Talk:Portable appliance testing

Thoughts
I feel that this can be made of more value if we also include the practices that are common to the inspection process. In the USA and Canada a Megohm (Megger) test, where a given high voltage is used to test insulation and continuity, is performed as well as an overall physical inspection. Devices such as Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters (Residual-current devices) are tested, etc. By going into just a bit more detail of the process as well as the theory and less on the details of regulation, if only at the beginning of the page, the reader may more easily grasp the concept, no matter what part of the planet they are at. Crockleback: I thought the purpose of an encyclopedia and believe me I am a longstanding owner of a traditional set of such reference material and realise the limitations of these journal, I am not completely convinced that you should see these as articles as opposed to usefule intellectual contributions for a modern age. I teach the 2377 and know what I would like to have available as content for students that could be used to refer to when teaching ang that current ant prospective students would find useful. I have also done portable appliance testing long long before it was brought into the private sector when working for the DOE/PSA and managed the system the part of the qualification that is not at all mentioned. Can I stress unless you have a personal agenda on this matter unnecessary emphasis on the 2377 should not be made it needs to be stressed to those referencing the entry that competence is the requirement not a qualification both IEE/IET and City and Guilds (registered charity or not) have a vested interest in conveying the impression that the qualification is essential it is not,qualification candidates is how they generate income topay salaries. However for those who want ot embark on the qualification an insight would be beneficial. It is nice to create a thing of beauty but personally I go for information and detail above this perhaps the solution lies in creating links to other category pages such as the C&G2377 and the history of Portable appliance testing etc you seem have a strong view of what the content of this page should be despite it having in my opinion a fairly weak and superficial content. Contributions to ths page from those who have an intimate knowlege of the subject seem unwelcome and perhaps you are best pursuing its building alone good luck!! Dirk Corrs(Dirkcorrs (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Dirkcorrs: no, not in the slightest. What does bug me, however, is the seemingly random and scattershot way that some editors have added things into the article, rendering it a mess. Information and detail are essential, but if they are presented in a muddled, confusing way, they lose their potency. This random style of editing (exhibited by both yourself and SDavies1), coupled with the fact that the article seems to be a magnet for every two-bit PAT company to try and push their own advertising, has held this article (and preceeding ones) back for a long time. I make my views on C&G 2377 very clear in my comments below, so please do not attempt to attach any other meaning to them. As it stands, the IEE/IET Code of Practice, and C&G 2377 are the only nationally recognised and accepted guidance (apart from a few documents from the HSE) and qualification of the subject matter. That is why they should have prominence over other training that is available. Believe me, I think that 2377 needs a massive overhaul, but that is another matter entirely. I think your idea to break off certain section to new articles has merit. Fortunately, it looks like Vanderdecken has the time, energy and motivation to embark on a massive tidy-up of the article. I wish him luck, and if he ends up doing a good job of it, I would ask editors like yourself to only perform considered edits, otherwise you will just turn the article back into the mess it is now.Crockleback (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sdavies1: you have simply copied and pasted large quantities of text from this site: http://www.firststopsafety.co.uk/ I presume that you either own or work for this company. This really is a pretty poor way to edit a Wikipedia page Crockleback (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Crockleback: I do not work for this company but it is a sponsor of a site I have made that gives PAT Testing INFORMATION (Not Sales). As I am sure you are aware running a site is an annual cost and since it is not a sales site I have links to where people can purchase PAT Testers or get Training.

You will find most of the content on this wiki page is taken from my site, which is purely for information. If any information from here appears on the firststopsafety site then it has been taken from my site, which is referenced.

Now if my site is not referenced on wikipedia then it is obviously a blatent case of plagarisation. If you look at the first version of PAT Testing on wikipedia and then compare it to the information given now then you will see that the majority of the content and pictures are from www.patinfo.co.uk.

Now the issue of you having a link to a PAID course that City and Guides profits from is quite simple. If sales sites cannot be linked to then as long as City and Guildes are offering a FREE course and are a proven government organisation linked to the education sector (NOT A PRIVATE COMPANY) then that is acceptable. Unfortunately we both know that this is not the case and therefore the link to your sales site MUST be removed according to Wikipedia regulations or a compromise reached!

If you would like to pursue this further without reaching an understanding then I am happy to opt for a third option on disputes Wikipedia:Third_opinion and then further if needs be.

SDavies1 (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

SDavies1: The point you seem to be missing is that the C&G link is purely to their infomation page for 2377. If you care to read the Wikipedia entry for City & Guilds, you will see that they are a registered charity, an institution incorporated by Royal Charter, and an examination & accreditation body. So it doesn't really qualify as a PRIVATE COMPANY, does it? Whereas your earlier links to training provided by First Stop Safety is totally commercial. Can you grasp the difference? Crockleback (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And I'm sorry, but anyone can plainly see that www.patinfo.co.uk is just a extension of First Stop Safety. Same photos & artwork, same text, even says 'sponsored by First Stop Safety'. It's just one big advert.Crockleback (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

SDavies1 said: "you will see that the majority of the content and pictures are from www.patinfo.co.uk" Of 6 images currently in the article, only 2 are attributed as sourced from www.patinfo.co.uk The other 4? That's right, First Stop Safety. Crockleback (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Cricky Dirkcorrs, what a HUGE mess you've made of this article. Crockleback (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Move
Admin, please move to Portable Appliance Test. The current name is nonsensical - "Portable Appliance Test Testing". Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved this comment from article to here: PLEASE NOTE: ARTICLE WILL BE MOVED TO THE CORRECT TITLE OF Portable Appliance Testing ONCE THE LONG-TERM COPY-EDIT HAS FINISHED, NOT BEFORE. APPROPRIATE REDIRECTS WILL THEN BE CREATED. Widefox (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

UK?????
What about the rest of the world? Given that this forum is international, much of the current content is irrelevant to the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.81.34 (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
This article should be merged with Test and tagging. They cover exactly the same subject matter - Test and Tagging just pads it out with a lot of quotes from the law in question, and also includes a smattering of Aus/NZ material that'd probably be best included in one article, with UK and AUS/NZ sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.204.106.166 (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree both articles cover the same subject - if anything PAT Testing is just the UK flavour of Tag and Test / In-Service Testing. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Value
Are there any references that state the value of appliance testing? Is it all just a big con to generate revenue for electricians or jobs for HSE people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.179.13 (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There is some value, however the process is maybe over the top and too bureaucratic. I wonder how many accidents it has averted? Jonpatterns (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Earth Yeading Test
What the HELL is an Earth Yeading Test? The only references to it on a Google search is from rubbishy, unimaginative PAT testing companies who have lifted this article introduction wholesale and pasted it on their website. A very lazy practice, and made even more stupid by the possible inclusion of a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.123 (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's gone now. 97 editors to this article since some random SPA stuck this in May 30, 2009 - more than two years - and no one knows enough about the subject to fix it. How much credibility does one give a Wikipedia article? --03:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

PAT - Portable Appliance Tester - refers to the testing equipment, not the appliance being tested
PAT tests are supposed to be applied to all sorts of electrical equipment, such as fridges, freezers, washing machines, dishwashers, etc. These can hardly be described as Portable as suggested in the main definition. Respectfully suggest that the entry be renamed to Portable Appliance Tester, and the definition amended to reflect that the item in question is a portable tester used for testing a large range of electrical equipment, some of which are portable, but could also be fixed, moveable, and hand-held, among others. The term 'PAT testing' then starts to make sense, and refers to the process of using PAT equipment.Rizlad (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The opinion above appears to be a personal view not supported by any evidence.

PAT Does refer to portable or moveable equipment
UK HSE is very clear that it is the Appliances which are portable or moveable (not the test equipment). See Maintaining portable electric equipment in low-risk environments According to HSE:

A portable or movable electric appliance is any item that can be moved, either connected or disconnected from an electrical supply. : SciberDoc (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * electrical equipment that can be easily moved around, such as kettles, vacuum cleaners, ... etc;
 * larger items that could be moved (but only rarely), ...
 * hand-held items, such as hairdryers, that do not have a plug but have been wired in (or fixed) are still considered to be portable appliances,
 * but large electrical items, such as water boilers that are wired in, are not portable appliances as they are not designed to be moved and would come under the scope of fixed installation maintenance; ..."

Testing and Tagging or Portable Appliance Testing Australian NZ Section
Australian workplace regulations apply testing to AS/NZ3760/2010 in all workplaces. The Standard reflects other standards from United Kingdom and elsewhere around the world. --Ianmaccormick (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC) ian maccormick http://testandtagssydney.com/

Flash Testing - include or not?
Having occasionally performed some In-service Inspection and Testing of Electrical Equipment in the recent past I am aware that the test equipment I use has the facility to perform a “High-Potential“/“Dielectric Strength”/“Insulation Breakdown” a.k.a. Hi-PoT or Flash Test. Though it is suggested only to be done for equipment that has undergone some form of repair to confirm that there has not been a compromise in the insulation barrier(s) between Live and Isolated parts. Further research on-line has shown me that this type of testing (typically 2.5 KVolt for Class 1 and 4.0 KVolt for Class 2 applied between the Line and Neutral conductors coupled together and the Protective {Earth/Ground} Conductor for the former and any metal casing for the latter) has been held to, not surprisingly, be detrimental to some types of equipmentand indeed the person doing the testing! e.g. Information Technology but strongly recommended for others e.g. Power Tools for Hire by professionals and/or members of the public.

Is there anyone who is better informed than I who can add in some details about this? SlySven (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Earth resistance test
Earth resistance test "This test shows the resistance offered by the earthing rods..."

What is meant by "earthing rods"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.212.223 (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * PATtest.JPG
 * Testedlabel.jpg

"Competent Person"
The term "competent person" is used but not defined. The UK has a sufficiently specific definition, but YMMV. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)