fun in that...
For commercial buildings, in Europe, do you use RCDs ?
Yes, for some circuits in some situations. Not everything.
In regards to AFDDs my niece is having some wiring modifications made - adding a kitchen circuit and cooker connection. She has been told that from 1st August she must have a AFDD fitted, this is a PITA as her consumer unit is only 4 years old and the electrician says he will have to replace it. As I understand JW's previous video AFDDs are only recommended not mandatory - have things changed. Is this why JW is building AFDD test rigs?
Not mandatory, and nothing is changing from August either. AFDDs are also done one per circuit, so if they are suggesting one for everything, that is wrong as well.
Exceptionally unlikely a 4 year old consumer unit would need replacing, unless it was totally wrong in the first place.
If they argue, get them to show you which 'regulation' requires the things they are claiming.
@@jwflame Thanks, your answer is as I thought. The excuse given was "due to the Grenfell fire which was caused by a arcing fridge". Have suggested a different electrician is engaged
To create an electrical arc wouldn't it be better to have two points of metal rather than have those flat surfaces? A pointy surface should give a more reliable place for the arc to cross.
It would be great if you and them minions could build a working consumer unit from scratch and create a couple of radial circuits and a couple of lighting circuits and go through step by step. It would make a great future video.
Hey I'm writing on this video as I'd assume that it is the one where you would most likely for you to see it.
I haven't heard from my experience anyone saying anything about it...I was curious to know when doing a star delta starter for a three phase motor if you were aloud to take a neutral from the star in the system. I know that in theory that it would be possible and would assume by regulations that you wouldn't be able to do so but if you could clarify this that'd be great, thanks.
This would also be relevant for a star starter also.
Does the combined neutral/earth conductor form a TN-C installation? Is this verboten by the network operator?
I don't know how it is in the UK, but here in Germany you're not permitted to join a separated neutral and protective earth into a PEN again, creating a TN-C from a TN-C-S system. That's the theory, the practice sometimes is very different. Especially if you have a property with two houses on it, the service entry is in a house with a modernised installation and the PEN is splitted in the service entry, and the installation in the other house is TN-C from the 1960s. That is a piece of test equipment not hardwired to the electrical installation of the house and only in use for a short time of testing something, so the german saying: "Wo kein Kläger, da kein Richter" will apply.
@@Marcel_Germann What if it was a fault where they were joined?... ;-)
@@muzikman2008 What kind of fault should happen there? A broken wire? A TN-C system isn't unsafe at all, but it could become dangerous in case of a broken wire or joint. That's the reason it is here only permitted if the PEN has a size of at least 10mm² (copper) or 16mm² (aluminium).
But this is not an electrical installation in a residential building hardwired to the mains nor is it a regular appliance. This is a contraption for demonstration purposes only! If you do it otherwise you'll cause not only the RCD in this contraption to trip, the RCD in the house installation will also trip. Except you use selective RCDs in your home which are more inert and are normally there only as a backup and to give RCDs which are nearer to the fault the chance to trip. As an alternative the tripping current of the RCD in the panel must be three times the tripping current of the RCD that you're using in that testing device.
The diode on the plug its gonna be one of those beefier or made using two of 4 from a full bridge rectifier arrangement? Clever and very reusable test jig with the plug acessories but also dangerous as you said :P Personally would switch the series plugs to wago 221 / 222 connectors
Single 10A10 diode, rated 10 amps, 1000 volts.
@@jwflame Thats even better than the typical P1000J which is rated maximum 600V 10A. Another idea is to paralell two diodes from a bridge rectifier such as the KBPC-G 1010 to double the current rating and have a heatsink on the metalic body if that fits in the plug
For a second I thought he jumped into the 3d printer wagon from the thumbnail 😂. Doesn't look like a 3d printer?!!! Specifically the cetos
Nice test rig.
Slightly disappointed you never fitted metal conduit saddles on the plastic pipe to stop premature collapse. 🤣
CJR ELECTRICAL premature slap 😂😂😂
or premature electrocution :-D
Looking forward to these test rig video's...AFDD's / RCD type A's useless or useful? not forgetting the price ;-) go on JW prove them wrong..ha ha...i'm sceptical having seen JW's recent test video. But I really want to be proved wrong, but no one has yet apart from the companies who make them and their video's, ...but they would wouldn't they?...;-)
I didn't understand what you are using for the "fake" Earth. You mentioned that the "fake" Earth is *combined* with the neutral... do you mean that the "fake" Earth is wired directly to and is the same as the incoming Neutral? And is this considered safe to use in a working environment where one wants to avoid tripping upstream RCDs? Thanks for the awesome and unique channel, I enjoy it a lot.
N&E are connected. NOT suitable or permitted for use in any installation, as if done a fault could result in metalwork becoming live and devices not disconnecting.
I understand this is a test rig and will be used by a professional but a bit disappointed he didn't use something other than a 13A socket as a test point. 15A round pin would have been a better choice.
"Necessity the mother of invention"
A schematic would have been nice for clarity for newbies. Thanks
Some people will not understand this rig and even more will simply never watch this explanation video, but I assure you every single one of them will find the time to comment on your testing videos how everything is fake and you are doing it all wrong.
Im wondering which RCD is gonna smoke and burn out first 😂🙈🇬🇧
This is clearly a rigged video
Good job it's by JW
Hi John.
I recently saw another video about arc fault detection devices.
Have you heard of David Savery ?
I thought his test rig rather clever.
Not the Lego aspect of it but the fact that he added some salty water to his connection to get some really good arcing.
What do you think ?
It's here:
ruclips.net/video/JRXFZHKGaXg/видео.html
The interesting bit is at (12:20)
>
Bodragon I think he had to add salt else it wouldn’t trip!
Injury or death... That's the kind of device I want.
Not sure if it´s the best idea to make unlabeled short-circuit plugs.
Hello 👋
Oh no Lego?
I am not impressed with your testing rig. I generally avoid repurposing standard mains connectors, it is too dangerous if anybody else is around. I would prefer doing it with binding posts and banana plugs. It will not make it safer, but it will usually prevent non technical people from touching it.
To make it safer I would prefer a 2 to 3kW transformer between mains and the test setup and no fake earth, but it may be too expensive.
I wonder why you connected input directly (Maybe it will become clear when you test), I would have expected some spring loaded connections somewhere for easier changing of the connections.
I test a lot of (unsafe) mains equipment (lygte-info.dk) and usual use a transformer or a generator to keep it separated from the mains.
I think having a locked door to the shed is probably much easier. I don't think the isolation transformer would make it any safer given that there are no doubt other "controls" in place (like making sure nobody else is able to get near it when it's in operation. At some point you have to accept and manage risk, you can't always make something 100% safe for situations that are incredibly unlikely to occur. In your case if you are testing unsafe mains equipment then things like isolation transformers are no doubt justified, but in this case it will be used to see whether working devices are indeed working as advertised, so the risk is much lower.
Who's going to randomly go in the shed and play with it. Cmon
Agreed - insulated banana plugs would be the way to go. Using standard UK mains plugs (to BS1363/A) for making series connections to a test load is unsafe. I'm also concerned the real mains earth is not passed through to the load. In this rig it means the load's metal case is connected to the supply neutral, which could easily be >50V above local earth and pose a shock hazard.
@@marct3928 How would you suggest passing the earth through to the load in such a way that you can still test the local RCD without tripping the main one?
@@Berkeloid0 Connect the resistance box used for simulating leakage between the line terminal on the load side of the RCD being tested to the neutral terminal on the supply side. The RCD under test will "see" an imbalance, but any upstream RCDs will not. Pass the supply earth through to the load earth.
I really don't understand why the test isn't done with a cable stuck in the door, a weeak wire ia a soket or a hole screw, I don't know what other examples, we test with a micrometer... I give 150-300 $ to play with a micrometer, because only then it disconnect , on good?!. Until someone manages to make it disconnect to real defects and not micrometers and screws, it's not worth 2 bucks, you'd better give it to a beggar..
Aaaaaa. wood, electricity, fire hazard!!!
It's possible to build a house out of British power bricks.
CHANGE MY MIND.
There’s no such thing as a British made power brick. And you wouldn’t want to build one out of the ones on the market, as you’d not be able to speak to anyone in your house due to the Chinese walls.
i think electricity providers should prosecute for tampering with supplies like this, dangerous and should be legislated