Typical BC lampholders have a rear that can be unscrewed without a tool - I thought that was a PAT test fail. They also have cordgrips that are questionable PATwise. They also usually have no maximum wattage marking. So is a portable light using one a PAT fail due to these points?


NT

On 15/06/2016 00:21, wrote:

Typical BC lampholders have a rear that can be unscrewed without a
tool - I thought that was a PAT test fail.

That only normally applies to the flex mounted batten holders that you
see dangling from ceilings. Those are not portable appliances.

They also have cordgrips
that are questionable PATwise. They also usually have no maximum
wattage marking.

See above

So is a portable light using one a PAT fail due to
these points?

Most portable lights don't use that type of fitting, for those same
reasons.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 00:21:34 UTC+1, wrote:
Typical BC lampholders have a rear that can be unscrewed without a tool
- I thought that was a PAT test fail. They also have cordgrips that are
questionable PATwise. They also usually have no maximum wattage marking.
So is a portable light using one a PAT fail due to these points?

If you mean an inspection lamp type of thing which is using a pendant lampholder, yes I would fail that.

If you mean a table lamp type of thing, they aren't usually used in workplaces - an exception would be hotels and bars for decorative effect and most of those are going over to low-energy lamps and they tend to have different fittings.

Owain

wrote:

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 00:21:34 UTC+1, wrote:
Typical BC lampholders have a rear that can be unscrewed without a tool
- I thought that was a PAT test fail. They also have cordgrips that are
questionable PATwise. They also usually have no maximum wattage marking.
So is a portable light using one a PAT fail due to these points?

If you mean an inspection lamp type of thing which is using a pendant lampholder, yes I would fail that.

If you mean a table lamp type of thing, they aren't usually used in workplaces - an exception would be hotels and bars for decorative effect and most of those are going over to low-energy lamps and they tend to have different fittings.

Which reminds me of a story I've told before, regarding 500 MW
alternators.

At Eggborough you climb into the spaces normally occupied by the
vertical cooling water coils, and that isn't too bad. You then
worm your way between bulkheads to get where you need to be. The
hand lamp I had been given was just a mains fitting with
reflector, so there I was, making my way around the stator
end-windings and cooling water tubes, when there was a fizz and
the light went out. There I was, in intimate contact with lots of
earthed metal, not sure if I was about to be fried. Luckily, the
problem was intermittent, and I lived to tell the tale
(literally, obviously).

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 03:45:55 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/06/2016 00:21, tabbypurr wrote:

Typical BC lampholders have a rear that can be unscrewed without a
tool - I thought that was a PAT test fail.

That only normally applies to the flex mounted batten holders that you
see dangling from ceilings. Those are not portable appliances.

They also have cordgrips
that are questionable PATwise. They also usually have no maximum
wattage marking.

See above

So is a portable light using one a PAT fail due to
these points?

Most portable lights don't use that type of fitting, for those same
reasons.

Cheers. Failed they are then.


NT

In article ,
wrote:
Typical BC lampholders have a rear that can be unscrewed without a tool
- I thought that was a PAT test fail. They also have cordgrips that are
questionable PATwise. They also usually have no maximum wattage marking.
So is a portable light using one a PAT fail due to these points?


Must be a very old design if it uses a pendant type bulbholder in a
portable light. Apart from anything else, the plastic sort are too
fragile.

--
*Even a blind pig stumbles across an acorn now and again *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
writes:
Typical BC lampholders have a rear that can be unscrewed without a tool - I=
thought that was a PAT test fail. They also have cordgrips that are questi=
onable PATwise. They also usually have no maximum wattage marking. So is a =
portable light using one a PAT fail due to these points?

You missed that you can stick your fingers in to live parts without
unscrewing anything.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Typical BC lampholders have a rear that can be unscrewed without a tool
- I thought that was a PAT test fail. They also have cordgrips that are
questionable PATwise. They also usually have no maximum wattage marking.
So is a portable light using one a PAT fail due to these points?


Must be a very old design if it uses a pendant type bulbholder in a
portable light. Apart from anything else, the plastic sort are too
fragile.

Anglepoise?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
charles wrote:
Must be a very old design if it uses a pendant type bulbholder in a
portable light. Apart from anything else, the plastic sort are too
fragile.

Anglepoise?

I've got a couple here that are pretty ancient. The lamp unit is a custom
made moulding (with a rocker switch) inside which may be a fairly standard
bulbholder. But not one you can access without dismantling, other than to
change the bulb.

--
*A day without sunshine is like... night.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 15/06/2016 00:21, wrote:
Typical BC lampholders have a rear that can be unscrewed without a tool - I thought that was a PAT test fail. They also have cordgrips that are questionable PATwise. They also usually have no maximum wattage marking. So is a portable light using one a PAT fail due to these points?


NT

You might want to consider whether the item needs PATS rather than
inspection.
The following is HSEs take on the matter:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg236.pdf

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
writes:
Typical BC lampholders have a rear that can be unscrewed without a tool -
I=
thought that was a PAT test fail. They also have cordgrips that are
questi=
onable PATwise. They also usually have no maximum wattage marking. So is
a =
portable light using one a PAT fail due to these points?

You missed that you can stick your fingers in to live parts without
unscrewing anything.


Does that make BC safer than ES:-)?

--
Adam

On 15/06/2016 16:08, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
writes:
Typical BC lampholders have a rear that can be unscrewed without a tool - I=
thought that was a PAT test fail. They also have cordgrips that are questi=
onable PATwise. They also usually have no maximum wattage marking. So is a =
portable light using one a PAT fail due to these points?

You missed that you can stick your fingers in to live parts without
unscrewing anything.

With some (all?) any made in recent decades, you at least have to make a
bit of an effort. So as to prevent people taking the blown lamp out in
the dark and then accidentally getting a shock when their finger strays
into the lampholder while trying to put the new one in, the pins aren't
electrified unless they are pressed down.

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 16:08:55 UTC+1, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr writes:
Typical BC lampholders have a rear that can be unscrewed without a tool - I=
thought that was a PAT test fail. They also have cordgrips that are questi=
onable PATwise. They also usually have no maximum wattage marking. So is a =
portable light using one a PAT fail due to these points?

You missed that you can stick your fingers in to live parts without
unscrewing anything.

Oddly that's still accepted.


NT

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 17:37:18 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
Must be a very old design if it uses a pendant type bulbholder in a
portable light. Apart from anything else, the plastic sort are too
fragile.

Anglepoise?

I've got a couple here that are pretty ancient. The lamp unit is a custom
made moulding (with a rocker switch) inside which may be a fairly standard
bulbholder. But not one you can access without dismantling, other than to
change the bulb.

IIRC the 1930s Anglepoise generally passes a PAT.


NT

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 20:40:44 UTC+1, Robert wrote:
On 15/06/2016 00:21, tabbypurr wrote:

Typical BC lampholders have a rear that can be unscrewed without a tool - I thought that was a PAT test fail. They also have cordgrips that are questionable PATwise. They also usually have no maximum wattage marking. So is a portable light using one a PAT fail due to these points?

You might want to consider whether the item needs PATS rather than
inspection.

It does, and it's not a low risk environment.

NT

The following is HSEs take on the matter:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg236.pdf

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 22:00:27 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tabbypurr writes:
Typical BC lampholders have a rear that can be unscrewed without a tool -
I=
thought that was a PAT test fail. They also have cordgrips that are
questi=
onable PATwise. They also usually have no maximum wattage marking. So is
a =
portable light using one a PAT fail due to these points?

You missed that you can stick your fingers in to live parts without
unscrewing anything.


Does that make BC safer than ES:-)?

ISTR BC 0 deaths, ES 1 death.


NT

In article ,
writes:
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 16:08:55 UTC+1, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr writes:
Typical BC lampholders have a rear that can be unscrewed without a tool - I=
thought that was a PAT test fail. They also have cordgrips that are questi=
onable PATwise. They also usually have no maximum wattage marking. So is a =
portable light using one a PAT fail due to these points?

You missed that you can stick your fingers in to live parts without
unscrewing anything.

Oddly that's still accepted.

It would never be allowed in a new design today, but over 100 years with no
known deaths or serious injuries make it difficult to justify any change.

It's impossible to make a good enough direct contact with a finger to pass
enough current. You would need to be holding a larger metal object, and
even then, it would be damn near impossible to maintain contact for more
than a fraction of a second.

This is not true for ES, where there are a number of deaths (mainly in the
US I believe) due to gripping the base of a lamp to unscrew it, and making
a good contact with the metal screw on the lamp base, where the lampholder
has been wired with the screw live and the tip neutral, and the resulting
muscle contraction presumably maintins contact.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 23:22:12 UTC+1, wrote:
It does, and it's not a low risk environment.

Please clarify what you mean by "portable light" and "not a low risk environment".

Apart from anything else, most lampholders have low impact resistance.

Owain

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:49:33 -0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

snip

This is not true for ES, where there are a number of deaths (mainly in the
US I believe) due to gripping the base of a lamp to unscrew it, and making
a good contact with the metal screw on the lamp base, where the lampholder
has been wired with the screw live and the tip neutral, and the resulting
muscle contraction presumably maintins contact.


Years ago a mate was re-wiring his own house and fitted the
loop-in-rose, pendant and only when fitting the lamp ... and it came
on, did he get the shock. Luckily it wasn't an electrical one and a
nice lesson about making sure the power is off before doing such
things.

Could the wooden step ladders have helped?

Cheers, T i m

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 09:32:48 UTC+1, wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 23:22:12 UTC+1, tabbypurr wrote:
It does, and it's not a low risk environment.

Please clarify what you mean by "portable light" and "not a low risk environment".

No need. It looks like it can be sorted out by adding a metal bar across the back that prevents unscrewsing and can be used a cordgrip.


NT

On 15/06/2016 23:49, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
This is not true for ES, where there are a number of deaths (mainly in the
US I believe) due to gripping the base of a lamp to unscrew it, and making
a good contact with the metal screw on the lamp base, where the lampholder
has been wired with the screw live and the tip neutral, and the resulting
muscle contraction presumably maintins contact.

This would be the case with older designs but AFAIK all newer ES
lampholders are designed with the cap contact at the bottom of the
threaded section. This ensures that contact with the cap is not
established until the bulb is screwed almost fully home when it's not
possible for fingers to make contact with the metal cap.

--
Mike Clarke