apologies if you are already aware of this but with respect to the x5 or greater test current introduced in the 18th, Hager have advised that their RCBO units are manufactured to the 2017 amended version of BSEN61008/9 which permitted disconnection within 40ms at 250mA. Thus they advise testing at x 5 on both sides with the instrument set for 50mA on the variable range.
It seems to me that the performance we allow RCDs to achieve in the field is being rolled back apace, now there are more of them in service.
Of much more use to anyone receiving a shock is to know if they will ever be disconnected at anything less than 30mA ?
Given that we are moving towards the high current test only, and not making compulsory testing at 30mA to recommend this is a 250mA test current for a device we in the next breath claim is for safety of life is actually quite a step. A shock situation where more than 250mA flows through a victim is a pretty extreme case, and will involve large areas of live metal , immersion in salt water or damage to the outer skin, allowing metallic contact to be made to the much wetter and conductive material underneath (though that damage to the skin may for example be a full thickness burn through the epidermis from a much lower current applied over an extended period.)
Anyway it is very interesting to see where the manufacturers and standards writers are taking us, and it seems to be away from shock prevention towards fire prevention only.
It seems to me that the performance we allow RCDs to achieve in the field is being rolled back apace, now there are more of them in service.
Of much more use to anyone receiving a shock is to know if they will ever be disconnected at anything less than 30mA ?
Given that we are moving towards the high current test only, and not making compulsory testing at 30mA to recommend this is a 250mA test current for a device we in the next breath claim is for safety of life is actually quite a step. A shock situation where more than 250mA flows through a victim is a pretty extreme case, and will involve large areas of live metal , immersion in salt water or damage to the outer skin, allowing metallic contact to be made to the much wetter and conductive material underneath (though that damage to the skin may for example be a full thickness burn through the epidermis from a much lower current applied over an extended period.)
Anyway it is very interesting to see where the manufacturers and standards writers are taking us, and it seems to be away from shock prevention towards fire prevention only.
