On Monday, 17 July 2017 14:04:02 UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 13:40:10 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 13:26:42 UTC+1, tabby wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 11:33:55 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 13 July 2017 11:42:18 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
03:08:40 on Thu, 13 Jul 2017, whisky-dave
remarked:

In most cases it wouldn't, a visual check would be more likely to find serious faults.

PAT-testing of many items *is* just a visual check.

No it's not.

Some are.

No they aren't a PAT test is an actual test. A visual test is a visual test.
Just the same as you can with a MOT test, such as smashed lights, broken wondscreen.

Portable appliance testing (PAT) is the term used to describe the examination of electrical appliances and equipment to ensure they are safe to use. Most electrical safety defects can be found by visual examination but some types of defect can only be found by testing.


A PAT test would give you at the very least the Earth resistance, in the past I;ve had items that have failed this.

not always

WTF do you mean by that.

You are so clueless. Have a nice life.


NT

No you tell me what you mean by not always.
If the appliance has an Earth fault then it would fail the PAT test it might not fail a visual inspection, this is what happend with a few bench suplkiies we had in teh lab the PAT unitl gave a resistabnce of 0.5 ohms IIRC and that was a fail, so I reduced the lengh oif the mains cable and the metal parts of teh case sanded down so the earth screw went back to metal rather than 20+ years of grim.
The meter on one of thesde PSU was next calibration date 1987 which was when the unit was meant to be calibrated, which isnlt a PAT failure in case though assumed it was.