IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: LABEL FOR USE AFTER A PERIODIC INSPECTION AND TEST
Topic Summary: Your views please?
Created On: 14 July 2016 07:26 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 20 July 2016 03:47 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mapj1

Posts: 9707
Joined: 22 July 2004

Do you need to talk to
" The Unsatisfactory Label People Limited" ?
in the manner of Monty Python.

Actually helpful would be be
"I think this installation is
TT -----PME ------TNS "

Company rating fuse is

60---80---100 --- a nail

-------------------------
regards Mike
 20 July 2016 04:57 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OMS

Posts: 22435
Joined: 23 March 2004

LoL - I think my work is done

Stick anything you like on, just don't do it on my jobs

OMS

-------------------------
Let the wind blow you, across a big floor.
 20 July 2016 05:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



leckie

Posts: 4452
Joined: 21 November 2008

I would be sending them back JP. Or sell them to OMS on the cheap!
 20 July 2016 07:51 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message



davezawadi

Posts: 3961
Joined: 26 June 2002

I still like the "crime scene" tape, much more dramatic, perhaps a certain certifing body should sell it? Perhaps a standard type of labelling could be invented, which says this lot is unsatisfactory in ways specified in the inspection report? I could use a few rolls at once! I bet it would be cheaper than some tape I just bought to cover some hearing aid loops with a warning to the flooring layers that it is delicate. Just printed good quality gaffer tape, but £45 a roll!

-------------------------
David
BSc CEng MIET
david@ZawadiSoundAndLighting.co.uk
 20 July 2016 08:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mapj1

Posts: 9707
Joined: 22 July 2004

yours for 6.99 apparently.

-------------------------
regards Mike


Edited: 20 July 2016 at 08:07 PM by mapj1
 20 July 2016 08:25 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OMS

Posts: 22435
Joined: 23 March 2004

I can think of a few places where the installers should have wrapped the whole building in tape - the installations being truly criminal

OMS

-------------------------
Let the wind blow you, across a big floor.
 21 July 2016 12:52 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



di515223

Posts: 337
Joined: 08 July 2010

I would suggest if there is an immediate danger, a padlock and lockout tag beats a label hands down!
We surely should not be re-energising circuits we know to be immediately unsafe, as I would expect that would expose us to liability.
Prior to the inspection, no one "knew" the circuit was unsafe, but we have just recorded this on th ecertificate, and there for "know" it is unsafe.
I am all for a labeling system that recommends improvement, but only for issue that are not immediate safety issues.

Dave
 21 July 2016 04:31 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



John Peckham

Posts: 8793
Joined: 23 April 2005

Leckie

Just to let you know I have spoken to the Label People to tell them the periodic labels with the tick boxes for AMD 3 compliant containment are not what I wanted or ordered.

They are saying they were told, by who?, that this was a new requirement under Amendment 3. I have pointed out that was not correct and they have promised to come back to me when they have investigated. No doubt some contractor has called them up with a bit of folk law heard down at the trade counter and it is being translated in to fact.

-------------------------
John Peckham

http://www.astutetechnicalservices.co.uk/
 21 July 2016 08:16 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message



davezawadi

Posts: 3961
Joined: 26 June 2002

Just so OMS, I have one or two available if required.

Does anyone reliably know what cable a DNO is likely to install for a 3ph 160kVA supply (~250A)? I have such a job and it was suggested to be 38mm dia but this seems very small. It has to go through a duct and I am worried about the bend radius and the necessary pulling force!

Regards

-------------------------
David
BSc CEng MIET
david@ZawadiSoundAndLighting.co.uk
 21 July 2016 10:52 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mapj1

Posts: 9707
Joined: 22 July 2004

Dave, you need the low voltage network documents for the DNO providing the supply -
UKPN for example - see page 8, if it was underground you are probably 185mm or 300mm Aluminum waveform.
(but I reckon 160KVA is a bit less than 250A per phase, you may go down a size rather than up.. )
more detail from UKPN
Other DNOs wont differ by much, though they may allow customer specific cable types such as copper waveform options that will be thinner than ALU, or parallels .

-------------------------
regards Mike
 22 July 2016 06:34 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



leckie

Posts: 4452
Joined: 21 November 2008

And if you look in here it gives the external diameter of the cable, so you can get your calliper so out and check.

">http://uk.prysmiangrou.../en.....aveform.pdf


You have to do your sums to work out the equivalent neutral size if it's 3-core.

Mind you most of the waveform I have seen is 3-core, I'm not sure how you would know if it's 3 or 4 core with any accuracy.

The other thing is, this sheet gives the outer cores as being copper but I have recently seen a 3-core 400A supply which had aluminium outer cores that was 300mm I think.

Edited: 22 July 2016 at 06:49 AM by leckie
IET » Wiring and the regulations » LABEL FOR USE AFTER A PERIODIC INSPECTION AND TEST

<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

New here?


See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2017 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.

..