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 366 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.
Parents
  • 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.
Reply
  • 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.
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines