no proving unit

[electro]

spose its the same kind of thing

 

[Andy™]

spose its the same kind of thing

yes. just different make

 

[electro]

cheers andy once again, u got any advice on assessment? eg what to expct?

 

[Apache]

Guys, as "mr smith" is too busy editing your posts can I just remind you of this thread

http://www.talk.electricianforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=7639

:|

 

[Andy™]

not really much to add to what i said in your other thread

 

[electro]

ok thank u

 

[m4tty]

[quote name='Andy

 

[tom1]

Hi, Just wondered about this ignore function. If you use this function wont the posts not make sense if its missing certain posts ??

Cheers

Matt

missing post what the deuce

 

[Andy™]

Hi, Just wondered about this ignore function. If you use this function wont the posts not make sense if its missing certain posts ??

Cheers

Matt

posts by ignore members shows as a gap between other posts, with an option to view the post

 

[kme]

As Andy alludes to, the "ignore member" function removes the body of that person`s post - leaving the header behind. You can see that they posted, but not the subject.

HTH

KME

 

[safedepth]

I was taught that proving dead involved

a. testing a known source,

b. isolate (knock off and lock off)

c. test again against a known good source.

This proves your tester, (dilog for me) has not become defective in the 5 seconds since isolating the supply. Pedantic I know but seemingly the way it is.

Is this a realistic scenario in my impending NICEIC assessment?

 

[Andy™]

now if it was upto me, you'd fail an assessment for that 'safe isolation' method. how do you know the switch turn off isolates that equipment you have dead?

it may already be turned off in DB1, but you isolate something in DB2. you start work. bloke who's machine is now dead looks at DB2, see's its isolated and assumes that its what your working on. goes to DB1 and switches on.

now you have done everything to your safe isolation procedue, but youve have left it where someone can energise the circuit without removing any locks...

had a similar thing at college.... their answer to this: it will never happen

safe isolation should be

A:check equiment is live

B: find circuit in board, isolate & lock

C: check equipment is dead

D: use known source to check voltage tester

maybe a re-energise & check, then isolate again between C & D

note: this method is not always possible, i.e if there is a wiring fault meaning its already off and unsafe to energise

 

[kme]

May I just add:

for the purposes of a main switch (2,3 or 4 pole) - ensure you "cross-connect" between the "live" and "dead" sides of the switch/isolator; to "prove" that ALL poles have opened, and all conductors are disconnected.

HTH

KME

 

[safedepth]

Andy,

Sorry you are quite right, I did mean to say the test on a known live supply should have been the cct you are intending to isolate. It does make more sense that way.

Many thanks for pointing it out. :coat

 

[Andy™]

Andy,Sorry you are quite right, I did mean to say the test on a known live supply should have been the cct you are intending to isolate. It does make more sense that way.

Many thanks for pointing it out. :coat

shame my college didnt see it that way! 'safe isolation' the dodgy method in class, the safe way in the real world.

probably the only thing you improve on safety wise after you leave college!

 

[wozz]

May I just add:for the purposes of a main switch (2,3 or 4 pole) - ensure you "cross-connect" between the "live" and "dead" sides of the switch/isolator; to "prove" that ALL poles have opened, and all conductors are disconnected.

HTH

KME

I believe some DNO workers will do a similiar test of resistance two ensure all poles of the switch operated have opened.