electricalforum.nz

AlecK

You're replacing a fitting (a cooking appliance) with a similar fitting. Therefore you're maintaining the installation; working under ESR 59(3), with 3 options available - one of them being maintaining in original condition. What some people call "like for like"; although that term doesn't appear an...

AlecK

Correct; For a WoEF, only those matters covered in Part 1 or in AppC are relevant.
So the precise arrangement of any RCD protection that's present isn't a WoEF matter.

AlecK

Not that they can't apply. Just that in practice they seldom do; because caravans / motorhomes generally only have one subcircuit. Other types of connectable installation (eg mobile shop / kitchen) may have more than one subcircuit, but are non-domestic. If a caravan / motorhome ever did have more t...

AlecK

For purposes of '3000"; ESR 4 (2) specifies that a term used in a Standard has the meaning used in that Standard, unless either the Act or ESRs provide a different definition. There's no definition of 'outbuilding" in either the Electricity act or ESRs; so the word takes the meaning used in '3000". ...

AlecK

Yes, clause 2.6.2.4 applies; because nothing in "3001" modifies any part of it. So you have to apply (a); and distribute lighting over more than one subcircuit - IF there is more than one subcircuit As you've note, (b) - the 3 subcircuit rule - only applies to "residential installations". In 2018 ed...

AlecK

As per clause 1.2, rules of "3000" apply unless specifically modified by "3001".
Which particular RCD rule are you thinking of?

AlecK

I think it was actually deliberate. No need to put a time limit because officially all that matters is that the CoC gets issued before connection happens. And they don't care who issues it; as long as someone accepts responsibility. For larger contract-type jobs it's better this way, we wouldn't wan...

AlecK

Imported to NZ by:
https://digitalimports.co.nz

AlecK

Whether you need to apply "3001" depends on whether the unit is to be plugged in ( transportable), or hard-wired as part (or all) of a fixed installation. If it's to be plugged in, then it must comply with Part 2 of "3000, as modified by "3001". Assuming it's a steel container, rather than an insula...

AlecK

You can only be taken to task for doing, or not doing, something you have a duty to do / not do. If someone issues a CoC (or RoI, ir ESC), then they are responsible for validity of all the info it contains. For RoIs & ESCs there's a duty imposed on a particular individual to issue. But there's no su...

AlecK

Noting that EWRB recently "convicted" someone for failing-to certify.
Seems they - and their lawyers - have also failed to notice that there is no requirement placed on any person to issue a CoC

AlecK

No.
The offence would be connecting without sighting a CoC (and RoI if req'd).
Which is something that networks do all the time - and get away with 'cos nobody complains.

AlecK

Correct WRT title of 6.8, my error. For barrier height, it's clear that a (qualifying) barrier limits Z1 even above the top of the barrier. Which is logical because shower water generally sprays down rather than up And I believe that, since the Figs are intended to illustrate the rules of the clause...

AlecK

Yes, it certainly is PEW And being installation work, is at least general PEW; so a CoC is definitely required by ESR 65. Where work is incomplete, or where it was only intended as provision-for-later; whatever was done should be certified, but with care: - the description of work needs to be carefu...

AlecK

Just a flaw; and - as you've noticed - corrected in 2018 edition.

On the other hand, that Exception was only ever intended for larger appliance, particularly ranges, due to the poor seals on older MIMS elements.
There's no good reason to avoid RCD for an oven.

AlecK

Correct that work isn't completed until certified. and that once a CoC is issued; 74E then starts a timer for provision of copies. But there is no time limit for issue. And there's also nothing that makes it anyone's responsibility to issue; or even to ensure that a CoC is issued at all. What drives...

AlecK

While most people rely on the Figs; what really matters is the words in the relevant clause. Especially the words that point to the Fig. Some Figs do introduce requirements that aren't in a clause, but this is regarded as poor practice when writing a Standard. The default position is that Figs illus...

AlecK

For terms used in a standard, ESR 4(2) governs definitions. However neither "room" nor "cupboard" is defined in Act, or Regulations, or "3000"; or IEC60050. That means normal dictionary definitions should apply; buit as you suggest this could be open to interpretation. In my view, with more than 600...

AlecK

Doesn't say "individual" or "dedicated" or "separate" means of protection;
or any other wording that would require the protection for one motor to be only for that motor.

Not unheard of for several motors of a system to share common control / protection devices,
but needs care to get it right

AlecK

The original reason for a provision isn't always obvious - but there usually is one. And yes, the words do matter. Both the words that are used, and the words that could have been but weren't. Something that should be taught as a subject for all electrical trainees (and other trainees for jobs that ...

AlecK

I wouldn't classify any appliance that uses gas as the source of cooking heat as an "electric cooking appliance". They are gas cooking appliances. This Exception was created because - historically - the MIMS elements of electric cooking appliances tended to absorb atmospheric moisture if unused for ...

AlecK

First the question WRT whether the rule applies to number if subcircuits in swbd, or in installation. Easy answer; in the opening sentences: for option (a): "In all electrical installations where" for option (b): "In residential installations". These openings clearly tie the 'trigger' conditions tha...

AlecK

Yes , could do a Part 1 CD - but as you say not for anything required to be fully Part 2

AlecK

As a fixed installation, the main applicable Standard is "3000". As non-domestic, choice of Part 1 or Part2; but if it was Part 1 you wouldn't be asking the questions because all this would be part of the certified design. As a Part 2 installation; earthing requirements are set in Section 5; but may...

AlecK

So far we've been discussing the requirements set in 2016 edition; which is not the edition cited in ESRs. Looking at cited 2005 edition; the relevant clause [5.4] is much simpler. An isolation device (not necessarily a switch) must be provided between the energy source and the inverter, unless the ...

AlecK

Fixed installation?
Or mobile / relocatable?

This determines which Standards apply
And in turn that determines the earthing arrangements

AlecK

It's not a matter of Brands; it's a matter of how the output is configured. The inverter provided is not suitable; as it does not have an acceptable output earthing configuration. There's also a good chance that it is a transformerless type; bringing the risk that an internal fault could liven the b...

AlecK

more that it's not part of the installation in many (most (?) cases. ("installation wiring" being only part of what is within Scope; there's also 'equipment wiring" that can be part of the installation.) Instrumentation, like fire alarm, burglar alarm, TV, telephone, & data cabling generally aren't ...

AlecK

Many such cables are not within scope of Wiring Rules; and therefore the requirements for ID of conductor function do not apply. Where Wiring Rules do apply, then yes any earthing for other than safety purposes is functional earthing. Definition 1.4.66 applies; but in my view doesn't make the necess...

AlecK

Agree the input voltage level doesn't determine whether the Standard applies; It applies due to the output being grid-connected. And ESR 60 takes that another step, by making compliance with the Standard mandatory (if following Part 2 of 3000). Unfortunately none of this helps with your original que...

AlecK

One Standard is not supposed to set requirements for matters outside its Scope, and within the Scope of another Standard. But many do - as in this case. 4777 cannot actually impose a requirement for anything to do with the PV array. It can however come close; by (a) setting a conditional requirement...

AlecK

Can't "just" follow 5033; because that para is not written as an Exception but rather as an additional requirement.
So have to comply with both.

AlecK

There was an amendment to "3010: 2017"; to correct a number of errors An outline has been prepared for restructuring the document, with intent to set up an amendment / revision project; but not yet confirmed and converted to a formal "project proposal". The project proposal sets limits to what can a...

AlecK

What it doesn't say is 'all active conductors everywhere'. And it doesn't say "all active conductors of all normal supplies". In many installations there will be multiple main switches, feeding various parts / sections of the installation; as illustrated in Fig 7.1. If you're providing alt supply fo...

AlecK

No problem in principle with having an alternative supply for only part of an installation. Just have to follow the basic principles; including no back-feed from alt supply to normal supply source. Yes if you simply switched one incoming phase of normal supply, and it normally fed any loads that wer...

AlecK

I would treat this as a single-phase calculation. Adding the extra phase will result in N-current being less than the sum of phase currents, and therefore less contribution to volt-drop from the N; but to determine how much less you have to do a separate calculation for the N. Which is difficult sin...

AlecK

Yes this requirement is specifically stated for PEN conductors passing through one DB on their way to another. And true it's not stated directly for common submains that similarly pass through an intermediate DB. But it's a result of the definition I mentioned - though maybe i wasn't clear enough WR...

AlecK

- earth fault on item 1 - open-circuit PEC in item 1 - earth fault on item 2 - open-circuit PEC in item 2 That's not just 4 simultaneous faults; but a particular combination of faults. Plus a fifth condition: that the two items are simultaneously accessible. It's true this scenario could result in a...

AlecK

There isn't any. And the scenario proposed, of a hazard arising from two Class I single phase appliances plugged into different phases , and with simultaneous earth fault isn't valid. Assuming the normal fault protection by automatic disconnection, then for each appliance the disconnection occurs wi...

AlecK

We use these Exceptions so often that we tend to forget that they are Exceptions.

AlecK

True in 2000 edition the "access' and 'egress' requirements were in different clauses. And true in that edition there was a 0.6 m requirement "around switchboards' that was under the "emergency exit" heading. Nothing about open doors etc. Also nothing at all to explain what "adequate space' for acce...

AlecK

Can only approach this in [NZ] context; as i have no experience or detailed knowledge of earlier [A] only Wiring Rules

AlecK

First the rules as they are now for new work. Correct that the default requirement [2.5.1.2]is overcurrent protection (both overload and short circuit) at origin of circuit; and at each reduction of CCC . Three Exceptions listed, with "pointers" to the relevant details (which are in following clause...

AlecK

That fail is simply because - as you already established - the voltage A-E is only 115 V As such; an EFLI tester designed for 230 V will not commence the test. An EFLI tester works by applying a known resistor across a measured voltage for a limited time; in order to then calculate the impedance of ...

AlecK

Those readings are typical of a supply from a 2-phase 180 degree supply, eg from an genset with "centre-tapped" winding. Assuming this is on an MEN supply; that is probably coincidence. But it shows that leaping to the "obvious" conclusion isn't a valid fault-finding technique. So far you know the d...

AlecK

From Wiring rules perspective; no problem with having wiring for one installation rune through part(s) of structure where another installation is located. And in this case, it's all same installation anyway. Being separate titles, likely an easement or equivalent arrangement will be needed , for any...

AlecK

I think that's a reasonable approach.

AlecK

I suppose you have to do what the boss wants.
Unless it is non-compliant.

AlecK

I agree that a person carrying out inspection has a moral obligation to provide advice to installers, even for matters outside the strict limits of the high risk PEW they have been contracted to inspect. Energy Safety (Worksafe) have made it clear that they see Inspectors as having a mentoring role ...

AlecK

Since this boat has an on-board tx; the only relevant clause is 5.5.6. Neither your post nor Camel007's includes any justification for preferring the tx case be earthed to boat's earthing system'; which is contrary to the underlying requirement of AS/NZS 3000 that it be earthed to the circuit that s...

Search found 914 matches