Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
18-07-2019, 07:43   #31
2011
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Risteard81 View Post
Verification is required during erection and on completion. So the installer certainly is in a position to inspect throughout the job.
Agreed and never disputed.
The point that I and others are making is that a REC is inspecting his own work which is nonsense. This is why so many rules are routinely ignored.

Quote:
I never suggested that periodic inspection could find all issues - that is why Periodic Inspection Reports are not certificates but reports. To suggest I claimed otherwise is false.
Agreed.
What I am suggesting is that when you stated that a house with a diagonal chase was uncertifiable is balderdash.

The point that we are fundamentally disagreeing that you will not engage on is:
1) Self certification is a nonsense
2) Many installations that are not compliant with the rules are certified.
2011 is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
18-07-2019, 07:57   #32
BrownFinger
Registered User
 
BrownFinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by gctest50 View Post







One way was remove to the phone socket & its wiring and run the conduit for light switch up in a straightish line vertically like a civilised human

The reason its diagonal at the end is because he reused an old conduit.
BrownFinger is online now  
18-07-2019, 08:12   #33
Risteard81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2011 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Risteard81 View Post
Verification is required during erection and on completion. So the installer certainly is in a position to inspect throughout the job.
Agreed and never disputed.
The point that I and others are making is that a REC is inspecting his own work which is nonsense. This is why so many rules are routinely ignored.

Quote:
I never suggested that periodic inspection could find all issues - that is why Periodic Inspection Reports are not certificates but reports. To suggest I claimed otherwise is false.
Agreed.
What I am suggesting is that when you stated that a house with a diagonal chase was uncertifiable is balderdash.

The point that we are fundamentally disagreeing that you will not engage on is:
1) Self certification is a nonsense
2) Many installations that are not compliant with the rules are certified.
It's not balderdash to state that it is impermissible to certify an installation with Rule breaches. I never suggested that it never happens. It shouldn't though, and people shouldn't pretend that the light switch wiring shown is acceptable.
Risteard81 is offline  
18-07-2019, 08:50   #34
2011
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Risteard81 View Post
It's not balderdash to state that it is impermissible to certify an installation with Rule breaches.
Agreed, but that is not what you said.
You specifically said it was “uncertifiable” which means it could not be certified.
Clearly this is not the case.

Quote:
I never suggested that it never happens.
Then we agree.

Quote:
It shouldn't though, and people shouldn't pretend that the light switch wiring shown is acceptable.
Yes, I agree.
My point is that although it is not correct and should not be accepted it would not concern me that much. I have seen so many serious issues issues that more minor ones like this are not as big a deal to me.

So it would seem that our points of view are not as far apart as I thought, however I see thy you did not address my point on self certification. Judging by your posts you insist on a high standard of work with attention to detail, surly certification by a third party would be to your advantage? As you now accept that some certified installations are not compliant you must agree that some only get away with this because of self certification?
2011 is offline  
18-07-2019, 09:09   #35
2011
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gashmuncher View Post
It will, but not enough to be detected by electricians testers which only read to two signifigent digits i.e. down to .01 of an ohm.
Then the resistance is not “fixed”. Depending mainly on the length of run, the change in temperature and the CSA of the cable the resistance change by more than 0.1 ohms.

See link: https://www.cirris.com/learning-cent...ient-of-copper

Quote:
There is no regulation which prohibits a good join on a cable.
There are plenty if we take your position that any low resistance joint is a good joint.


Quote:
A good tester will identify a bad (high resistance) connection.
I disagree. You are putting too much faith in what testing can achieve.
A joint could be bad because it does not have sufficient IP rating, lacks mechanical protection, does not prevent direct contact with live parts, is susceptible to corrosion, puts undue strain on the conductors....... The list goes on.

Quote:
Can you quote the regulation which prohibits a good joint on a cable
Yes, I think I can when I have the rules in front of me. I will come back to you later on this.

Quote:
Yes higher resistance but not desirable and it's not more complicated
So if it simply twisted mains voltage wires together and the resistance across the join was low that would be acceptable?

Quote:
Not correct, once again there is no rule which prohibits a good joint in conductors. Any good low resistance connection is always acceptable
As above low resistance is not the only criteria that a cable joint should be judged on.

Quote:
It has resistance, but not enough to be picked up by a test meter which only reads to two significant digits.
That is not correct.
Even the test leads have a resistance that standard test meters read. Besides it is not just the resistance of the joint at the time of assessing it that is important it is also how it performs over time. This is why so many other tactoyhave to be considered, see some examples above.

Last edited by 2011; 18-07-2019 at 09:33.
2011 is offline  
Advertisement
18-07-2019, 10:19   #36
Bruthal
Registered User
 
Bruthal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 12,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2011 View Post
As above low resistance is not the only criteria that a cable joint should be judged on.
.
An example would be bonding straps. The horrific practice of simply clamping the cut earths under the screws rather than using lugs. Massive difference in quality. Not much difference in test results.
Bruthal is offline  
Thanks from:
19-07-2019, 07:21   #37
Bruthal
Registered User
 
Bruthal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 12,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2011 View Post
.
That is not correct.
Even the test leads have a resistance that standard test meters read. Besides it is not just the resistance of the joint at the time of assessing it that is important it is also how it performs over time. This is why so many other tactoyhave to be considered, see some examples above.
Another example similar to bad connections,

Using the tables G muncher linked to, 1 meter of 1.5 copper is 0.02 ohms. So 1 cm of it is 0.0002 ohms.

So if we ran in 50 meters of 10 square, and part way along the circuit we add in a link of 1.5 square 1 cm long, or pare the 10 square copper down to 1.5 to eliminate connections , it will be a serious reduction in integrity, and similar to a bad connection. But the 2 place ohm meter cant detect it

Even paring it down to 0.5 or even 0.1 square it's still not going to show. But it is now 15 times smaller than 1.5, but it's resistance is still well below the meter resolution.

Last edited by Bruthal; 19-07-2019 at 10:18.
Bruthal is offline  
23-07-2019, 07:30   #38
2011
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2011 View Post
As you now accept that some certified installations are not compliant you must agree that some only get away with this because of self certification?
From the reluctance to address this question we can all draw our own conclusions.
2011 is offline  
23-07-2019, 10:17   #39
Risteard81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2011 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2011 View Post
As you now accept that some certified installations are not compliant you must agree that some only get away with this because of self certification?
From the reluctance to address this question we can all draw our own conclusions.
No reluctance. I'm away for a few days. That's the only reason.

People should only certify compliant work.
Risteard81 is offline  
Advertisement
23-07-2019, 16:57   #40
2011
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Risteard81 View Post
No reluctance.
That does not appear to be the case as the question remains unanswered.

It’s a simple question, you either believe that:
A) Self certification should be replaced with third party certification.
B) Self certification is acceptable.

Personally I believe option A to be the correct answer as there are certified installations that do not comply with the rules as you now accept.
2011 is offline  
23-07-2019, 21:43   #41
Tuco88
Registered User
 
Tuco88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 836
If you know the resistance of 1m of 0.75mm^2 wire thats fine. Its not much good to you when you can only guess the lenght of the cable run, provided you have no connection issues, all your values will vary.

Take a typical control loop, a knife edge terminal barely touching won't show as a bad connection.

Depending on resistance values to prove good connections is not enough imo.
Tuco88 is offline  
24-07-2019, 07:13   #42
Bruthal
Registered User
 
Bruthal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 12,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuco88 View Post
.

Depending on resistance values to prove good connections is not enough imo.
Thats the point I was making. The tables showing resistance values of cables was not really relevant to the fact 2 cables just touching can show low resistance which might not be measurable by a tester compared to a proper connection. A good connection has to stand the test of time.
Bruthal is offline  
24-07-2019, 07:22   #43
gctest50
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 9,152
You could load the circuits up to their limits and have a snoop around with a IR camera


Be a extra bit of happiness
gctest50 is offline  
24-07-2019, 07:30   #44
2011
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,916
I suppose that it all starts with understanding the limitations of what testing can achieve.
This is an area that generates a lot of confusion.
2011 is offline  
25-07-2019, 20:11   #45
Risteard81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2011 View Post
Personally I believe option A to be the correct answer as there are certified installations that do not comply with the rules
This can be dealt with through disciplinary procedures, however.

People shouldn't think it acceptable to certify non-compliant installations. Third-party certification would be no guarantee as to what someone has done either, as defects could be hidden from view.
Risteard81 is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet