PIR at factory

[Riggy]

i would provide 1, but can't see the logic in providing 2?imagine the paper work with an extra 3 peices of paper per board when you have a hotel with 200 rooms

See your own post #56 but move the boundary slightly. This is where the interpretation bit comes in - again!

 

[sellers]

See your own post #56 but move the boundary slightly. This is where the interpretation bit comes in - again!

i see what you mean but i wrote that to show that even though there are 2 cu's supplying 2 different premisis that you would still class it as 1 installation.

if issuing 2 pirs in patchs case each one would state that they do not cover the whole installation so why not just produce one that covers all?

 

[Riggy]

i see what you mean but i wrote that to show that even though there are 2 cu's supplying 2 different premisis that you would still class it as 1 installation.if issuing 2 pirs in patchs case each one would state that they do not cover the whole installation so why not just produce one that covers all?

Not arguing, the point I'm trying to make is that issuing two, whilst not being the way I would do it, is not "wrong" they would include all the relevant information (some of it twice!)

 

[sellers]

i see your point about it not being wrong, but i wouldn't like to do it that way with the fear of seaming un-proffesional to electrical engineers at factories and such like.

 

[kme]

Sorry guys; I still can`t accept this.

You could issue a PIR on ONE CIRCUIT, if you wished, that is the whole reason for the extent & limitations box, AFAIK ?

But, if you attended a premises, with a PIR that stated "whole installation", and you have 6 DBs, all fed from henleys in the consumers tails, you would have a concern as to which DB(s) were being referenced?

My opinion is, and will continue to be, that anything connected to the tails which exit the meter constitutes the "installation".

Don`t misunderstand guys - I`m not stating that you are wrong.

Just that I think you are.

:coat

 

[initforthemoney]

In that case i think we can all agree that there is no right or wrong way, only my way.

 

[ElectekAir]

[quote name='Andy

 

[sellers]

what i was getting at with my question, is that. if you were to test both the flat and shop, you would issue 1 pir.

but if you are testing just the shop you would issue a pir with the extent of the installation clearly saying shop only as the shop db is not an installation in itself therefore you would never put 'whole installation'. the installation is both boards.

 

[Andy™]

You could issue a PIR on ONE CIRCUIT, if you wished, that is the whole reason for the extent & limitations box, AFAIK ?

But, if you attended a premises, with a PIR that stated "whole installation", and you have 6 DBs, all fed from henleys in the consumers tails, you would have a concern as to which DB(s) were being referenced?

My opinion is, and will continue to be, that anything connected to the tails which exit the meter constitutes the "installation".

whats the confusion going to be? quick look at test results will clear up which boards have been tested

In that case i think we can all agree that there is no right or wrong way, only my way.

thats probably the best post in this thread, and accurately describes half of the book

 

[wozz]

only half?

 

[green-hornet]

I honestly can not see any confusion as to what is or not, ONE installation.

If a hotel has 400 DB,s it is still only one installation.

The distribution of power for final use is part of this ONE installation.

Where is the confusion?

Pull the fuse and see if there are more than one installation.

 

[binky]

I honestly can not see any confusion as to what is or not, ONE installation.If a hotel has 400 DB,s it is still only one installation.

The distribution of power for final use is part of this ONE installation.

Where is the confusion?

Pull the fuse and see if there are more than one installation.

Would tend to agree with this, on the grounds that whether multiple or single supplies to a building, they all affect that building, like th old peoples home I was in the other day - converted from 2 houses (yeah it was a mess). As for paperwork - as long as it is clear, logical, and can be safely followed by any other spark ( and maybe even the customer), then that's good enough for me, whether on one or more PIRs. Again as personnal opinion it's one' blanket' PIR per building, and lots of additional sheets to cover Sub mains and DB.