PAT testing a new computer

[Grizzly]

When I did my Portable Appliance Testing course last year, I asked about brand new appliances. Short answer was that , you should trust the manufacturer. But...... probably needs to be tested to cover your own back.

Agreed.

However...

Just remember, with IT equipment, you should only test the mains cables, not the IT equipment itself.

... is complete bobbins.

If you have a PAT instrument capable of performing 'soft' tests for IT kit, then there is no reason why the appliance shouldn't be tested, rather than just the supply cord.

If, on the other hand, you are unaware of what these soft tests are, or don't know if your tester can do them or not, you shouldn't be doing the testing in the first place. Or should have paid more attention to the training course, and the IEE CoP!

 

[plugwash]

I can't see, by any stretch of the imagination, how you can justify NOT testing the computer's PSU.

One justification you could use is that you belive the manufacturers testing is adequte for iniitial testing and you will no longer have the machine by the time it needs re-testing (afaict reccomended test interval for such equipment is 5 years).

 

[Spark123]

What is Portable Appliance Testing testing?

I don't know, however if you are trying to rubbish the terminology to try and justify it for your own means then go and crawl back into your hole.
PA testing can mean different things whereas I think everyone in industry know what PAT testing is.
Our interpretation of the above is Portable Appliance Test all appliances (and register) before being put into service. This is the whole lot, not just the mains lead.
Most modern PAT testers will carry out a low current test for IT equipment. There is no justification for not doing it.

 

[Hibbo]

What is Portable Appliance Testing testing?

I don't know, however if you are trying to rubbish the terminology to try and justify it for your own means then go and crawl back into your hole.
PA testing can mean different things whereas I think everyone in industry know what PAT testing is.
Our interpretation of the above is Portable Appliance Test all appliances (and register) before being put into service. This is the whole lot, not just the mains lead.
Most modern PAT testers will carry out a low current test for IT equipment. There is no justification for not doing it.

What on earth are you talking about? In what way could my comments possibly be seen as 'trying to justify (anything) for my own means'?

All I was saying is that the phrase 'PAT testing' is an affront to the English language, along with all forms of redundant acronyms such as;

"ABS system" - Antilock Braking System system
"PIN number" - Personal Identification Number number
"RAM memory" - Random Access Memory
etc etc etc.

Portable Appliance Testing is great, PAT testing is a not.

 

[martinxxxxxx]

"ABS system" - Antilock Braking System system
"PIN number" - Personal Identification Number number
"RAM memory" - Random Access Memory

How are the above in any way an affront to the ENGLISH language? There may be a small amount of redundancy having the last word included in the acronyms.

They just provide a way of making things easy to say, Imagine if every checkout operator had to say "Please enter your Personal Identification Number" all day due to your dislike of abbreviations.

I think they would soon get fed up go back to using PIN number please. It is more expedient.

Are you a supporter of the SNP Party?

Martin

 

[Hibbo]

"Please enter you PIN" It's simple!

That's the whole point of an acronym; to save having to say or write the whole phrase. This is partially defeated by repeating the last word as in "PAT testing".

It is an affront to the English language (why did you write 'English' in capitals?) because it is just plain wrong.

I absolutely do not support the SNP party, they are a bunch of idiots. However I may give a vote to the UKIP independance party if they field a candidate in my constituency.

 

[Grizzly]

Good grief!

Does every thread about PAT on electrical forums have to be hijacked by tedious pedants who bang on about "Portable Appliance Testing testing"?

"An affront to the English langauge"? What cobblers.
Look up 'RAS syndrome' to see why using these terms is sometimes beneficial.

 

[ericmark]

As to the inspection and testing of in-service electrical equipment the law does not say how or when it should be done. It does however say you must maintain the equipment in a safe condition and to do what is referred to as ‘PAT’ testing allows one to comply.
As to new equipment most is batch tested so it is possible to have a faulty appliance even when new. However unlikely to be dangerous. But most guarantees are for one year and to test after some time has elapsed means it is far harder to return under guarantee for manufacture faults.
It is also required to have an equipment register and to log any trends without having the readings at new condition this is not easy.
Since every new item will need all details adding to equipment register and assigning some unique ID it would seem appropriate to also test. With some computer systems that is the easiest way to enter items into the system.
One may have to remove from service items, which are incorrectly marked. Likely no fault but because it is not marked as having an isolating transformer or being double insulated one could not permit it to be used commercially. When new this resulted in return to supplier and normally they would then get the required stickers and return them for use. (This is common with computers where the power supply has an attached label which is not visible once fitted but has a second one in box to be attached to outside of enclosure which the builder has failed to attach) Faults of this nature are very hard to redress one year after delivery.

It is also possible that during the electrical inspection other faults are found. On one job we had a batch of Bosch angle grinders which would allow the switch to be latched. Because are motors over a set size it needs to be arranged so if there is a power cut they will not restart when power is returned. These could not be used as supplied. Either something like an active RCD had to be fitted, or a switch which could not be latched on. Whole batch was returned and another make, which had non latch-able switches was got instead. Had the new items not been inspected then it would have likely cost the firm to have corrected the fault.

The same grinder could be used DIY without breaking any rules so just because it’s made that way does not mean it’s OK. The same with a batch of PC’s with TV/Video cards, which would at the time mean the firm would need to buy TV licences. (Rules now changed) again great for home use not so good in the office.

So I would say not required to ‘PAT’ test new but is advisable to ‘PAT’ test new equipment.

 

[conny]

That's the whole point of an acronym; to save having to say or write the whole phrase. This is partially defeated by repeating the last word as in "PAT testing".

may give a vote to the UKIP independance party

You were saying?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

 

[Grizzly]

That's the whole point of an acronym; to save having to say or write the whole phrase. This is partially defeated by repeating the last word as in "PAT testing".

may give a vote to the UKIP independance party

You were saying?

Ha! Good spot!

 

[conny]

Also,

It is an affront to the English language

followed by,

independance

instead of independence.

 

[crystal ball]

Mmmm Hoisted by one's own petard

 

[conny]

Mmmm Hoisted by one's own petard

Sounds painful!

 

[Hibbo]

That's the whole point of an acronym; to save having to say or write the whole phrase. This is partially defeated by repeating the last word as in "PAT testing".

may give a vote to the UKIP independance party

You were saying?

Woooooosssshhhhhh! That's the sound of my rather obvious joke going right over your head. I was going to write "UKIP party", but I thought I'd make it even more obvious by repeating not just the last but the last two words of the acronym, but obviously this wasn't obvious enough!

Fair one about my spelling though; it's never been the best.