Just whiz along the terminals with a torque screwdriver. It does not take long!

At which point, I wonder how many sparks have one.

Just whiz along the terminals with a torque screwdriver. It does not take long!

At which point, I wonder how many sparks have one.

Chris Pearson said:

Just whiz along the terminals with a torque screwdriver. It does not take long!

But doesn't that involve undoing them a little, then re-tightening (i.e.for initial verification, repeating someone else's work, or the work you just did yourself)? I agree the form doesn't specify at what point you did it ... so it might not mean re-checking your own work ... but if you did not recheck your own work, and perhaps keep a "tick box" for EVERY termination, could you, in all honesty, tick the box ?

And ... what about crimp connections, power and data, insulation displacement.

And, of course .... screwless terminals ... you check the lever types by, say pulling the conductor gently, but:

1. Could you say it was "tight" (I would postulate no-one could verify that properly); and
2. What if you accidentally catch the lever when pushing it back into the enclosure, and loosen it?

With either of these, you perhaps lied if you ticked the box?

Begs the question: Why bother ticking the box if the outcome is pretty much impossible to achieve without dropping oneself in it when  someone else comes along picking a fault or other shortcoming in the approach or final application.

There seems to be an unerring approach to making even the simplest things needlessly complicated - paralysis by analysis results, and nothing gets done as a consequence because everyone fears they'll be sued or have other court action taken against them.

whjohnson said:

There seems to be an unerring approach to making even the simplest things needlessly complicated - paralysis by analysis results, and nothing gets done as a consequence because everyone fears they'll be sued or have other court action taken against them.

In BS 7671, it is only 'informative' and in the most pedantic (and pedantry is really where we are in this thread at present ... save the "signing the certificate" issue) sense unnecessary for conformity with the standard ... and, as lyledunn  implies, seems simple at first.

But, it's only 'informative' ... only a real issue for those who are under the burden of anything that sees this as a 'requirement' or who uses it without considering the consequences?

In my opinion, the labeled box displaying outcomes such as C1 etc suggests that this originates from an EICR. As part of your employment for this service, does it not becomes your responsibility/requirement to assess this, wherever possible? Obviously the inspector needs to consider the consequences.

gkenyon said:

But doesn't that involve undoing them a little, then re-tightening (i.e.for initial verification, repeating someone else's work, or the work you just did yourself)?

If they have been torque-tightened, I think that you can assume that they are tight enough, but not too tight.

I agree that if you check and the screwdriver clicks, they are tight enough, but could be too tight.

I also agree that it is difficult (=impossible?) to check lever terminals for tightness, but you can check for security. What were we taught? Use all senses when inspecting, so feel whether a connection is secure.

(At this point, I might ask why tyre fitters always overtighten wheel nuts/bolts, but by the grace of God, I have never had one snapped.)