Few questions on the PIR form

[Goody]

Hi,

Please have a look at the sample PIR form - www.napitonline.com/downloads/Periodic Report Sample 01.09.pdf. I would like to know what the following means:

On page 4 of 4

1. What “Figure 8 check” means. Do we really have to do it?
2. Under Insulation resistance, what is IR between Live/Live, should we not have columns like Live/Neutral, Live/Earth & Neutral/Earth?
3. Where we cannot remove all lamps (due to inaccessibility) while doing an IR test, we can connect L&N together read IR between L&N/E, and how do we record this?

Many thanks

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Hi,

Please have a look at the sample PIR form - www.napitonline.com/downloads/Periodic Report Sample 01.09.pdf. I would like to know what the following means:

On page 4 of 4

1. What “Figure 8 check” means. Do we really have to do it?Ring circuit check...also R1+R2 for a ring circuit....generally necessary,unless you are doing a limited scope PIR.
2. Under Insulation resistance, what is IR between Live/Live, should we not have columns like Live/Neutral, Live/Earth & Neutral/Earth?....Phase-phase.
3. Where we cannot remove all lamps (due to inaccessibility) while doing an IR test, we can connect L&N together read IR between L&N/E, and how do we record this?...record the same result in the L-E and N-E box.

Many thanks

.........................Link doesnt work,but that is my take on your queries.

 

[Sparky Ninja]

What “Figure 8 check” means. Do we really have to do it?

This means that you have successfully carried out the R1&R2 and R1&RN test with the cross connection "figure 8" method included.

Under Insulation resistance, what is IR between Live/Live, should we not have columns like Live/Neutral, Live/Earth & Neutral/Earth?

Live/Live means between Line and Neutral or between Lines (L1 to L2 for example), your interpretation of Live/Neutral and Live/Earth are incorrect because we now use the term Line for the Line conductor (not Live)

Where we cannot remove all lamps (due to inaccessibility) while doing an IR test, we can connect L&N together read IR between L&N/E, and how do we record this?

You would put it down as a limitation, and Live/Live column would likely be filled in as "Lim" in this scenario.

 

[gnselectricals]

The link doesnt work for me

1.Figure 8 check is ring continuity test after end to end, at CU link L1 and N2 & L2 and N1 and test every socket outlet between L & N, then at CU link L1 and CPC2 & L2 and CPC1 and test every socket outlet between L & CPC. Readings should be within 0.05ohms
2.IR between Live/Live is between live conductors where both L & N are classed as live conductors
3. I just record this as live conductors to earth, on ECA forms its recorded as L-E IR
Regards gram

 

[gnselectricals]

not quick enough sorry

 

[Sparky Ninja]

The link doesnt work for me

remove the www.electriciansforums.net/ from the address.

 

[mogga]

It means you are neither qualified nor are you competant to be carrying out PIRs or going by some of the questions being asked ANY electrical work
I understand the need to learn but doing this while charging money and with noone to make sure you are doing work correctly and within the regs ect is IMO WRONG

1. What “Figure 8 check” means. Do we really

 

[Sparky Ninja]

It means you are neither qualified nor are you competant to be carrying out PIRs or going by some of the questions being asked ANY electrical work
I understand the need to learn but doing this while charging money and with noone to make sure you are doing work correctly and within the regs ect is IMO WRONG

1. What “Figure 8 check” means. Do we really

One would assume that's Napit's job?

or it should be.

 

[Goody]

Thanks for the replies!

 

[netblindpaul]

This means that you have successfully carried out the R1&R2 and R1&RN test with the cross connection "figure 8" method included.

Widdler,

You know better than that, for ring circuit loops it is r[SUB]1[/SUB], r[SUB]2[/SUB] & r[SUB]n[/SUB] come on please!

R[SUB]1[/SUB] & R[SUB]2[/SUB] are not actually "MEASURED" in a ring circuit now are they unless you have a spur off it.

There is no "official" definition of RN is there now, r[SUB]n[/SUB] more like, but that is not even on the brb model forms, or in the definitions.

BTW, not picking you up on the subscript thing, just read a post a few days ago on another website on how to do it!

:love:

 

[Sparky Ninja]

Widdler,

You know better than that, for ring circuit loops it is r[SUB]1[/SUB], r[SUB]2[/SUB] & r[SUB]n[/SUB] come on please!

R[SUB]1[/SUB] & R[SUB]2[/SUB] are not actually "MEASURED" in a ring circuit now are they unless you have a spur off it.

There is no "official" definition of RN is there now, r[SUB]n[/SUB] more like, but that is not even on the brb model forms, or in the definitions.

BTW, not picking you up on the subscript thing, just read a post a few days ago on another website on how to do it!

:love:

err.. no.

I was right.

 

[netblindpaul]

Eh, now I'm confused, have I misread your post, having not read the whole thread, oh, it's also late!

 

[Sparky Ninja]

Eh, now I'm confused, have I misread your post, having not read the whole thread, oh, it's also late!

I'll leave it for you to ponder, if it's still not making sense then let me know and I will go through what I said more clearly (hopefully)

 

[netblindpaul]

Widdler,
I have just gone through the definitions section of the brb, there is NO R[SUB]N[/SUB] defined, nor is there an R[SUB]n[/SUB].
Allowing for the fact that I have tried to use the subscripts, though it does not always work, and I'm not querying or criticising on the lack or otherwise of the subscript in your post, I understand the terms you use, but they are not defined in BS7671, or its associated guidance as I can remember.

In GN3 the term r[SUB]n[/SUB] is defined.

There is a big difference between r1+r2 & R1+R2.

Perhaps I did not explain myself when it comes to the way I used the term measured.

For a radial circuit, as installed, you can directly measure the R1+R2 values at the electrically extreme point of the circuit.

For a ring circuit, you can not directly measure the R1+R2 value as installed, you have to to some trickery with the wiring to get you this value do you not, which will always give the highest value at a spur.

You can only ever get r1, r2 & rn on a ring circuit by the way they are defined in GN3.

They don't appear any of them in the definitions section of BS7671, nor do they appear on the associated model forms.

Excluding Amd1 for the moment.

Does that clarify my post and standpoint?

 

[Des 56]

Paul
I have just read the thread and the difference of opinion with Widdler

With reference to this comment by yourself
R[SUB]1[/SUB] & R[SUB]2[/SUB] are not actually "MEASURED" in a ring circuit now are they unless you have a spur off it.

An approximate value will be obtained with the end to end results calculated
A direct reading will be obtained at all sockets,ring and spurs when cross connecting


Or perhaps the opinions are more to do with direct readings,eg connections not altered ?
but, they are also altered for radials when a link is fitted
best I stay silent

 

[Sparky Ninja]

Widdler,
I have just gone through the definitions section of the brb, there is NO R[SUB]N[/SUB] defined, nor is there an R[SUB]n[/SUB].
Allowing for the fact that I have tried to use the subscripts, though it does not always work, and I'm not querying or criticising on the lack or otherwise of the subscript in your post, I understand the terms you use, but they are not defined in BS7671, or its associated guidance as I can remember.

In GN3 the term r[SUB]n[/SUB] is defined.

There is a big difference between r1+r2 & R1+R2.

Perhaps I did not explain myself when it comes to the way I used the term measured.

For a radial circuit, as installed, you can directly measure the R1+R2 values at the electrically extreme point of the circuit.

For a ring circuit, you can not directly measure the R1+R2 value as installed, you have to to some trickery with the wiring to get you this value do you not, which will always give the highest value at a spur.

You can only ever get r1, r2 & rn on a ring circuit by the way they are defined in GN3.

They don't appear any of them in the definitions section of BS7671, nor do they appear on the associated model forms.

Excluding Amd1 for the moment.

Does that clarify my post and standpoint?

I think you are making mountains out of mole hills on this one.
I really don't want to start explaining the differences between BS 7671, GN3 and best working practices and the reasons for them. I was simply giving the answers to the OP, as to weather I consider the data required on a schedule of test results to be gospel is not on debate here.
My answer to the OP still stands as far as I am concerned, please feel free to answer the OP yourself then maybe we can see where this difference of opinion is coming from.

 

[netblindpaul]

Des,
I am on about the circuit having to be altered for R1+R2 for a ring final to be entered onto the Schedule of test results.

Widdler,
I am not trying to be awkward, I have recently heard a debate between 2 well educated and apparently competent people over r's & R's.
It made me think and look back through notes and things, especially as I had just delivered a 2391.
I re-visited the info, GN3 & the brb in detail along with several other of the GN's, my own 2391-10 course notes from when I did it, & my 2391-20 (2400) course notes.
I also emailed one of my ex-lecturers, and spoke to the senior at the training establishment I delivered the 2391-10 at.
All references pointed to the fact that case, units etc. are very important.

Can you indulge me, so I can "try" to "take the mickey out of you", all in the best possible taste as Jasper Carrot would say, and, further more, this is a bit OT to the OP, but IMHO it is relevant.

There is a question I read that illustrates the point I am trying to make I think.

Please remember I am not trying to be nasty or horrid, it is just after the debate I heard, I took stock as it were and thought that this is quite important really.

So Widdler, IF you are "game for a laugh", and this is NOT a nasty thing I promise, I have immense respect, I am just lost for a way to illustrate my concern & the question I have I "think" does illustrate it.

Please let me know, I'm a bit short of time at the moment as I am quite busy.

 

[netblindpaul]

Widdler/All,
Perhaps my terms in my last post are not perfect, but they are the first ones to come to mind.
Widdler is a very well respected and valuable asset to the forum, and please rest assured that I am not trying to make a fool of him.
It is just that I came across an issue like this and a question to illustrate it and I am hoping Widdler will play along with me for the benefit of all.

 

[Sparky Ninja]

I've read your messages Paul and am trying to see as to where your concern is coming from.
Could you maybe quote my prior posts and your corrections on them then we can see if we can solve this.

Thanks.

 

[netblindpaul]

This means that you have successfully carried out the R1&R2 and R1&RN test with the cross connection "figure 8" method included.

Live/Live means between Line and Neutral or between Lines (L1 to L2 for example), your interpretation of Live/Neutral and Live/Earth are incorrect because we now use the term Line for the Line conductor (not Live)

You would put it down as a limitation, and Live/Live column would likely be filled in as "Lim" in this scenario.

First one then, the term RN is not defined in the brb or associated literature for example.
Whilst I appreciate your definition, and it does have a colloquial use, it is not specifically defined in the brb or associated guidance.
What you have described is a valuable test and is one I would recommend.
However, should it not be pointed out that the term is "not" a brb, GN3, or thus 2391 term?