Not sure how I feel about this.

[mendip_discovery]

Today a Kewtech EzyPATplus (shudders at the name) came in. While testing it I looked through the bag of accessories with it and I found the item below. I am not sure what the point of it is, but even worse... what is it doing in a PAT testing kit.



FYI it is the Earth pin from a 3-pin UK mains plug, once inserted this allows the gates on the live and neutral connections to be accessed.

[themadhippy]

what is it doing in a PAT testing kit.

testing the earth  impedance on extension leads?

[mendip_discovery]

what is it doing in a PAT testing kit.

testing the earth  impedance on extension leads?

Don't they just use the Red IEC lead (kettle lead ) that comes in most PAT testing kits and plug that into the extension lead. Given that the PAT testing training I have seen is actually rather basic and rubbish I don't think it is wise to let people have something that could expose them to harmful voltages.

[coppice]

With a lot of modern UK sockets, pushing in an earth pin alone doesn't work. There needs to be something pushing into the live and/or neutral holes as well for the shutters to open.

[themadhippy]

Don't they just use the Red IEC lead (kettle lead ) that comes in most PAT testing kits and plug that into the extension lead

Bloody fancy modern test gear,the kit ive used never had such luxury,just a 13A socket and  socket for your earth test  clip.

[Halcyon]

Not exactly on-topic, but to me (as a non-expert outsider), this whole PAT testing seems largely a licence to make money for nothing. I'll stop short of calling it a scam.

Companies and government agencies waste thousands upon thousands of dollars every year for what is basically pointless and could essentially be carried out by a visual inspection. There might be some merit to it in some industrial or high-risk workplaces where cables are frequently being moved or used in harsh environments.

Correct me if I'm wrong or being too harsh here. If it were that important, it would be mandated somewhere.

[themadhippy]

this whole PAT testing seems largely a licence to make money for nothing.

No no no,its there to ensure the safety of the worker,and that class 2 monitor that never gets moved really does need testing every year,honestly.

If it were that important, it would be mandated somewhere

it sorta kinda is in the uk  under puwer ( provision and use of work equipment regs)

[PlainName]

could essentially be carried out by a visual inspection

Which would be subject to interpretation and possibly arguments. A meter's readout is much less fallible and/or is easier to pass/fail.

Also a bit tricky to look at the wires hidden away in the trunking and roof space.

[wraper]

With a lot of modern UK sockets, pushing in an earth pin alone doesn't work. There needs to be something pushing into the live and/or neutral holes as well for the shutters to open.

I can say that European Schuko plug combined with scissors for earth connection work perfectly well with UK sockets  . Been There. Done That.

[themadhippy]

Also a bit tricky to look at the wires hidden away in the trunking and roof space.

thats  nothing to do with pat , that's down to pit.

[PlainName]

just one letter difference 

[Halcyon]

could essentially be carried out by a visual inspection

Which would be subject to interpretation and possibly arguments. A meter's readout is much less fallible and/or is easier to pass/fail.

Also a bit tricky to look at the wires hidden away in the trunking and roof space.

To cite a specific example that happened to me was at my old workplace, we underwent this testing. A particular battery charger passed and was issued the requisite sticker. The very next day it almost burn the office down. Now, what went wrong, I have no idea, but having a label that says "passed" gives end-users the assumption that the appliance is perfectly safe to use. Obviously in this case it wasn't or it developed the fault later, either way rendering the information on the PAT label entirely useless and unreliable.

In a typical office or commerical environment, its largely meaningless and a waste of money.

Also, to my knowledge, PAT has nothing to do with the wiring in the walls/ceiling. It's only an appliance/power lead/extension lead test, right?

[mendip_discovery]

It's not mandatory to do PAT testing but some insurance companies insist on it. The only thing that alludes to the need for regular testing is that the employer is responsible to keep electrical stuff safe.

I have done a PAT testing course and let's just say I got more from a promo video from seaward than I did on the "online course". So far the stuff I have failed have been visuals, and I cut the lead in half in front of the customer so it couldn't be used. I kinda see the point in doing it as there are results for things that are good or bad, but anyone charging <50p an item isn't going to spring much time on it.

I knew a chap who did it as a job and he said he found the wrong fuse in power leads regularly and even IEC leads with no earth. So there is that to think of.

[coppice]

The biggest use of PAT testing I've seen is in colleges in the UK, vetting appliances brought in by students. Considering some of the funky things brought in by foreign students from places with poor electrical standards, I imagine that does achieve some benefits.

[Shock]

PAT testing has without a doubt saved lives, prevented fires and damaged equipment, china is doing it's best to counteract that though. That earth pin seems dodgy, it should be a rated plug or adapter with insulated leads. It's only a matter of time before the PAT testing technician finds an incorrectly wired socket.

[Someone]

Companies and government agencies waste thousands upon thousands of dollars every year for what is basically pointless and could essentially be carried out by a visual inspection. There might be some merit to it in some industrial or high-risk workplaces where cables are frequently being moved or used in harsh environments.

Visual inspection is actually most of the work in meeting the applicable standard, but in the world of useless box checking where the person demanding the testing doesnt actually care about the result or ever has audits of the testing, the low cost operators just do the automated electrical test (often incorrectly) and attach the automated label to the object for the $/unit rate.

The vast majority of people doing this as a service are passing+tagging equipment which should be taken out of service from visual inspection. Things like missing/unreadable load plates, frayed or cracked mains leads, or one particularly egregious example: exposed terminal connections for the mains input.

Also as they get paid $/unit, of course the test intervals are usually far more often than actually required. Desktop PC's and other stationary equipment should really be 5 yearly/once, and dont need a test on bringing into service (as theoretically a new appliance should have had those tests already done by the manufacturer).

[themadhippy]

That earth pin seems dodgy, it should be a rated plug or adapter with insulated leads. It's only a matter of time before the PAT testing technician finds an incorrectly wired socket

Then the pat tester deserves everything he gets for being an idiot who shouldn't be any anywere  near a pat tester.

and dont need a test on bringing into service (as theoretically a new appliance should have had those tests already done by the manufacturer).

Disagree,something could get damaged in transit,also 5 years down the line when you test you have something to compare the results with and maybe spot a problem in the making.

[coppice]

PAT testing has without a doubt saved lives, prevented fires and damaged equipment, china is doing it's best to counteract that though.

That's definitely true. I've seen some pristine things that returned from PAT testing damaged. 

[Bud]

You were the millionth customer and they sent you a bar of gold on a string ? 

[Infraviolet]

"PAT testing has without a doubt saved lives, prevented fires" (My emphasis)
For the most part, no. PAT testing is largely worthless because the testing involved only detects for conditions likely to cause electrical shocks to humans, conditions which are relatively rare given most mains devices thesedays are a switched mode power supply which then provides an isolated lower voltage to the stuff which actually powers everything the device does.

A device can easily have a multitude of internal faults which could lead to high current draw and fire, a PAT test wouldn't spot them. A fuse should stop some of those though, a superiority of the UK plug design over countries which have fuseless plugs. But even then, a device can consume a current within its fuse rating, and concentrate enough heat within it at some particular location to get hot enough to set itself alight.

Add Lithium batteries in to the picture, now contained in so many devices, and you're often looking at non-mains devices being more dangerous than mains ones.

A PAT test also makes very little sense when a device has internal states which can change and control higher powered parts of it, via relays or such, which mean the exact configuration of the device during a test might be quite different to what a device might have when in use, because perhaps the device switches some functionality on after 5 minutes, or when an internal temperature passes a threshold... The test gives no indication of what the device may do in that state.

And such tests on a device, which merely prove shock is unlikely, not that is safe from fire and such, only show it passed when the test was done. Any accident with someting faulty is likely to happen immediately after the fault develops, the chance of a fault developing, then being spotted in a test before the fault has a harmful consequence is negligible.

Checking something looks in good condtion, and is from a decent manufacturer makes sense, but the formal tests are frankly focused around the designs of devices from a historic era, and overly focused on shock a relatively minor risk (worse case person holding it dies) as versus fire a much worse risk (the whole building burns down and multiple peope die).

[PlainName]

a relatively minor risk (worse case person holding it dies)

That's a pretty bad worst case.

versus fire a much worse risk (the whole building burns down and multiple peope die)

Different thing. You surely aren't suggesting that a pretty bad albeit singular outcome is ignored simply because a different failure mode could be so much worse.

[tom66]

With a lot of modern UK sockets, pushing in an earth pin alone doesn't work. There needs to be something pushing into the live and/or neutral holes as well for the shutters to open.

This depends on the socket manufacturer, the permitted options are that live/neutral pins should be activated by insertion of earth, or insertion of both live and neutral simultaneously (or in rare cases, all three pins, with earth being the first pin).  Most sockets I've seen implement only the first option, but industrial/higher quality products might do more.  MK are known to use the second option on most of their products.  And to be honest, the first option is plenty safe.  If you want to bypass a safety function then there are many easier ways to get electrocuted such as a paperclip in an IEC C13 lead.

[MarkT]

Companies and government agencies waste thousands upon thousands of dollars every year for what is basically pointless and could essentially be carried out by a visual inspection.

Well the first part of PAT testing _is_ a  thorough visual inspection, so it enforces regular inspection as well as electrical tests.  As we all know if people don't _have_ to do something safety-related they usually stop doing it, a regulatory framework by contrast works a lot better.  Death by accidental electrocution is rare these days precisely because of the regulations and this sort of testing.  Laissez-faire simply doesn't work for safety.

[Halcyon]

Companies and government agencies waste thousands upon thousands of dollars every year for what is basically pointless and could essentially be carried out by a visual inspection.

Well the first part of PAT testing _is_ a  thorough visual inspection, so it enforces regular inspection as well as electrical tests.  As we all know if people don't _have_ to do something safety-related they usually stop doing it, a regulatory framework by contrast works a lot better.  Death by accidental electrocution is rare these days precisely because of the regulations and this sort of testing.  Laissez-faire simply doesn't work for safety.

I agree with the point about safety, however I don't agree with paying someone $5 per device, to spend a few seconds every year performing that visual inspection. The person(s) using said device are more than capable of doing it themselves every time they use/move/connect the device. It doesn't take any special skill or expertise to see that something is damaged and shouldn't be used.

I understand that there is more to this kind of testing than just the visual inspection, but has the rate of injury or death significantly decreased since portable appliance testing became a thing? I'm betting on "no".

The organisations that seem to be the most vocal about the "importance" of PAT, are the same businesses that are making money from the practice. Again, I'm not professing to be an expert, but as someone who is well educated, I don't really see much of a benefit, particularly for the time and money spent.

[Someone]

The person(s) using said device are more than capable of doing it themselves every time they use/move/connect the device. It doesn't take any special skill or expertise to see that something is damaged and shouldn't be used.

That may be true of the colleagues you work with, but having attended multiple electrical fires caused by people (ab)using cabling there are plenty of people out there who wont even follow basic safety instructions.