Generator Installations and EIC issue

[ban-all-sheds]

I think the phrase "could reasonably be expected to know", or an equivalent, would appear in any proceedings were the installer was gripping the rail.

So a large installation, hundreds of cables? No.

A qualified electrician installing a generator with no earthing of its own? Yes.

 

[JohnW2]

I think the phrase "could reasonably be expected to know", or an equivalent, would appear in any proceedings were the installer was gripping the rail. So a large installation, hundreds of cables? No. A qualified electrician installing a generator with no earthing of its own? Yes.

Totally agreed - although, as I've just written, my expectations might be greater if, as in the case in point, the qualified electrician was also responsible for inspection and testing. How can one 'inspect and test' an installation that one doesn't fully understand, particularly if one does not even understand the requirements for such an installation?

Kidn Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Plenty of DIs do it all the time.

 

[Simon35]

On a large installation, hundreds of cables, would you expect the installation contractor to take responsibility for a design they have had no part in?

No, I wouldn't necessarily expect that ... but nor would I expect an installer to do something which they believed was wrong, particularly if they considered it to be dangerous, just because they had been told to do it - and I don't think a court would, either.

Having said that, in the case we are discussing, the OP tells us that he is responsible not only for installation but also for the inspection and testing, which rather shifts the goalposts. How can one meaningfully 'inspect and test' if one does not have a good understanding of the design, and of the design requirements? Indeed, the OP's original questions illustrate this problem, don't they?

Kind Regards, John.

If the contractor was working for me, I would expect them to refer their concerns back to me (the designer). Under CDM regs, it is the responsibility of the designer to eliminate hazards.

If the contractor is also the designer, then as you say, its his responsibility.

I think the problem in this case is that no-one has "designed" it.

 

[Simon35]

I think the phrase "could reasonably be expected to know", or an equivalent, would appear in any proceedings were the installer was gripping the rail.

So a large installation, hundreds of cables? No.

A qualified electrician installing a generator with no earthing of its own? Yes.

Good phrase that, "gripping the rail".

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[JohnW2]

If the contractor was working for me, I would expect them to refer their concerns back to me (the designer). Under CDM regs, it is the responsibility of the designer to eliminate hazards.

Indeed, and that requires/presupposes that the installer is capable of identifying relevant concerns. More importantly, if the contractor has serious concerns about what (s)he has been asked to do, (s)he should refuse to do it.

I think the problem in this case is that no-one has "designed" it.

It does rather seem that way - in which case the buck probably has nowhere to stop other than with the installer.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[SgtTrojan]

How can one meaningfully 'inspect and test' if one does not have a good understanding of the design, and of the design requirements? Indeed, the OP's original questions illustrate this problem, don't they?

Indeed. Indeed.

Gripping the rail

OOh you know how to turn me on Sheds

So it appears that it "may" be the case that generator earthing, independent of the protective conductor connecting to the MET, is required but so far we have no connection with any law, document or British Standard.

We could argue, (wrong word) debate, the instances that in the absence of the earthing conductor or the DNO earthing arrangement failure that the standard domestic residence should be installed with not one but two earthing conductors, just in case? On a healthy installation the generator is connected to the MET so it will (gritted teeth - reliance on the design) provide fault protection as required.

Please don't take me the wrong way by the way. Earthing is without doubt my favourite topic and gaining knowledge to take to the client is my intention.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

OOh you know how to turn me on Sheds

I said "rail".








Not "railgun" http://www.military.com/video/guns/naval-guns/railgun-update-from-general-atomics/904431955001/

 

[Alarm]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooo nice weapon

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Hard to conceal though

 

[Alarm]

Paint it green and call it a vacuum cleaner

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Mmm.

There's still a lot to be said for conventional technology though

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-3-28_A-10_Gun_on_test_stand.WMV

Will they ever get a railgun into a plane?

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/A10 Strafing Run.avi

Or a helicopter?

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-3-28_Helii_gatlinggun.wmv

 

[JohnW2]

So it appears that it "may" be the case that generator earthing, independent of the protective conductor connecting to the MET, is required but so far we have no connection with any law, document or British Standard.

Is that the 'royal we'? You may not have 'a connection' but how about, for starters, 551.4.3.2.1 of BS761:2008, which says:

Protection by automatic disconnection of supply shall not rely upon the connection to the earthed point of the system for the distribution of electricity to the public when the generator is operating as a switched alternative to a TN system. A suitable means of earthing shall be provided.

That seems fairly clear. In fact, if you are interested in installing generators, all the 40+ subsections of 551 of BS7671 might be of interest to you.

On a healthy installation the generator is connected to the MET so it will (gritted teeth - reliance on the design) provide fault protection as required.

See above. Furthermore, the path that fault currents will take is totally dependent upon 'what is connected to what' at the generator end?

Kind Regards, John.