Loose connection would cause overload, and then disconnection, also enclosures are designed to contain possibility of overheating and should self extinguish surely, just sayin.
Log cabin burnt down
- Thread starter Ash
- Start date
Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:
a loose connection will not cause overload.
Rev is right - a loose connection from a high powered load could well heat up enough to cause a fire
Rev is right - a loose connection from a high powered load could well heat up enough to cause a fire
ElectekAir
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Messages
- 449
- Reaction score
- 0
The cooker cct max ZS=1.15 tested 1.38 should not have been put into service.
At the end of the day it is the customers responsobility to ensure the spark used is part p registered the company used was but the spark was not I'm thinking may have a problem with insurance
At the end of the day it is the customers responsobility to ensure the spark used is part p registered the company used was but the spark was not I'm thinking may have a problem with insurance
[quote name='Andy
Sharpend
"It Just Is"
The electrician who did this done it as a side number, and the company either agreed or knew nothing about it. So they will probably drop the electrician like a hot potato to fend for himself. The NIC will probably caution the firm, but will say that the electrician wrongfully used the certs.
I'm guessing that if the electrician is at fault then he'll begin to wish that he hadn't done a PJ! Also if he a direct employee he probably would not have insurance either.
---------- Post Auto-Merged at 18:06 ---------- Previous post was made at 18:02 ----------
I also note that the socket circuit has max Zs 1.44, measured at 1.44, thought that 80% value is 1.15 & this should be allowed for in design?
I'm guessing that if the electrician is at fault then he'll begin to wish that he hadn't done a PJ! Also if he a direct employee he probably would not have insurance either.
---------- Post Auto-Merged at 18:06 ---------- Previous post was made at 18:02 ----------
I also note that the socket circuit has max Zs 1.44, measured at 1.44, thought that 80% value is 1.15 & this should be allowed for in design?
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2008
- Messages
- 11,018
- Reaction score
- 0
I personally put down outbuildings should be inspected after 3 years not 10 and to me the ring main reading cpc to cpc looks a little suspect. Maybe there was a neutral to earth fault on the ring and it disabled the RCD.
looking at the Zs, none of them make any sense. just about every 1 of them should have been some cause for concern and looked into further
low R1R2 with high Zs, slightly higher R1R2 with Zs half of expected Zdb going by other results. nothing on there makes any sense, apart from the fact something is seriously wrong
low R1R2 with high Zs, slightly higher R1R2 with Zs half of expected Zdb going by other results. nothing on there makes any sense, apart from the fact something is seriously wrong
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2008
- Messages
- 11,018
- Reaction score
- 0
Actually come to think of it maybe there was a neutral to earth fault and that is why the loop readings are low for TT.
But cert say's Earth Electrode Resistance N/A.
Also it's not an NIC certificate.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2008
- Messages
- 11,018
- Reaction score
- 0
But he could have tested rod with a loop tester. It certainly looks like TT with the rod outside. I just cannot understand how you would get a loop of .44 ohms on TT though.
You would expect him to put reading for earth rod and not N/A, method 2 loop tester used.
Looks like a b******t results job to me by someone not 100% sure what they should be, and filled out while sat in the van.
put the rod through the incoming cable into the neutral...
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2008
- Messages
- 11,018
- Reaction score
- 0
Something is definitely wrong with the loop readings. Unless its got an earth from the mains as well as from the rod. I think if had been taken from the mains then the readings should have been better although if he's used 25mm cable there must have been quite a run in which case it would have been safer to have isolated the main earth and made it totally TT.
Ash, where was the consumer unit .Was it the pic in the first post where all the wires were hanging just outside the toilet ?
Ash
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2010
- Messages
- 350
- Reaction score
- 0
The supply to the house was TT, he exported that earth in the SWA down the the log cabin, but also put in an earth rod at the log cabin too.
One of the bonds probably brought the Zs readings low, however it appears he measured Ze with the bonds if he got a reading appearing like a TN system, either that or he just made it up.
The CU looked like an MK one from the ferrules used on the neutral wires as part of the dual rcd set up.
The SWA came into an isolator then apparently into a key meter and then into the CU.
As for the NIC stuff, the way I'd interpret this, because it's a private job, if the company don't want to know, he's theoretically committed fraud?
The CU was in the kitchen area next to what was the door into the toilet
One of the bonds probably brought the Zs readings low, however it appears he measured Ze with the bonds if he got a reading appearing like a TN system, either that or he just made it up.
The CU looked like an MK one from the ferrules used on the neutral wires as part of the dual rcd set up.
The SWA came into an isolator then apparently into a key meter and then into the CU.
As for the NIC stuff, the way I'd interpret this, because it's a private job, if the company don't want to know, he's theoretically committed fraud?
The CU was in the kitchen area next to what was the door into the toilet
seen certs before where employee has stolen cert (and parts for that matter)and issued for private job. Doubt the bloke even tested ccts on completion.
If someone imitated me, I wouldn't be the slightest interested in sorting out the mess caused. Customer wanted cheap job, sparky wanted to earn extra bucks, they both got what they deserved. What I would be very interested in, would be persuing sparky for identity theft and fraud.
My guess - loose connection in CU causing fire due to overheating, which in turn has melted hole in CU and set fire to flammable materials ie polystyrene or wood. Alas whilst suppossedly flame retardent, electrical enclosures will burn if there is something to keep fire going, so perhaps the moral is never mount to flammable surface??? Seem to rememeber some one posting on screwfix a few years ago about some testing they had done on enclosures after being sued for fire damage that started in CU.
If someone imitated me, I wouldn't be the slightest interested in sorting out the mess caused. Customer wanted cheap job, sparky wanted to earn extra bucks, they both got what they deserved. What I would be very interested in, would be persuing sparky for identity theft and fraud.
My guess - loose connection in CU causing fire due to overheating, which in turn has melted hole in CU and set fire to flammable materials ie polystyrene or wood. Alas whilst suppossedly flame retardent, electrical enclosures will burn if there is something to keep fire going, so perhaps the moral is never mount to flammable surface??? Seem to rememeber some one posting on screwfix a few years ago about some testing they had done on enclosures after being sued for fire damage that started in CU.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Messages
- 14,689
- Reaction score
- 845
Was it low down on the wall? was that the source of ignition?
You said the only loads on were a PC and a storage heater. HOW was the storage heater fed? Presumably there was only 1 feed to the cabin, so to work the storage heater was there a timer and contactor? in the same CU?
While I agree the test results appear to be a work of fiction, that does not necessarily mean the installation was poor and the source of ignition remains unknown at the moment.
Similar threads
