PAT (testing)

[stillp]

No, it doesn't. Unfortunately there are many "testing companies" whose idea of testing is to plug an appliance into the tester and look for a green light on each test.
My ex-employer once used one of these; a pensioner couple who had bought a PAT tester on ebay to boost their pension income. She wrote dates on labels, while he plugged things in and pushed the test button. About 35p per item IIRC.

 

[JohnW2]

No, it doesn't. Unfortunately there are many "testing companies" whose idea of testing is to plug an appliance into the tester and look for a green light on each test.

Indeed.

I'm still a bit confused about the intended scope of PATs. I've done a fair bit of Googling and cannot find anything which isn't about matters of electrical safety. ... It obviously makes sense that there should be checks/tests of the ongoing mechanical safety of any sort of 'machinery' - but that applies equally to some hand tools and, in particular, petrol- or hydraulic-powered ones - but they clearly don't come within the scope of a 'PAT' as we understand it. I therefore still wonder if a "PAT", per se, is meant to check the mechanical, as well as electrical, safety of the portable items concerned.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

I don't have my IET Code of Practice to hand, but will have a look tomorrow. ISTR there is and element of risk assessment, so an unguarded fan would be a failure if it was a high-powered fan with metal bladed, but my unguarded rubber-bladed low speed desk fan would be OK.

 

[JohnW2]

I don't have my IET Code of Practice to hand, but will have a look tomorrow. ISTR there is and element of risk assessment, so an unguarded fan would be a failure if it was a high-powered fan with metal bladed, but my unguarded rubber-bladed low speed desk fan would be OK.

Thanks. As I've said, that makes total sense - my uncertainty is as to whether, in formal terms, that comes within the scope of a PAT. In other words, whilst I would certainly expect a tester to bring mechanically dangerous things to the attention of the owner, I was not sure whether it was intended that such things should result in a 'PAT fail'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Spark123]

Yep, the 4th edn of the code of practice does go along the risk assessment route.
PATs don't really include non electrical apparatus but as with everything it is up to the duty holder of the company to ensure all machinery is maintained in a safe condition - PUWER, HASWA and so on.

 

[JohnW2]

Yep, the 4th edn of the code of practice does go along the risk assessment route. ... PATs don't really include non electrical apparatus but as with everything it is up to the duty holder of the company to ensure all machinery is maintained in a safe condition - PUWER, HASWA and so on.

Yes, I realise that a company has a responsibility in relation to non-electrical aspects of the safety of their equipment, and therefore that some periodic checking/testing of such matters is required, but, as I've said, I did not know whether that came within the scope/remit of a "PAT", as we know it. Judging by some of the stories we hear about PATing, I certainly wouldn't want to take a 'PAT pass' to be an indication that an item of equipment was necessarily mechanically safe!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

I wouldn't assume that a PAT label means the item is electrically safe either, unless I knew the person responsible.

 

[JohnW2]

I wouldn't assume that a PAT label means the item is electrically safe either, unless I knew the person responsible.

Fair point!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Many years ago when I went to take the PAT testing exam the lacquerer said we are trained to inspect and test the electrical parts but non electrical parts we have no training in so to include non electrical parts would mean we would not have the warranty of skill.

It is "Testing and inspection of in-service electrical equipment" if you look at some of the portable items I have tested for example a batching plant which arrived on 22 wagons clearly portable the road wheels were still in place it took 3 man two days to service which included testing all the door switches worked and no motor would run when safety gates were open. But it did not include checking for concrete build up which may fall off or bearing condition the fitters did this at the same time. Although they would point out to us electrical items and we point out to them mechanical items officially all we did was the electrical tests and inspection.

As I have said before in many firms we as electricians have been told to include missing guards but that was the firms special instructions it was not part of PAT testing. The safety officer made a good point if the guard is missing we should not power it up and since powering up is part of the test we can't test it until the guard is fitted.

There were many guards on that batching plant and it was not always obvious why they were there. However we were not the designers and we did not need to know why it was there if missing then it needed replacing before we could run the plant.

The question is the side of the computer there to guard or make it look good. If the latter running without it fitted is not a problem. If it's there to guard then you should not use the device end of story.

As I have said some times we can't see why covers are in place. Working on a microwave cooker we would not dream of running without covers yet there is no visible danger. We know computers run at high frequency and we know RF is both generated and can affect devices within the computer. It is noted even plastic computers have metal shields I would assume to stop RF either getting out or into the computer.

If I have a wave meter or other test instrument to inspect for RF being radiated then yes I can test and say it's OK without corer or the cover needs fitting. But without that wave meter I have no way to know if the tin side is part of a Faraday cage or just to make it look nice. So answer is simple no side fail the computer.

 

[JohnW2]

Many years ago when I went to take the PAT testing exam the lacquerer said we are trained to inspect and test the electrical parts but non electrical parts we have no training in so to include non electrical parts would mean we would not have the warranty of skill. ... It is "Testing and inspection of in-service electrical equipment" ... As I have said before in many firms we as electricians have been told to include missing guards but that was the firms special instructions it was not part of PAT testing.

That's essentially was I had thought.

The safety officer made a good point if the guard is missing we should not power it up and since powering up is part of the test we can't test it until the guard is fitted.

Yes, that's a good point, IF the guard is required for safety. It's a bit like the early days of MOTs, which involved road driving - and they effectively 'failed' vehicles for things which were not officially part of the test in those days, by saying that the car was not safe enough to drive, and therefore couldn't be tested. Whether or not that includes things like the absent side of PC is obviously open to debate - I'm not at all that the MIs for a PC say that it is unsafe to use with the cover off - particularly given that it obviously is 'safe'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[plugwash]

As I have said before in many firms we as electricians have been told to include missing guards but that was the firms special instructions it was not part of PAT testing. The safety officer made a good point if the guard is missing we should not power it up and since powering up is part of the test we can't test it until the guard is fitted.

I think the key thing here is that "PAT testing" is a means to an end. The end being ensuring safety.

IMO to maximise safety everyone involved in the risk assesment and management process needs to work together. If you see something you think is wrong but is outside your area of expertise then it needs to be reported to someone who can make the descision. Sadly all too often PAT testing is seen as a "tick in a box" done by a PAT testing firm whose only connection with the firm is that some high up beuracrat hired them.

The question is the side of the computer there to guard or make it look good. If the latter running without it fitted is not a problem. If it's there to guard then you should not use the device end of story.

Well there are different levels of gaurding.

There is gaurding to protect the operator against serious injury or death.
There is guarding to protect against minor injury (low power fans, sharp edges etc) and/or equipment damage.
There is gaurding against electromagnetic interference.

The case on a modern PC is clearly not needed for the first reason but it often is serving as a gaurd for the second reason and it is nearly always serving as a gaurd for the third reason.

We know computers run at high frequency and we know RF is both generated

Not at any level that would present a hazard to users.

 

[JohnW2]

There is gaurding to protect the operator against serious injury or death.
There is guarding to protect against minor injury (low power fans, sharp edges etc) and/or equipment damage.
There is gaurding against electromagnetic interference.
... The case on a modern PC is clearly not needed for the first reason but it often is serving as a gaurd for the second reason and it is nearly always serving as a gaurd for the third reason.

A Google search for "Plastic Computer Case" appears to get over 2 million hits

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And I can't see how a plastic case would block EMR.

An earthed metal one, on the other hand...

 

[JohnW2]

And I can't see how a plastic case would block EMR. An earthed metal one, on the other hand...

Very perceptive - that was, of course, my point

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

And I can't see how a plastic case would block EMR.

An earthed metal one, on the other hand...

They can be conductive plastic, or metal-sprayed.