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 105 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 7326 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

Videos of EICRs on Youtube

David Stone

I am interested in comments from anyone on the youtube videos, there are several purporting to show EICR procedures. As most know I am currently researching this, and am collecting data.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzdQ4kH1G6M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIlwmp7Ks2w

are of particular interest, ignore any comments I may have left, I want your comments.

 

Kind regards

David

Parents
  • 0

    All things being equal, if the protective device would activate in the Regs requisite time, what does it matter if there is no RCD, or where a socket is located;  is it [inspection outcome] unsafe/unsatisfactory (one would think not) because current (at the time) Regs  demand it. Will/should it be unsafe/unsatisfactory to not have a SPD or AFDD or a metal enclosure, or is that a different aspect to ‘personal’ safety.  Improvements for safety etc are always going to arrive … whether their inclusion then makes something existing unsafe/unsatisfactory (if it is still performing well), well that's the debatable point.

    My analogies are likely not good ones  but… e.g.  a car from the sixties, assuming no safety defects (MOT if applicable good, maintained well etc) , is still safe to drive;  modern cars are safer due to improvements.  Ho hum.  :-)

Reply
  • 0

    All things being equal, if the protective device would activate in the Regs requisite time, what does it matter if there is no RCD, or where a socket is located;  is it [inspection outcome] unsafe/unsatisfactory (one would think not) because current (at the time) Regs  demand it. Will/should it be unsafe/unsatisfactory to not have a SPD or AFDD or a metal enclosure, or is that a different aspect to ‘personal’ safety.  Improvements for safety etc are always going to arrive … whether their inclusion then makes something existing unsafe/unsatisfactory (if it is still performing well), well that's the debatable point.

    My analogies are likely not good ones  but… e.g.  a car from the sixties, assuming no safety defects (MOT if applicable good, maintained well etc) , is still safe to drive;  modern cars are safer due to improvements.  Ho hum.  :-)

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines