max Zs on a TT system for Nic eic

[steptoe]

I used to have a seaward where there was a metal touch pad on the front for something similar to this, it actually gave you a reading of the touch voltage when you put your thumb on it,

just seemed a bit of a fancy gimmick though,

yet another one of those things seaward seem to have a habit of loading their meters with, too many bells and too high a price.

 

[ADS]

Dave,

'Plumber' is spot on and if you have a look at Appendix 3, PG 243, you'll see the formula for calculating Zs and a table with RCD time/current performance criteria to use.

 

[Ash]

why do the NIC want you to fill that in anyway? I dislike the NIC's Schedule of tests

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

why do the NIC want you to fill that in anyway? I dislike the NIC's Schedule of tests

Quite obvious really IMHO!?

I think the reasoning is that rather than just blindly putting down a measured Zs value without even considering if its within acceptable tolerances.....

As there are some.. in fact MANY allegedly qualified sparks who just plug leads, press a button, note a reading without having a clue if the reading is anywhere near what it should be!

I can recall numerous guys on my college courses who have a very poor concept of the basics of electrical science, all they want to do is join some wires, plug something in see if it works then walk away..

So having Max permissible Zs will make it even more obvious on the sheet if readings are getting near or exceeding maximum permitted values,

without the need to go back & check with regs tables.

TBH it adds a negligible amount of addition time to filling in the certificates

and IHMO max Zs column is probably as relevant or useful as MCB type and kA capacity.

 

[Ash]

The point I'm making is, why? Sparks should be checking their readings. The NIC Schedule of tests is so unbelievably cluttered and horrible to fill out because it caters for stupid sparks who blindly record without checking the results

 

[kme]

Sorry - I think that SL answered the "why" above.

To be honest, I do not find

The NIC Schedule of tests so unbelievably cluttered and horrible

; I believe that the more info you can provide, the better.

Sparks should be checking their readings

It isn`t a question of "checking" the results - Its more a knowledge of what those numbers that magically appear on your MFT are telling you.

An "Electrician" WILL know.......

Unfortunately, most people filling in an EIC aren`t electricians.

As for your "stupid sparks" comment -

No comment.

 

[Ash]

Well I guess this is just a clash of opinions here. I just think the NIC is complete overkill for things that aren't specified by the regs (was the main reason ELECSA was my first choice over them)

 

[stuartrw79]

Think you`ll find that Elecsa certs have a Colum for max permissible Zs as well, All software packages I

 

[Ash]

I made my own, so wouldn't know lol

 

[m4tty]

When i read the thread title 'max zs on a TT system for NICEIC' i thought ffs i know the NICEIC are far superior to the rest but they cant be using lower Zs figures than the rest of us lol. Has to disconnect first LMAO (joke)

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

The point I'm making is, why? Sparks should be checking their readings. The NIC Schedule of tests is so unbelievably cluttered and horrible to fill out because it caters for stupid sparks who blindly record without checking the results

Well I guess this is just a clash of opinions here. I just think the NIC is complete overkill for things that aren't specified by the regs (was the main reason ELECSA was my first choice over them)

Think you`ll find that Elecsa certs have a Colum for max permissible Zs as well, All software packages I

 

[Ash]

You may note they also include...Number of points served....

Maximum permitted Zs.....

Whole column for short circuit capacity....

Two columns of RCD operating times (x1 & x5)

??? :C

I mean whats wrong with the basic of the model forms...?

When I made my own I added to the basic model forms what I felt was needed

Number of points served - pointless, why when it doesn't say where they are. waste of space

Maximum permitted Zs - pointless, makes you check regs that you should be checking anyway. If you've signed the cert saying it complies with regs, why does the person ordering the work need to know that?

SSC - I added that

x1, x5 - added those, but hey, why not add the max rcd tripping times? you added the Zs! lets add all the reg maximums everywhere!

Lets make the certs even more harder to read and confuse the clients further!

My point about the NIC is every electrician I've met who is with NICEIC seems to believe they have to use the NIC certs.

Now to add to my argument, even the IET don't think they matter, look at the amendment. They added, Reference methods, x1,x5, PFC, ring continuity, phase rotation, and the test button. Things that actually make sense, not pointless garbage

Now go ahead and try to ridicule me again because I have an opposite opinion to you

 

[steptoe]

When I made my own I added to the basic model forms what I felt was neededNumber of points served - pointless, why when it doesn't say where they are. waste of space actually good for proving that socket 13 did not exist last year when you inspected and now there is a fault its not your problem as someone else has been adding stuff on

Maximum permitted Zs - pointless, makes you check regs that you should be checking anyway. If you've signed the cert saying it complies with regs, why does the person ordering the work need to know that? the person ordering the work doesnt need to know the regs, nice for them to see how good the earth is compared to the legal max, we could set cars to stop at 70 and not fit speedos I suppose.

SSC - I added that

x1, x5 - added those are standard NIC coloumns, but hey, why not add the max rcd tripping times? you added the Zs! lets add all the reg maximums everywhere!

Lets make the certs even more harder to read and confuse the clients further!

My point about the NIC is every electrician I've met who is with NICEIC seems to believe they have to use the NIC certs. do you actually know many proper sparks?

Now to add to my argument, even the IET don't think they matter, look at the amendment. They added, Reference methods, x1,x5, PFC, ring continuity, phase rotation, and the test button. Things that actually make sense, not pointless garbage these are all on the niceic certs at present

Now go ahead and try to ridicule me again because I have an opposite opinion to you

its not about ridicule,

my points are in red

 

[Ash]

its not about ridicule,my points are in red

The way you word your reply isn't ridicule, but Special, rude

 

[steptoe]

you are trying to say you have added on all these extra special columns and that nic certs are garbage filled sheets of paper,

nic have all the things you list, with the added extra of max Zs(as do most scam certs),

so why do you have such an issue with them?

oh, and sorry, but what is it that is rude about my post when I simply pointed out that your certs aren't anything special, ?

 

[Ash]

you are trying to say you have added on all these extra special columns and that nic certs are garbage filled sheets of paper,nic have all the things you list, with the added extra of max Zs(as do most scam certs),

so why do you have such an issue with them?

oh, and sorry, but what is it that is rude about my post when I simply pointed out that your certs aren't anything special, ?

Special loc not you . Also I only replied to the things he listed. My point about the iet amendments is while they might have added things present in the nic certs, they didn't see the importance of the rest.

And for the record the certs isn't the only reason I dislike the nic.

 

[steptoe]

Special loc not you . Also I only replied to the things he listed. My point about the iet amendments is while they might have added things present in the nic certs, they didn't see the importance of the rest.And for the record the certs isn't the only reason I dislike the nic.

I agree, niceic can be overkill for lots of reasons,

but it also makes you wonder why NICEIC Approved Contractors are the ONLY specified contractors for lots of multi-national companies,

NO other scheme has a separate entity for assessing commercial/industrial sparks.

 

[ADS]

I agree, niceic can be overkill for lots of reasons,but it also makes you wonder why NICEIC Approved Contractors are the ONLY specified contractors for lots of multi-national companies,

NO other scheme has a separate entity for assessing commercial/industrial sparks.

Possibly because the 'schemes' main aim is 'Part P' approval, which only applies to dwellings, so the NICEIC could be 'all about the money'.

Most sparks wouldn't join a scheme at all if it wasn't for the building regs, so they're hardly likely to fork out even more cash for a 'scheme' to say that they can work industrial or commercial.

 

[Doc Hudson]

I think reality shows that electrical business do and will pay for industrial and commercial approval, as the ECA & NIC have electrical contractor schemes which preceded part-p approval, 50+ years existence as I understand it.

Doc H.

 

[ADS]

I think reality shows that electrical business do and will pay for industrial and commercial approval, as the ECA & NIC have electrical contractor schemes which preceded part-p approval, 50+ years existence as I understand it.Doc H.

True, accreditation has, and always will be, required in most trades - e.g. Guild of Master Craftsmen, Corgi...etc etc. - the difference is, you're either qualified or you're not - which is the approach the other 'schemes' seem to take - whereas the NICEIC split everything down.....domestic - one fee, PIRs - a bit more, Approved - bit more again........are you really telling me it's not about the money. ; \

This is the reason I chose not to go with the NICEIC - because there's that much messing about, regardless of your qualifications or experience.