Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 365 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Moving into Design

SJVH
Good morning all;


Been meaning to this for while. Was just reading an old post from John Peckham (https://www2.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=205&threadid=103829). Been a long term member, though mostly lurking and not always commenting. I'm maybe heading towards a cross roads.


Background is Temporary Electrical industry fundamentally but have a solid understanding BS7671 (though needs to improve in the more unusual stuff). I have joined the IET as EngTech and MIET and making solid use of its Career Manager and CPD facility. Really trying to plug some holes and to get through a load of books and PDFs I have saved over the years and haven't got round to reading. Qualified up to Level 4 Design and Verification and passed that with Distinction -- what that matters.


Life changes has meant I am looking at things differently -- necessity and creativity and all that  -- so may look to start up on my own doing ECIR after work and of a weekend -- probably won't make much money after CP Scams, Insurance, etc., etc., but the main benefit will be the real life experience of decision making. I believe PIRs (as prefer to call them) require much the same skill set as an electrical design but inverse. Especially if you take it seriously and aren't flogging Code 1s and 2s for nothing/for remedial work.   


Recently moved off the tools into an Electrical Supervisors role for a Principle Contractor. Hoping the company might put through studying Building Services course.


I am hoping to make at some point a sideways step into Electrical Design. I have had someone say they would see if they could influence a door to be propped open for me, this person I consider a friend, but he is professional man who's reputation precedes him and it carries weight to those he deals with and so 1) I don't want to do him a disservice, if and when I am ready to ask him, I want to be ready 2) I don't want to take a giant pay cut.


I am currently looking at the future to look into an FIA Design Training course (out of interest more then anything but also because it is a design course and so may show some willingness to any reader of my CV) and as well as some other courses like Emergency Lighting. Reading into BS9999 and other standards. Also looking at putting myself through a course of Amtech and Dialux (and hoping to get a copy of the former to play with).


Can anyone else suggest any advice to make this potential move as seamless as possible?


Thanks all.


SJVH.
  • 0

    -- so may look to start up on my own doing ECIR after work and of a weekend -- probably won't make much money after CP Scams, Insurance, etc., etc., but the main benefit will be the real life experience of decision making. I believe PIRs (as prefer to call them) require much the same skill set as an electrical design but inverse.



    I'm in no position to offer advise on career paths or opening doors (perhaps others here could), but on the subject of periodic inspections, I would certainly agree that it requires much the same skill set as design - but probably requires a bit more than that - also a bit of electrical "history" as it were. What I'm thinking of are things that were done differently in the past (say longer disconnection times for sockets (where R2 was limited) or in bathrooms) - which appear to be complete failures according to current design rules, but where actually relatively safe. The distinction between what doesn't comply with the rules vs what's actually dangerous - which sometimes takes a bit more (or different) imagination that some routine design.


      - Andy.
  • 0
    Andy;

    Totally agree and some of that can be picked up I believe. However, there is only some so much of the previous editions one can remember -- think some of it you need to live with it -- in that case I have lived with Regs since Ed 16 Brown Cover. I do have a photocopy of the first Regulations that I got from John Peckham at a seminar he took.


    Surely no matter what, even if you look at an installation and compare it to the Regulations of the time install it surely must be safe for continue use? So your example of higher Zs because of R2 surely that's still a Code 1/2 if no RCD is present (if not meeting D/C times)? Its bit like the smaller Earth cables its no fail as long as it is not smaller then a 6mm and meets the Adiabatic Equation, and even then its a Code 2 if there is no evidence of thermal damage?


    I think the key really is taking the Regulation -- and there relationship with the statutory instruments -- applying knowledge and common sense to what is likely to give raise to damage and harm and danger to persons, properties and livestock everything else is secondary to that principle? I guess that can get distorted with some wacky risk assessment gymnastics.
  • 0
    I think Andy's example was suppose to be that of the fully bonded bathroom - time to disconnect may appear long, but if the greatest voltage during fault  between any 2 metallic objects you could touch at once is below 50V, then we probably do not care how long it takes, no real risk to life and limb.


    Another  example may be the centre earthed 115V on a building site, it is almost not worth considering RCDs  and ADS times on the load side, as any credible fault will only expose half that to earth, and how fast does ADS need to be, well you scarcely need it at all.


    Is a lighting circuit without CPC a risk, well not unless there are switches are fittings that need one. Sure you'd never fit one today, but safe to continue, probably yes if insulation in good shape.

    Not to regs is not always imminent danger. And sometimes things that appear to be wired to regs may not be very clever. (TT earth and metal boxes before the RCD perhaps)


  • 0

    I think Andy's example was suppose to be that of the fully bonded bathroom - time to disconnect may appear long, but if the greatest voltage during fault  between any 2 metallic objects you could touch at once is below 50V, then we probably do not care how long it takes, no real risk to life and limb.



    Indeed - the socket example followed the same sort of principle, but the logic was that the c.p.c. (R2) impedance was limited such that if disconnection was going to take longer than 0.4s then the touch voltage (between the fault and the installation's MET) was limited to a safe value (50V if it would take the full 5s, scaling up to half mains voltage at 0.4s - at which point it became the same as ordinary ADS). It was listed in the 15th I think as the "alternative method". I think it's an interesting example of the laws of physics not changing at all, but they way they're applied changing considerably. Curiously the old approach isn't outlawed in the 18th - but is well hidden in section 419.


      - Andy.

Community Rules & Guidelines