It's going to take me a while to wrap my head around this one.
Trying to put my mind in the same place as those who wrote the regulations.
Al I can say is one cannot really blame electricians for not interpreting the regulations correctly.
A point of control to turn off the power to an installation is sometimes a point of control, other times not, and when it's not, it is similar to one, but not one.
All somewhat confusing and I'll need a lot more time to try and understand it all.
An easy way is to think of it from an access point to isolate supply
If you receive power from Eskom you don't have access/ shouldn't have access to the sub station or kiosk as it is locked and so you need a point to be able to isolate ( control) so you can work on the installation safely
Like wise in shopping centers the tenant does not have access to the main D/Boards and so need that point to control the supply
If you have your own generator you have access to switch off and work safely .
From a responsibility point of view it is basically the same , or writing a COC for a tenant in a shopping centre - The sparky cannot be expected to start testing back in the sub station to get readings - He needs a point where he can start from and everybody knows where that point was that he tested at ( Point of Control)
In a installation with genset and no Eskom supply - you can start testing at the genset as you have access
Also, look at the definition: "3.9 Certificate of Compliance Coc certificate that is issued by a registered person in respect of an electrical installation or part of an electrical installation". Here the definition doesn't mention from the point of control or point of consumption. So I guess if it transfers electricity or generates electricity and it is permanently connected to the installation it must be included in the CoC?
I see generators and inverters as a second and third supply to the electrical installation after Eskom. They must go through a point of control so that you can isolate them when needed and also too protect the installation if something goes BOEM!
3.58 defines the point of supply and a supply is only a supply when it has a supplier per point of definition
Now if an inverter is connected to Eskom is the inverter a supply, since it is connected to a supplier, or a generator?
Is a supply but is not supplied by the supplier.
"The supply" refers to supply from utility. In the absence of a utility "supply", SANS is not applicable to any installation. That is the bottom line. Irrespective of how you generate your power, be in an inverter, generator, windmill or waterwheel, on your private property SANS has no say if there is not a utility supply. It would be stupid but, you may legally wire your house with ripcord.
Your are correct, the inverter system with all of it's components like batteries, panels, wind turbines etc. do not form part of the COC. Their cables, terminations and protective/isolating devices do however for part of it.
If you feel the need to make a statement as wild as you have, please back it with fact.Originally Posted by Sparks
One of your previous posts , https://www.theforumsa.co.za/forums/...ance-explained , showed understanding of the regulations but this statement made above is wild and reckless
SANS 10142 covers all electrical installations up to 1000vac and 1500vdc - Voltages above are covered in SANS 10142-2
Extract from SNAS 10142-1
SANS 10142-1:2024
Edition 3.2
24
1.2 Aspects covered by this part of SANS 10142
This part of SANS 10142 covers
a) circuits supplied at nominal voltages up to and including 1 000 V a.c. or
1 500 V d.c. The standard frequency for a.c. is 50 Hz. The use of other
frequencies for special purposes is not excluded,
b) circuits, other than the internal wiring of apparatus, that operate at voltages
exceeding 1 000 V and are derived from an installation that has a voltage
not exceeding 1 000 V a.c.,
c) any wiring systems and cables not specifically covered by the standards
for appliances,
d) all consumer installations external to buildings,
e) fixed wiring in the power supply circuits for telecommunication equipment,
signalling equipment, control equipment and the like (excluding internal
wiring of apparatus),
f) the extension or alteration of the installation and also parts of the existing
installation affected by the existing extension or alteration,
g) fixed wiring needed to connect the various units of complex machinery that
are installed in separate locations,
h) equipment for which no standard is referenced,
i) replacement or maintenance of components, and
j) earthing arrangements.
1.3 Where this part of SANS 10142 is not applicable
This part of SANS 10142 does not apply to
a) electric traction equipment,
b) automotive electrical equipment excluding the caravan part of a roving
vehicle,
c) electrical installations on board ships,
d) electrical installations in aircrafts,
e) electrical installations for underground and open cast mining operations,
f) telecommunication, television and radio circuits (excluding the power
supply to such equipment),
g) external lightning protection of buildings and structures as it is covered by
SANS 10313, and
h) extra low voltage control circuits between different parts of machinery or
system components, forming a unit, that are separately installed and
derived from an independent source or an isolating transformer (excluding
ELV lighting circuits).
I was once requested to supply a COC for the transfer of a house in a rural setting.
The house did not have any electrical installation and was not connected to the utility.
The transferring attorneys insisted on a COC so I sent them a blank one, everything crossed out except for address and my particulars and in section 3 I just wrote " no electrical installation" with a smiley face. They accepted it and the transfer went through.
These discussions about SANS 10142 are very similar to discussions one might have with a flat earther.
With each and every scenario, the flat earther will have a model to suite that scenario, but there's no one model that suites all the different scenarios.
Some scenarios can be proven to be right in one part of SANS 10142 but wrong when relying on other parts.
SANS 10142 should be simplified to prevent the need for anyone to have to rely on their own interpretation of the law and it's intended purpose and to stay on the right side of the law.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.