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 119 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 17568 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Type A rcd . EICR coding ? etc

aligarjon
Hi Guys.   Not been on for a long time, just had a bit of a search and couldn't really find anything so thought i would ask and see what you all thought.


1.  Are we or will we be coding type AC rcd's if there are LED's or induction hobs, lots of electronics  etc  present.

2. How much DC leakage does it actually take to saturate an rcd and cause  problem?

3. How much does a standard LED lamp or induction hob  leak ?

If we test an AC RCD with no load and it's fine then re-test it with all LED lights, induction hobs etc turned on and it operates correctly could we then say that it is ok with a note on EICR  OR EIC if installing any of the above.  


Obviously also on an EICR if the RCD then doesn't operate with it all on it becomes a C2 ?


Any thoughts



Gary
Parents
  • 0
    It would seem to me that it would be reasonably foreseeable that injury could result from the mal-operation of an RCD caused by residual currents with a DC component. “Reasonably foreseeable” is effectively the benchmark for any  

    claim that due diligence has been properly exercised. However, that rather obvious contention hinges on an equally obvious contention that situations may arise where DC current will indeed be deleterious to the operation of an RCD. 

    It would be unwise to disregard the weight of opinion that would uphold such a contention but I do applaud David for challenging it. 

    I would also like to know how the tester is rigged as most MFTs inhibit tests where the ground resistance exceeds touch voltage limits and most simply fail to display a definitive time when maximum disconnection times are exceeded.
Reply
  • 0
    It would seem to me that it would be reasonably foreseeable that injury could result from the mal-operation of an RCD caused by residual currents with a DC component. “Reasonably foreseeable” is effectively the benchmark for any  

    claim that due diligence has been properly exercised. However, that rather obvious contention hinges on an equally obvious contention that situations may arise where DC current will indeed be deleterious to the operation of an RCD. 

    It would be unwise to disregard the weight of opinion that would uphold such a contention but I do applaud David for challenging it. 

    I would also like to know how the tester is rigged as most MFTs inhibit tests where the ground resistance exceeds touch voltage limits and most simply fail to display a definitive time when maximum disconnection times are exceeded.
Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines