Great demo as usual. One small note , most colleges will tech that for insulation resistance testing (where a voltage above 50v dc is being applied) is subject to the recommendations of GS38 with regard to leads and probes. This is backed up by GN3 1.1 Page 12.
Sorry guys but this is a very misleading video! Uc is the nominal voltage of an SPD and absolutely NOT the voltage at which it will trigger, it's wrong to say that. The Up is the key figure to be looking for in an SPD, this is the voltage protection level and is the true indicator for the level at which the device will clamp voltage to protect the installation. All you are doing is measuring the nominal voltage that the device is capable of working up to. No single pole type 2 will trigger at 269V and it's very misleading to suggest that they will. In fact any transient below the Up level of the device will pass through, this is because in table 443.2 (Rated Impulse Voltages) even to most sensitive electronic equipment has to have a built in withstand capability of 1.5kV so there would no point in an SPD triggering at such a low level as 269V. This gives electricians (and then their customers) an unrealistic impression of what an over voltage device can do and is making them believe that they can easily test an SPD to prove to a customer that it's working. Sadly most SPD's can only be checked via a visual inspection, this test here is NOT proving that the SPD is operating to it's designed specification because for that you must test the Up value. BSEN 61643-11 gives the testing protocols for SPD's.
@@MrSJT no, the 'trigger' voltage is the voltage protection level usually written as Up on the specification sheet, typically this will be around 1500v in the UK (some higher some lower) the 500V test does not damage the SPD, the SPD can give lead to a false reading so in some cases needs to be disconnected, however there are now a number of SPD's that can be left in place for this test and will not affect the reading such as DEHNguard ACI.
Nice very informative video but maybe in the future the SPD should be incorporated in the DNO Master Switch module so therefore becoming the District Network Operator's responsibility and standard fit for new and modified installations
… and why would the DNO do that? (Also, they’re wear items, they are going to need replacing every few years. If that has to be done by the DNO it will either not be done or be super expensive. Seems pretty terrible to me.)
Muito bom , eu ainda não tinha visto nenhum equipamento que fazia teste em varistor. Poderiam tiram duas dúvidas, o ensaio é realizado com o circuito alimentado ou desligado? Esse ensaio é apenas para o Classe-II ou pode ser feito para os Classe I e I+II onde (I) geralmente é um centelhador à gás. Obrigado ...
Very well presented video, thanks guys. Couldn't help but notice the 3x circular cables passing through the same stuffing gland... decidedly un-british if you ask me :-)
It’s a regulation requirement that the meter tails are the main earth go through the same entry point on metallic CUs so as to avoid eddy current. It’s not in British it’s very British. The gland is made persivicly for that purpose.
For those of us who do not own one of these all singing and dancing mft’s, could a standard insulation resistance tester be used to test below the uc value and again above the uc value. (Eg @ 250vdc then again @ 500vdc) then we would expect an infinite reading at 250v, and a short at 500v between line and neutral?
We did just that in this video. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Pkquh_0JuDQ.html You can at least prove it’s in circuit and functioning.
Lovely stuff. Quick question, Gs38 applies above 50V ac and 100V dc, you are testing at 430V dc, 528V dc etc. Surely that means gs38 applies to the leads?
@@muzikman2008 yet GS38 requires that we have shrouds on the test probes of our two pole voltage indicator even though we use it mainly to prove dead .
Great video again. In the second spd the measurement passes through the varistor on the live and the gdt on the neutral side, correct? Are these tests non-destructive to the spds?
MOVs can only sustain very short transient faults, have a limited lifetime and may burst into flames. Putting such devices into a consumer unit is madness, but the real reason is to protect AFDDs. Most other sensitive electronics in a house would have their own protection built in or in a distribution block which can easily be replaced. There are better protection devices replacing MOVs now, one is an ISOMOV which combines MOVs with a gas discharge tube and which does not have the disadvantages of MOVs.
There are Spd 1+1 (1 cartridge MOV, the other is GDT) . The GDT one should be connected between N and PE. Here in Romania, on newer TNC-S panels, at request, 1+1 or 3+1 Spd's(yes, residential homes on tri-phased systems, starting from 5KW power). On TT ones, 2+0, 4+0...
Nice vid,. I am lookin into forms on p158-159 of Guide not 3 they tested SPD at 250, I wonder to know what voltage applied? Could you please make a video to show haw value in pages 158- 159 of guide note 3 , regarding continuty and insulation resistance measured? Thanks
Hello. A query, what tolerance values could be applied for the Uc of the SPD to compare the Uac obtained in the test? Will this tolerance data be indicated in IEC 61643-11? For example DEHN has a value tolerance table for its SPDs Cheers
Wow that’s is very interesting . Always wondered if theses things can be tested , would it be the same for AFDs ? Fantastic video guy’s as always 👍👍👍❤️⚡️
I am a bit confused. Watching a E5 video the end of last week. The young lady who works for an SPD manufacturer. Said that the SPD should be close to the main switch and before breakers. RCBOs,etc. this was to stop the high voltage posible taking an easier path.
