Getting sign off on DIY :)

[John D v2.0]

I spent 5k on a car, 300+k on a house, but you're having a laugh of you expect me to pay even 1k for electrical test equipment.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No - I am not laughing, because you are not remotely funny.

 

[scousespark]

Maybe, and one can try to promote that idea (as you do), although you'll probably get some criticism from people who feel that nothing but 'proper testing' is adequate.

However, the fact is that how far DIYers "should go with I &T" and how far the great majority of them do (or ever will) "go" are (one might say 'unfortunately') two totally different issues. There are obviously a few exceptions (not the least in this forum) but the great majority of 'electrical DIYers' will be people who, probably only once every few years, may replace a light switch, add a socket to a circuit or somesuch.

Kind Regards, John

I would turn his around and ask under what circumstances would you say that it's adequate to not carry out 'proper testing'? Testing is such a critical part of the job, the C&G decided decades ago that it needed it's own qualification. Until the tests are carried out, how do any of us 'know' the installation is safe? I'm not having a go at you, just raising the question. Happy New Year John.

 

[JohnW2]

I would turn his around and ask under what circumstances would you say that it's adequate to not carry out 'proper testing'?

Good to see you, and Happy New Year to you, too.

This is incredibly well-trodden ground, so I'll try to be as brief as possible in going over the ground yet again.

For the reasons you go on to state, it is clearly undesirable that there should ever be a failure to undertake 'proper testing'.

However, much as some (maybe even you) will argue, there is, IMO, a need for realism/pragmatism, unless one totally bans DIY electrical work (and effectively polices that ban). A very small proportion of 'electrical DIYers' (some of whom are represented in this forum) undertake fairly 'major' work, and I would imagine/hope that most of these actually do undertake 'proper testing' (or something pretty close). However, the great majority are those who very occasionally undertake minor electrical work.

The reality is that most of that majority will probably not undertake any significant testing at all (other than a "does it work?" test, if you call that a test) - which leads to a dilemma in a forum such as this. What do you think we should do? Should we refuse to answer any question unless we are assured (and believe that assurance) that the OP concerned has the equipment, knowledge and skills to undertake full 'proper testing', or what?

We can, and often do, advise people of the need for testing, but I imagine that such advice usually achieves nothing - particularly when it is suggested that someone who very occasionally undertakes very minor work should invest in £000s of testing kit (and learn to use it and interpret the results). In that situation, Eric's view that 'some testing is better than no testing' would seem a pragmatic, even if non-ideal, approach. Do I take it that you disagree and, if so, what would you suggest?

Kind Regards, John

 

[John D v2.0]

Edit: mine and johnw2's posts came in at the same moment, but I think he said pretty much all I was going to say!:


I think we need to look at testing as a hierarchy. Then we can discuss cost vs risk more easily. This is the model we have to use for software testing as exhaustive testing is prohibitively expensive for all but trivial systems, which a domestic electric install would fall into if it were software.

The cheapest option in approximate order is: no testing, then functional testing, then continuity yes/no testing, then loop resistance and IR testing, then inspection/physical checking, then load/stress testing would be the most expensive.

Clearly the minimum level a DIY person would do would be functional testing, but even the proper testing decreed in the british standards wouldn't find everything that the last two points would find. For example I can think of connections that became faulty under extended periods of load in one of our lighting circuits that apparently tested ok, and rodent insulation removal is a common non compliance that goes undetected by standard testing once the original fault has cleared.

My point that testing is always a balance of cost vs risk, and we should help people to strive for the highest level of testing possible to them to maximise the safety. Following the standards is the ideal level, but even cheapo socket testers are better than nothing for a diy socket change. We shouldn't have an attitude of you either test properly or you're on your own, and not advocate anything in between. However I agree we shouldn't imply they are fine and as good as the tests we'd do with proper equipment.