voltage on back box

[hodpodge]

There’s a load somewhere that you’ve forgotten about. Tv amp in the loft? Outside light? All sorts. I’d not be squirting 500v DC up R1&R2 before going a lot of other things first. If there is still a load somewhere it’s probably dead now.

Its a two up two down definitely no loads attached, i checked the loft for tv amps and all leds, outside lamps ,ballasts etc disconnected

 

[RF Lighting]

i swapped the rcbo for a 6amp mcb and the lights are working.

You must put the RCBO back immediately. If it is tripping it is because you have a fault.
You must find the fault using traditional fault finding methods. Jabbing about on unsafe live equipment is dangerous and unacceptable.

 

[Taylortwocities]

Whilst I agree with your comment in general, what's all this talk about "R1 & R2"

He wrote

i nearly fell over when i read it, R1 to Rn >999 on the meter, R1 to R2 0.2

That’s where he zapped R1 to R2.

 

[JohnW2]

He wrote ..... That’s where he zapped R1 to R2.

Yes, I know he did. I wasn't getting at you for repeating/perpetuating his terminology but was commenting on the fact that he had used it in the first place - after all, what (without invoking "we knew what he meant"!) would/does "zapping R1 to R2" mean, given that those terms conventionally relate to resistances?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Taylortwocities]

I had read that it was part of his 500v IR testing. Maybe I read it wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time.

 

[JohnW2]

I had read that it was part of his 500v IR testing. Maybe I read it wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time.

That's how I read it, too, but that doesn't alter my comment - what would you understand "R1 to R2" to mean in the context of 500V IR testing?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

what would you understand "R1 to R2" to mean in the context of 500V IR testing?

More in the context of a circuit:

R1 and R2 - Line conductor and CPC respectively on a radial circuit. ???

As you say, it, strictly speaking is the resistances of the two.
If R1 is the resistance of the Line conductor, then surely the '1' and '2' do refer to the conductors.

Also Rn; 'n' for the neutral which the OP used - and so do I but I remember you previously querying this.

 

[JohnW2]

More in the context of a circuit: R1 and R2 - Line conductor and CPC respectively on a radial circuit. ??? As you say, it, strictly speaking is the resistances of the two. ... If R1 is the resistance of the Line conductor, then surely the '1' and '2' do refer to the conductors.

Sure, as I implied, "We all knew what he meant" - but I would have thought you would have been one of the first people to (a) dismiss the "We all knew what he meant" and (b) suggest that someone who used terminology which correctly related to resistances to refer to conductors 'should be corrected', wouldn't you?

Also Rn; 'n' for the neutral which the OP used - and so do I but I remember you previously querying this.

Had I been/got involved in the thread at that time, I would probably have mentioned "Rn" as well - but I only felt moved to comment when TTC (who obviously 'knows better') perpetuated the incorrect use of terminology (but only in relation to R1 and R2).

Kind Regards, John

 

[Taylortwocities]

Aargh. I see. Apologies.
no probs. Head thought R1&Rn.…
Must be getting old.
Bed time.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Sure, as I implied, "We all knew what he meant" - but I would have thought you would have been one of the first people to (a) dismiss the "We all knew what he meant" and (b) suggest that someone who used terminology which correctly related to resistances to refer to conductors 'should be corrected', wouldn't you?

Fair comment.

I must stop being so tolerant.