Discuss When does a domestic property need a rewire ??? in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

I’m presuming you have a budget for your house and ultimately this will sway your decision either way
My thinking has always been inline with the title of the thread, long before I bought this house. If the wiring is of the correct gauge, where's the problem... spend money on a good CU have the condition report done and all is good, but that thinking didn't include the lack of earth
 
So already your into new DB (mains ) upgrade bonding , new kitchen (separate ring ) extra sockets in every room , new boiler supply and stat , outside lights , smokes ( pending on how much you value yours and family’s life )
While your ripping house apart and full redecoration and plastering i’d Bite the bullet and do full rewire
Seriously?
 
Went to a property the other day, to quote for kitchen refurb'. No cpc in lighting circuits amongst other things. They had a 'visual' check done on the electrics before moving in 6mths ago, customer still not convinced about spending money on upgrading electrics, but want to spend money on new kitchen. :mad:

Just making my point again;

I've been to two different properties recently, to quote for a kitchen refurb'. Both customers had moved in the last few months. Both had paid for a 'visual electrical inspection'.

The first one was quite good, identifying things that needed rectifying, but no testing was done, and no accessories removed for inspection.

The second one was not so good, similarly no testing etc, and failed to note the missing cpc on lighting circuits.

I've declined both jobs, and advised customers to have a proper EICR conducted.

It amazes me that people, are concerned about the state of a properties electrical installation before purchase, have some kind inspection, but then move in and don't act on the findings. They then decide to spend thousands of pounds on kitchens, bathrooms, central heating, floor coverings, redecoration etc etc.
 
I disagree with most of those code 1's. lack of inspection next due label, code 1 my arse. a new CU with RCD protection and the earthing bonding sorted is most of it fixed.
 
Why no r1 r2 when he’s stated earth sizes of cables also why no ins res between L and N , looks more of a visual test he’s carried out here
Whilst agreed limitations need to be recorded, there is no reason to conduct either (R1+R2) or R2 testing during periodic inspection and testing. The installation is already energised and therefore Zs testing is sufficient to verify cpc continuity.

Also, insulation resistance between live conductors is wholly impractical - you aren't going to disconnect every lamp and load to conduct the test. What is more important is testing live conductors (connected together) to Earth, and this is the normal approach where insulation testing is possible. (If you can't shut down the supply, for example, insulation testing is impossible - not likely for a simple house though.)
 
this tester has stated No main earth and also earth loop not accurate , so I would personally do r1 r2 for accurate reading of earth continuity
And as for ins resistance yes lighting l and n to earth , but why not give other circuits quick test , give you better picture of what’s going on specially when alarm bells are ringing My thinking has always been inline with the title of the thread, long before I bought this house. If the wiring is of the correct gauge, where's the problem... spend money on a good CU have the condition report done and all is good, but that thinking didn't include the lack of earth
This is correct ,
 
Whilst agreed limitations need to be recorded, there is no reason to conduct either (R1+R2) or R2 testing during periodic inspection and testing. The installation is already energised and therefore Zs testing is sufficient to verify cpc continuity.

Also, insulation resistance between live conductors is wholly impractical - you aren't going to disconnect every lamp and load to conduct the test. What is more important is testing live conductors (connected together) to Earth, and this is the normal approach where insulation testing is possible. (If you can't shut down the supply, for example, insulation testing is impossible - not likely for a simple house though.)
So you would be happy with the report given
 
It's not relevant to my remarks though, which are general to periodic inspection and testing.
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 ?
 
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
 
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?
 
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
 
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
 
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
 

Reply to When does a domestic property need a rewire ??? in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

Electrical Forum

Welcome to the Electrical Forum at ElectriciansForums.net. The friendliest electrical forum online. General electrical questions and answers can be found in the electrical forum.
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock