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

  • Replies 8 replies
  • Subscribers 37 subscribers
  • Views 902 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

IET Guidance Note 3 - Inspection & Testing (10th Edition)

Ross C

Following a trip to a local UPS delivery point on my way home today, I am now in posession of my shiny new copy of IET Guidance Note 3 - Inspection & Testing (10th Edition).

On Page 73 under Figure 2.23 in connection with insulation resistance testing it states:

'The insulation resistance readings obtained should be not less than the minimum values referred to in Table 2.9'

However, on turning to Table 2.9 on Page 67, it appears to be concerned with the variation in resistance readings when testing ring final circuits where the line and circuit protective conductors have different cross-sectional areas.

It would appear that the statement on Page 73 should actually refer to Table 2.10 on Page 70 which is concerned with minimum values of insulation resistance?

Either that, or it is far too late in the evening to be considering such matters and I am missing something fundamental . . .  Slight smile

  • Can you provide some pictures please?

  • Ross C said:
    It would appear that the statement on Page 73 should actually refer to Table 2.10 on Page 70

    I agree. (The text above the figure, 3 lines down, does refer to Table 2.10.)

  • in reply to Chris Pearson

    Another one for the BS7671 AMD4 Corrigendum list

  • I note that the model example of a completed EICR has a C1 listed on the inspection schedule and observation section but has an overall satisfactory designation. The observation indicates that temporary remedial work was undertaken to remove the immediate concern, which means a C1 no longer applies. 
    A rather odd approach!

  • in reply to lyledunn

    It's a bit curate's egg.

    Fig 5.8 Section E: Satisfactory except where it is not satisfactory.

  • There appears to be another error on the previous page, p 72.

    Sub-paragraph (i) refers to "line conductores", but I feel sure that should be "live conductors". Victor rather than November.

  • in reply to Chris Pearson
    Chris Pearson said:

    There appears to be another error on the previous page, p 72.

    Sub-paragraph (i) refers to "line conductores", but I feel sure that should be "live conductors". Victor rather than November.

    Thank you for pointing that out. It's been like that since the previous Edition in 2024 and it's the first time I've heard it's been noticed ... I will make sure this is logged

  • Strange that this from the ebook is wrong but correctly set out in the paper version (+ missing between Re and the parallel arrangement).

Community Rules & Guidelines