On Saturday, 3 February 2018 11:20:38 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

I'm fairly sure leaded solder is not permitted under ROHS. If the
bulbholder is earthed the luminaire is class I, if compliant. Someone
else can comment on the shade.

Thought the restrictions on leaded solder were only for H&S in production.
Not final use.

Import & resale of most electrical items with leaded solder is prohibited under RoHS.


NT

On 03/02/2018 08:59, Nightjar wrote:
On 02-Feb-18 7:55 PM, Adrian Brentnall wrote:
...
Sorry to say that the panel is made with lead came, and soldered
together using lead solder. Perhaps I should make a big warning sign
saying 'Do not lick!' g

The main concern with lead would be its proper disposal, which brings up
another EU Directive you need to take into consideration: Directive
2012/19/EU Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. That covers just
about anything that is fitted with a plug or uses a battery.

Probably the bigger hazard is dropping the thing on your foot - it
weight about 30kg!

In which case, the packaging should show this, along with a warning that
it is a two person lift.

I'm ahead of you on that one - all suitably labelled with appropriate
warnings (about weight & lifting, rather than licking the lead g)

Also has a page of 'installation instructions'....

On 03/02/2018 10:48, FMurtz wrote:
Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 02/02/2018 18:43, wrote:
On Friday, 2 February 2018 16:41:24 UTC, Adrian BrentnallÂ* wrote:
On 02/02/2018 14:18, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 2 February 2018 10:06:44 UTC, Adrian BrentnallÂ* wrote:
On 02/02/2018 09:26, Robert wrote:
On 02/02/2018 08:34, Robin wrote:
On 02/02/2018 08:05, Adrian Brentnall wrote:
Hi All
In another life I used to be involved with PAT testing /
electrical
safety testing & quality management on telecoms equipment - so I
understand a bit about electrical safety testing.

Nowadays, I make stained-glass. One of the things I make is a
stained-glass lamp - consisting of a 3-sided or 4-sided 'shade',
mounted on a timber base.
Illumination is using a mains LED or CFL bulb, in a brass bayonet
socket.
The mains lead is bought in as a new, ready-made, CE-marked
assembly,
with a switch, moulded-on plug and ferrule ends - which I wire
into
the screw terminals in the bayonet socket. There's a cable
clamp on
the mains lead where it leaves the timber base.

I've been selling these for a while - no problem.
I spoke to a potential retailer this afternoon (they're part of an
electrical wholesaler) who said that he wouldn't be able to sell
these lamps because 'They would need PAT testing, first'

So - anybody out there know if this it true or not?

Short of connecting the L, N, E into the wrong terminals on the
bayonet socket (which would be noticed by me on 'final test' as
the
bulb wouldn't light), I can't imagine a failure-mode that would
make
the lamp unsafe.

I can (if necessary) buy a PAT tester, test each lamp and stick
the
sticker on... but is it required?

Any ideas, please?
The country is Ireland, but I'm guessing that the same regulations
apply in the UK as well...
thanks


Impossible to prove a negative but I'm fairly confident there's no
legislation in the UK requiring a PAT test.Â* Certainly never
seen them
on other "craft" lamps. I suspect you have met one of the many
varieties of non-tariff trade barrier - of the genus "it's not a
legal
requirement but we won't sell it without one"

Is there no trade body of lamp makers which might know? The Dublin
equivalent of the Worshipful Company of Lightmongers??

PS
Labels? I assume the CE & plug are labelled when supplied but
thought
maximum wattage also required.


As they are new and being placed on the Market dont they have to
meet
the relevant Safety Standard and have a CE mark applied.

Well - that's the question.
If the components (the lead and the bulbholder) are themselves
approved,
I'd always worked on the assumption that the whole thing was
therefore
approved, given that it was assembled by somebody who knew one end
of a
screwdriver from the other, and that the final test (plug it in,
switch
it on) would only 'pass' if the wiring was done correctly.
I could, of course, be wrong g

PAT testing is not legally required for new goods. A safety
assessment & CE declaration is for a lot of items.

Yes - that seems to be where this is heading..


The approvals cover what is supplied to you, not what you
manufacture. You should go through the CE assessment process, in
which you would address possible issues such as electrical safety,
mechanical stability, flammability, suitability for various
environments, toxicity of materials etc. With that done you may
affix a CE sticker and sell it.

Just-about do-able, I suppose


A retailer can of course place any conditions they like on their
purchases from you.

I think, in this particular person's case, it's a matter of 'got out of
the wrong side of the bed this morning...' g

Â*Â* They may regadr a PAT test as an adequate substitute for your legal
duties, though legally it would not be complaint with CE
requirements. I
hear informally that CE declarations are often abused.

The first obvious question that springs to mind is are your lamps
class I or II? And are your shades lead soldered?

Yes - lots of lead solder used in the construction of the lampshade.
"You are recommended not to chew this lampshade....."

As to the class I vs Class II - I did check the definitions, and I'm
not
sure. Three-core mains cable, brass bayonet lampholder (earthed)
screwed
to wooden lamp-base. Stained-glass shade, pegged and glued into wooden
lamp-base. I'm guessing Class I ?

I'm fairly sure leaded solder is not permitted under ROHS. If the
bulbholder is earthed the luminaire is class I, if compliant. Someone
else can comment on the shade.



In that case I'd better shut up shop! g
I would hope that there's a distinction between the use of
leaded/unleaded solder in electronics, and leaded solder in
traditionally-made craft items....

the solder question is a bit academic as the whole thing is made with
lead cames.(leadlight)

The big panels are lead came, the smaller items like the lamps are
generally 'Tiffany' construction (copper foil with (tin/lead) solder)

On 03/02/2018 10:53, FMurtz wrote:
wrote:
On Friday, 2 February 2018 19:40:10 UTC, Archibald Tarquin
BlenkinsoppÂ* wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 19:31:14 +0000, Adrian Brentnall
wrote:
On 02/02/2018 18:43, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 2 February 2018 16:41:24 UTC, Adrian BrentnallÂ* wrote:
On 02/02/2018 14:18, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 2 February 2018 10:06:44 UTC, Adrian BrentnallÂ* wrote:
On 02/02/2018 09:26, Robert wrote:
On 02/02/2018 08:34, Robin wrote:
On 02/02/2018 08:05, Adrian Brentnall wrote:
Hi All
In another life I used to be involved with PAT testing /
electrical
safety testing & quality management on telecoms equipment - so I
understand a bit about electrical safety testing.

Nowadays, I make stained-glass. One of the things I make is a
stained-glass lamp - consisting of a 3-sided or 4-sided 'shade',
mounted on a timber base.
Illumination is using a mains LED or CFL bulb, in a brass
bayonet
socket.
The mains lead is bought in as a new, ready-made, CE-marked
assembly,
with a switch, moulded-on plug and ferrule ends - which I
wire into
the screw terminals in the bayonet socket. There's a cable
clamp on
the mains lead where it leaves the timber base.

I've been selling these for a while - no problem.
I spoke to a potential retailer this afternoon (they're part
of an
electrical wholesaler) who said that he wouldn't be able to sell
these lamps because 'They would need PAT testing, first'

So - anybody out there know if this it true or not?

Short of connecting the L, N, E into the wrong terminals on the
bayonet socket (which would be noticed by me on 'final test'
as the
bulb wouldn't light), I can't imagine a failure-mode that
would make
the lamp unsafe.

I can (if necessary) buy a PAT tester, test each lamp and
stick the
sticker on... but is it required?

Any ideas, please?
The country is Ireland, but I'm guessing that the same
regulations
apply in the UK as well...
thanks


Impossible to prove a negative but I'm fairly confident
there's no
legislation in the UK requiring a PAT test.Â* Certainly never
seen them
on other "craft" lamps. I suspect you have met one of the many
varieties of non-tariff trade barrier - of the genus "it's not
a legal
requirement but we won't sell it without one"

Is there no trade body of lamp makers which might know? The
Dublin
equivalent of the Worshipful Company of Lightmongers??

PS
Labels? I assume the CE & plug are labelled when supplied but
thought
maximum wattage also required.


As they are new and being placed on the Market dont they have
to meet
the relevant Safety Standard and have a CE mark applied.

Well - that's the question.
If the components (the lead and the bulbholder) are themselves
approved,
I'd always worked on the assumption that the whole thing was
therefore
approved, given that it was assembled by somebody who knew one
end of a
screwdriver from the other, and that the final test (plug it in,
switch
it on) would only 'pass' if the wiring was done correctly.
I could, of course, be wrong g

PAT testing is not legally required for new goods. A safety
assessment & CE declaration is for a lot of items.

Yes - that seems to be where this is heading..


The approvals cover what is supplied to you, not what you
manufacture. You should go through the CE assessment process, in
which you would address possible issues such as electrical
safety, mechanical stability, flammability, suitability for
various environments, toxicity of materials etc. With that done
you may affix a CE sticker and sell it.

Just-about do-able, I suppose


A retailer can of course place any conditions they like on their
purchases from you.

I think, in this particular person's case, it's a matter of 'got
out of
the wrong side of the bed this morning...' g

Â*Â*Â* They may regadr a PAT test as an adequate substitute for your
legal
duties, though legally it would not be complaint with CE
requirements. I
hear informally that CE declarations are often abused.

The first obvious question that springs to mind is are your lamps
class I or II? And are your shades lead soldered?

Yes - lots of lead solder used in the construction of the lampshade.
"You are recommended not to chew this lampshade....."

As to the class I vs Class II - I did check the definitions, and
I'm not
sure. Three-core mains cable, brass bayonet lampholder (earthed)
screwed
to wooden lamp-base. Stained-glass shade, pegged and glued into
wooden
lamp-base. I'm guessing Class I ?

I'm fairly sure leaded solder is not permitted under ROHS. If the
bulbholder is earthed the luminaire is class I, if compliant.
Someone else can comment on the shade.



In that case I'd better shut up shop! g
I would hope that there's a distinction between the use of
leaded/unleaded solder in electronics, and leaded solder in
traditionally-made craft items....

Ignore the idiot.

He trawls the internet for technically oriented jargon but is clueless
as to what it actually means.

The pillock is obviously under the impression that BC fittings have to
be soldered onto.

You could post a thread asking if stained glass is class 1 or 2, but
that would be cruel :-)


Any chance of a link to a photo of your merchandise?

One would be very interested in seeing the subject of the discussion.

Regards

AB


I particularly like the blackberry and some of the fused glass.

I don't know if leaded glass is exempted under RoHS. A quick google
just brought up glass used in electronics. Maybe you don't need to,
but if you do would there be a problem changing from lead & leaded to
unleaded solder for the stained glass shades?

Is this to solder the led cames?Â*Â*

Groan!

On 03/02/2018 11:19, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 21:48:42 +1100, FMurtz wrote:

Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 02/02/2018 18:43, wrote:
On Friday, 2 February 2018 16:41:24 UTC, Adrian BrentnallÂ* wrote:
On 02/02/2018 14:18, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 2 February 2018 10:06:44 UTC, Adrian BrentnallÂ* wrote:
On 02/02/2018 09:26, Robert wrote:
On 02/02/2018 08:34, Robin wrote:
On 02/02/2018 08:05, Adrian Brentnall wrote:
Hi All
In another life I used to be involved with PAT testing / electrical
safety testing & quality management on telecoms equipment - so I
understand a bit about electrical safety testing.

Nowadays, I make stained-glass. One of the things I make is a
stained-glass lamp - consisting of a 3-sided or 4-sided 'shade',
mounted on a timber base.
Illumination is using a mains LED or CFL bulb, in a brass bayonet
socket.
The mains lead is bought in as a new, ready-made, CE-marked
assembly,
with a switch, moulded-on plug and ferrule ends - which I wire into
the screw terminals in the bayonet socket. There's a cable clamp on
the mains lead where it leaves the timber base.

I've been selling these for a while - no problem.
I spoke to a potential retailer this afternoon (they're part of an
electrical wholesaler) who said that he wouldn't be able to sell
these lamps because 'They would need PAT testing, first'

So - anybody out there know if this it true or not?

Short of connecting the L, N, E into the wrong terminals on the
bayonet socket (which would be noticed by me on 'final test' as the
bulb wouldn't light), I can't imagine a failure-mode that would
make
the lamp unsafe.

I can (if necessary) buy a PAT tester, test each lamp and stick the
sticker on... but is it required?

Any ideas, please?
The country is Ireland, but I'm guessing that the same regulations
apply in the UK as well...
thanks


Impossible to prove a negative but I'm fairly confident there's no
legislation in the UK requiring a PAT test.Â* Certainly never seen
them
on other "craft" lamps. I suspect you have met one of the many
varieties of non-tariff trade barrier - of the genus "it's not a
legal
requirement but we won't sell it without one"

Is there no trade body of lamp makers which might know? The Dublin
equivalent of the Worshipful Company of Lightmongers??

PS
Labels? I assume the CE & plug are labelled when supplied but
thought
maximum wattage also required.


As they are new and being placed on the Market dont they have to meet
the relevant Safety Standard and have a CE mark applied.

Well - that's the question.
If the components (the lead and the bulbholder) are themselves
approved,
I'd always worked on the assumption that the whole thing was therefore
approved, given that it was assembled by somebody who knew one end
of a
screwdriver from the other, and that the final test (plug it in,
switch
it on) would only 'pass' if the wiring was done correctly.
I could, of course, be wrong g

PAT testing is not legally required for new goods. A safety
assessment & CE declaration is for a lot of items.

Yes - that seems to be where this is heading..


The approvals cover what is supplied to you, not what you
manufacture. You should go through the CE assessment process, in
which you would address possible issues such as electrical safety,
mechanical stability, flammability, suitability for various
environments, toxicity of materials etc. With that done you may
affix a CE sticker and sell it.

Just-about do-able, I suppose


A retailer can of course place any conditions they like on their
purchases from you.

I think, in this particular person's case, it's a matter of 'got out of
the wrong side of the bed this morning...' g

Â*Â* They may regadr a PAT test as an adequate substitute for your legal
duties, though legally it would not be complaint with CE requirements. I
hear informally that CE declarations are often abused.

The first obvious question that springs to mind is are your lamps
class I or II? And are your shades lead soldered?

Yes - lots of lead solder used in the construction of the lampshade.
"You are recommended not to chew this lampshade....."

As to the class I vs Class II - I did check the definitions, and I'm not
sure. Three-core mains cable, brass bayonet lampholder (earthed) screwed
to wooden lamp-base. Stained-glass shade, pegged and glued into wooden
lamp-base. I'm guessing Class I ?

I'm fairly sure leaded solder is not permitted under ROHS. If the
bulbholder is earthed the luminaire is class I, if compliant. Someone
else can comment on the shade.



In that case I'd better shut up shop! g
I would hope that there's a distinction between the use of
leaded/unleaded solder in electronics, and leaded solder in
traditionally-made craft items....

the solder question is a bit academic as the whole thing is made with
lead cames.(leadlight)

And Cork isn't in the UK either.

Nope - we're in Europe! g

On 03/02/2018 11:51, wrote:
On Saturday, 3 February 2018 10:49:02 UTC, FMurtz wrote:
Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 02/02/2018 18:43, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 2 February 2018 16:41:24 UTC, Adrian BrentnallÂ* wrote:

I'm fairly sure leaded solder is not permitted under ROHS. If the
bulbholder is earthed the luminaire is class I, if compliant. Someone
else can comment on the shade.



In that case I'd better shut up shop! g
I would hope that there's a distinction between the use of
leaded/unleaded solder in electronics, and leaded solder in
traditionally-made craft items....

the solder question is a bit academic as the whole thing is made with
lead cames.(leadlight)

for which there are of course unleaded alternatives like copper strip. But Adrian doesn't want to go unleaded.



I'm sorry - you're getting well outside your field of expertise here.....

On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 03:59:42 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 11:14:03 UTC, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 02:15:07 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 2 February 2018 20:52:01 UTC, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

Why should he change?

I can go to Asda tonight and buy a mains lamp that in all honesty look
far less safe than those in the photo.

to avoid the risk of expensive legal proceedings

The wall wart may be a good idea but are you aware that the light
still needs PAT testing if testing is required?

AB

If the light were powered from a SELV wallwart, only the wallawart would need PAT testing - at times when a PAT test is warranted that is. Which it isn't anyway. But with an external wallwart the safety requirements for the ELV luminaire become lower & easier to achieve.

For arguments sake, you remove the mains lamp from the box and insert
one lamp and PSU.

How do you gain?

I'm not recommending it, but you gain by the luminaire being exempt from the rules & regulations that apply to mains appliances. It's why wallwarts are so popular.

If the client demands a PAT test on the lamp, it's unlikely that he'll
allow the new version to go through also.

quite the opposite, wallwarts are trivial to pat test. A wallwart powered luminaire is exempt from PAT testing as it's not a mains electrical device. It would also be exempt from the need to be class I or II, for strain relief & so on.

A test is a test full stop. You plug a device into the mains, it's a
portable appliance. To argue that testing is somehow easier or less
stringent by adding a PSU is ridiculous.

AB

Then you need to brush up on your PAT testing knowledge. Laptops powered by a brick are PAT exempt, only the PSU needs testing.

And I can't see any way in which exempting the 19v laptop from PAT testing would be ridiculous. On the contrary it would be a bit ridiculous to PAT test it, as it's never connected to the mains.


NT
Let me make it simple for you.


A test is a test full stop. You plug a device into the mains, it's a
portable appliance.

There we are, I got rid of the confusing bits.


Is there anythin else you dont understand?

AB

On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 12:15:33 +0000, Adrian Brentnall
wrote:

On 03/02/2018 11:19, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 21:48:42 +1100, FMurtz wrote:

Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 02/02/2018 18:43, wrote:
On Friday, 2 February 2018 16:41:24 UTC, Adrian Brentnall* wrote:
On 02/02/2018 14:18, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 2 February 2018 10:06:44 UTC, Adrian Brentnall* wrote:
On 02/02/2018 09:26, Robert wrote:
On 02/02/2018 08:34, Robin wrote:
On 02/02/2018 08:05, Adrian Brentnall wrote:
Hi All
In another life I used to be involved with PAT testing / electrical
safety testing & quality management on telecoms equipment - so I
understand a bit about electrical safety testing.

Nowadays, I make stained-glass. One of the things I make is a
stained-glass lamp - consisting of a 3-sided or 4-sided 'shade',
mounted on a timber base.
Illumination is using a mains LED or CFL bulb, in a brass bayonet
socket.
The mains lead is bought in as a new, ready-made, CE-marked
assembly,
with a switch, moulded-on plug and ferrule ends - which I wire into
the screw terminals in the bayonet socket. There's a cable clamp on
the mains lead where it leaves the timber base.

I've been selling these for a while - no problem.
I spoke to a potential retailer this afternoon (they're part of an
electrical wholesaler) who said that he wouldn't be able to sell
these lamps because 'They would need PAT testing, first'

So - anybody out there know if this it true or not?

Short of connecting the L, N, E into the wrong terminals on the
bayonet socket (which would be noticed by me on 'final test' as the
bulb wouldn't light), I can't imagine a failure-mode that would
make
the lamp unsafe.

I can (if necessary) buy a PAT tester, test each lamp and stick the
sticker on... but is it required?

Any ideas, please?
The country is Ireland, but I'm guessing that the same regulations
apply in the UK as well...
thanks


Impossible to prove a negative but I'm fairly confident there's no
legislation in the UK requiring a PAT test.* Certainly never seen
them
on other "craft" lamps. I suspect you have met one of the many
varieties of non-tariff trade barrier - of the genus "it's not a
legal
requirement but we won't sell it without one"

Is there no trade body of lamp makers which might know? The Dublin
equivalent of the Worshipful Company of Lightmongers??

PS
Labels? I assume the CE & plug are labelled when supplied but
thought
maximum wattage also required.


As they are new and being placed on the Market dont they have to meet
the relevant Safety Standard and have a CE mark applied.

Well - that's the question.
If the components (the lead and the bulbholder) are themselves
approved,
I'd always worked on the assumption that the whole thing was therefore
approved, given that it was assembled by somebody who knew one end
of a
screwdriver from the other, and that the final test (plug it in,
switch
it on) would only 'pass' if the wiring was done correctly.
I could, of course, be wrong g

PAT testing is not legally required for new goods. A safety
assessment & CE declaration is for a lot of items.

Yes - that seems to be where this is heading..


The approvals cover what is supplied to you, not what you
manufacture. You should go through the CE assessment process, in
which you would address possible issues such as electrical safety,
mechanical stability, flammability, suitability for various
environments, toxicity of materials etc. With that done you may
affix a CE sticker and sell it.

Just-about do-able, I suppose


A retailer can of course place any conditions they like on their
purchases from you.

I think, in this particular person's case, it's a matter of 'got out of
the wrong side of the bed this morning...' g

** They may regadr a PAT test as an adequate substitute for your legal
duties, though legally it would not be complaint with CE requirements. I
hear informally that CE declarations are often abused.

The first obvious question that springs to mind is are your lamps
class I or II? And are your shades lead soldered?

Yes - lots of lead solder used in the construction of the lampshade.
"You are recommended not to chew this lampshade....."

As to the class I vs Class II - I did check the definitions, and I'm not
sure. Three-core mains cable, brass bayonet lampholder (earthed) screwed
to wooden lamp-base. Stained-glass shade, pegged and glued into wooden
lamp-base. I'm guessing Class I ?

I'm fairly sure leaded solder is not permitted under ROHS. If the
bulbholder is earthed the luminaire is class I, if compliant. Someone
else can comment on the shade.



In that case I'd better shut up shop! g
I would hope that there's a distinction between the use of
leaded/unleaded solder in electronics, and leaded solder in
traditionally-made craft items....

the solder question is a bit academic as the whole thing is made with
lead cames.(leadlight)

And Cork isn't in the UK either.

Nope - we're in Europe! g

Drools with envy :-(

But I have my Irish passport :-)


AB

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:




Finally I can recommend the PAT testing course run by City & Guilds,
it's quite comprehensive and if you are fortunate enough to get
someone who sees it as a bit more than a sticker pasting operation, it
can be very interesting.


One I did yesterday ;-)

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/7/3/2...0579740_tp.jpg


AB

I used one of those as a teenager. Did it not have a wire guard at
some stage?

--

Roger Hayter

On 03/02/2018 12:32, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 12:15:33 +0000, Adrian Brentnall
wrote:

On 03/02/2018 11:19, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 21:48:42 +1100, FMurtz wrote:

Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 02/02/2018 18:43, wrote:
On Friday, 2 February 2018 16:41:24 UTC, Adrian BrentnallÂ* wrote:
On 02/02/2018 14:18, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 2 February 2018 10:06:44 UTC, Adrian BrentnallÂ* wrote:
On 02/02/2018 09:26, Robert wrote:
On 02/02/2018 08:34, Robin wrote:
On 02/02/2018 08:05, Adrian Brentnall wrote:
Hi All
In another life I used to be involved with PAT testing / electrical
safety testing & quality management on telecoms equipment - so I
understand a bit about electrical safety testing.

Nowadays, I make stained-glass. One of the things I make is a
stained-glass lamp - consisting of a 3-sided or 4-sided 'shade',
mounted on a timber base.
Illumination is using a mains LED or CFL bulb, in a brass bayonet
socket.
The mains lead is bought in as a new, ready-made, CE-marked
assembly,
with a switch, moulded-on plug and ferrule ends - which I wire into
the screw terminals in the bayonet socket. There's a cable clamp on
the mains lead where it leaves the timber base.

I've been selling these for a while - no problem.
I spoke to a potential retailer this afternoon (they're part of an
electrical wholesaler) who said that he wouldn't be able to sell
these lamps because 'They would need PAT testing, first'

So - anybody out there know if this it true or not?

Short of connecting the L, N, E into the wrong terminals on the
bayonet socket (which would be noticed by me on 'final test' as the
bulb wouldn't light), I can't imagine a failure-mode that would
make
the lamp unsafe.

I can (if necessary) buy a PAT tester, test each lamp and stick the
sticker on... but is it required?

Any ideas, please?
The country is Ireland, but I'm guessing that the same regulations
apply in the UK as well...
thanks


Impossible to prove a negative but I'm fairly confident there's no
legislation in the UK requiring a PAT test.Â* Certainly never seen
them
on other "craft" lamps. I suspect you have met one of the many
varieties of non-tariff trade barrier - of the genus "it's not a
legal
requirement but we won't sell it without one"

Is there no trade body of lamp makers which might know? The Dublin
equivalent of the Worshipful Company of Lightmongers??

PS
Labels? I assume the CE & plug are labelled when supplied but
thought
maximum wattage also required.


As they are new and being placed on the Market dont they have to meet
the relevant Safety Standard and have a CE mark applied.

Well - that's the question.
If the components (the lead and the bulbholder) are themselves
approved,
I'd always worked on the assumption that the whole thing was therefore
approved, given that it was assembled by somebody who knew one end
of a
screwdriver from the other, and that the final test (plug it in,
switch
it on) would only 'pass' if the wiring was done correctly.
I could, of course, be wrong g

PAT testing is not legally required for new goods. A safety
assessment & CE declaration is for a lot of items.

Yes - that seems to be where this is heading..


The approvals cover what is supplied to you, not what you
manufacture. You should go through the CE assessment process, in
which you would address possible issues such as electrical safety,
mechanical stability, flammability, suitability for various
environments, toxicity of materials etc. With that done you may
affix a CE sticker and sell it.

Just-about do-able, I suppose


A retailer can of course place any conditions they like on their
purchases from you.

I think, in this particular person's case, it's a matter of 'got out of
the wrong side of the bed this morning...' g

Â*Â* They may regadr a PAT test as an adequate substitute for your legal
duties, though legally it would not be complaint with CE requirements. I
hear informally that CE declarations are often abused.

The first obvious question that springs to mind is are your lamps
class I or II? And are your shades lead soldered?

Yes - lots of lead solder used in the construction of the lampshade.
"You are recommended not to chew this lampshade....."

As to the class I vs Class II - I did check the definitions, and I'm not
sure. Three-core mains cable, brass bayonet lampholder (earthed) screwed
to wooden lamp-base. Stained-glass shade, pegged and glued into wooden
lamp-base. I'm guessing Class I ?

I'm fairly sure leaded solder is not permitted under ROHS. If the
bulbholder is earthed the luminaire is class I, if compliant. Someone
else can comment on the shade.



In that case I'd better shut up shop! g
I would hope that there's a distinction between the use of
leaded/unleaded solder in electronics, and leaded solder in
traditionally-made craft items....

the solder question is a bit academic as the whole thing is made with
lead cames.(leadlight)

And Cork isn't in the UK either.

Nope - we're in Europe! g

Drools with envy :-(

But I have my Irish passport :-)

Good for you.
Sadly, we only have UK ones at the moment - but have been thinking about
applying for Irish ones as well. Might be a worthwhile investment.

On 03/02/2018 12:32, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 12:15:33 +0000, Adrian Brentnall
wrote:

On 03/02/2018 11:19, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 21:48:42 +1100, FMurtz wrote:

Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 02/02/2018 18:43, wrote:
On Friday, 2 February 2018 16:41:24 UTC, Adrian BrentnallÂ* wrote:
On 02/02/2018 14:18, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 2 February 2018 10:06:44 UTC, Adrian BrentnallÂ* wrote:
On 02/02/2018 09:26, Robert wrote:
On 02/02/2018 08:34, Robin wrote:
On 02/02/2018 08:05, Adrian Brentnall wrote:
Hi All
In another life I used to be involved with PAT testing / electrical
safety testing & quality management on telecoms equipment - so I
understand a bit about electrical safety testing.

Nowadays, I make stained-glass. One of the things I make is a
stained-glass lamp - consisting of a 3-sided or 4-sided 'shade',
mounted on a timber base.
Illumination is using a mains LED or CFL bulb, in a brass bayonet
socket.
The mains lead is bought in as a new, ready-made, CE-marked
assembly,
with a switch, moulded-on plug and ferrule ends - which I wire into
the screw terminals in the bayonet socket. There's a cable clamp on
the mains lead where it leaves the timber base.

I've been selling these for a while - no problem.
I spoke to a potential retailer this afternoon (they're part of an
electrical wholesaler) who said that he wouldn't be able to sell
these lamps because 'They would need PAT testing, first'

So - anybody out there know if this it true or not?

Short of connecting the L, N, E into the wrong terminals on the
bayonet socket (which would be noticed by me on 'final test' as the
bulb wouldn't light), I can't imagine a failure-mode that would
make
the lamp unsafe.

I can (if necessary) buy a PAT tester, test each lamp and stick the
sticker on... but is it required?

Any ideas, please?
The country is Ireland, but I'm guessing that the same regulations
apply in the UK as well...
thanks


Impossible to prove a negative but I'm fairly confident there's no
legislation in the UK requiring a PAT test.Â* Certainly never seen
them
on other "craft" lamps. I suspect you have met one of the many
varieties of non-tariff trade barrier - of the genus "it's not a
legal
requirement but we won't sell it without one"

Is there no trade body of lamp makers which might know? The Dublin
equivalent of the Worshipful Company of Lightmongers??

PS
Labels? I assume the CE & plug are labelled when supplied but
thought
maximum wattage also required.


As they are new and being placed on the Market dont they have to meet
the relevant Safety Standard and have a CE mark applied.

Well - that's the question.
If the components (the lead and the bulbholder) are themselves
approved,
I'd always worked on the assumption that the whole thing was therefore
approved, given that it was assembled by somebody who knew one end
of a
screwdriver from the other, and that the final test (plug it in,
switch
it on) would only 'pass' if the wiring was done correctly.
I could, of course, be wrong g

PAT testing is not legally required for new goods. A safety
assessment & CE declaration is for a lot of items.

Yes - that seems to be where this is heading..


The approvals cover what is supplied to you, not what you
manufacture. You should go through the CE assessment process, in
which you would address possible issues such as electrical safety,
mechanical stability, flammability, suitability for various
environments, toxicity of materials etc. With that done you may
affix a CE sticker and sell it.

Just-about do-able, I suppose


A retailer can of course place any conditions they like on their
purchases from you.

I think, in this particular person's case, it's a matter of 'got out of
the wrong side of the bed this morning...' g

Â*Â* They may regadr a PAT test as an adequate substitute for your legal
duties, though legally it would not be complaint with CE requirements. I
hear informally that CE declarations are often abused.

The first obvious question that springs to mind is are your lamps
class I or II? And are your shades lead soldered?

Yes - lots of lead solder used in the construction of the lampshade.
"You are recommended not to chew this lampshade....."

As to the class I vs Class II - I did check the definitions, and I'm not
sure. Three-core mains cable, brass bayonet lampholder (earthed) screwed
to wooden lamp-base. Stained-glass shade, pegged and glued into wooden
lamp-base. I'm guessing Class I ?

I'm fairly sure leaded solder is not permitted under ROHS. If the
bulbholder is earthed the luminaire is class I, if compliant. Someone
else can comment on the shade.



In that case I'd better shut up shop! g
I would hope that there's a distinction between the use of
leaded/unleaded solder in electronics, and leaded solder in
traditionally-made craft items....

the solder question is a bit academic as the whole thing is made with
lead cames.(leadlight)

And Cork isn't in the UK either.

Nope - we're in Europe! g

Drools with envy :-(

But I have my Irish passport :-)


AB

Would you drop me an email, please?
Contact details on the website.
thanks
Adrian

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
I'm fairly sure leaded solder is not permitted under ROHS. If the
bulbholder is earthed the luminaire is class I, if compliant. Someone
else can comment on the shade.

Thought the restrictions on leaded solder were only for H&S in production.
Not final use.

Not at all. The main perceived danger is during and after disposal,
e.g. lead and cadmium leaching from landfill. I don't have the
expertise to judge whether the concern is justified.


--

Roger Hayter

On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 13:30:40 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:




Finally I can recommend the PAT testing course run by City & Guilds,
it's quite comprehensive and if you are fortunate enough to get
someone who sees it as a bit more than a sticker pasting operation, it
can be very interesting.


One I did yesterday ;-)

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/7/3/2...0579740_tp.jpg


AB

I used one of those as a teenager. Did it not have a wire guard at
some stage?

The later ones did.

A chrome grid that clipped into four holes in the reflector.

The device depicted does not have the mounting holes.

An excellent example of the dispensation with silly EU safety rules
that continue to deprive British manufacturers of vast profits for
shoddy unsafe goods.

On the plus point those heaters reduced the lung cancer rate amongst
smokers.

AB

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 13:30:40 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:




Finally I can recommend the PAT testing course run by City & Guilds,
it's quite comprehensive and if you are fortunate enough to get
someone who sees it as a bit more than a sticker pasting operation, it
can be very interesting.


One I did yesterday ;-)

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/7/3/2...0579740_tp.jpg


AB

I used one of those as a teenager. Did it not have a wire guard at
some stage?

The later ones did.

A chrome grid that clipped into four holes in the reflector.

The device depicted does not have the mounting holes.

An excellent example of the dispensation with silly EU safety rules
that continue to deprive British manufacturers of vast profits for
shoddy unsafe goods.

On the plus point those heaters reduced the lung cancer rate amongst
smokers.

AB
You could actually light a cigarette from the bare wire version of the
elements. Handy if you had no matches.


--

Roger Hayter

On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 14:43:40 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 13:30:40 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:




Finally I can recommend the PAT testing course run by City & Guilds,
it's quite comprehensive and if you are fortunate enough to get
someone who sees it as a bit more than a sticker pasting operation, it
can be very interesting.


One I did yesterday ;-)

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/7/3/2...0579740_tp.jpg


AB

I used one of those as a teenager. Did it not have a wire guard at
some stage?

The later ones did.

A chrome grid that clipped into four holes in the reflector.

The device depicted does not have the mounting holes.

An excellent example of the dispensation with silly EU safety rules
that continue to deprive British manufacturers of vast profits for
shoddy unsafe goods.

On the plus point those heaters reduced the lung cancer rate amongst
smokers.

AB
You could actually light a cigarette from the bare wire version of the
elements. Handy if you had no matches.

You most certainly could!

And the "lucky" smokers were those that didnt remove the tinfoil from
the wrapper inside the ciggy packet.

The more astute removed the foil and went on to a miserable end.

AB

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 12:16:44 UTC, Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 03/02/2018 11:51, tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 3 February 2018 10:49:02 UTC, FMurtz wrote:
Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 02/02/2018 18:43, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 2 February 2018 16:41:24 UTC, Adrian BrentnallÂ* wrote:

I'm fairly sure leaded solder is not permitted under ROHS. If the
bulbholder is earthed the luminaire is class I, if compliant. Someone
else can comment on the shade.



In that case I'd better shut up shop! g
I would hope that there's a distinction between the use of
leaded/unleaded solder in electronics, and leaded solder in
traditionally-made craft items....

the solder question is a bit academic as the whole thing is made with
lead cames.(leadlight)

for which there are of course unleaded alternatives like copper strip. But Adrian doesn't want to go unleaded.



I'm sorry - you're getting well outside your field of expertise here.....

I'm well aware.


NT

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 12:30:13 UTC, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 03:59:42 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 3 February 2018 11:14:03 UTC, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 02:15:07 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 2 February 2018 20:52:01 UTC, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

Why should he change?

I can go to Asda tonight and buy a mains lamp that in all honesty look
far less safe than those in the photo.

to avoid the risk of expensive legal proceedings

The wall wart may be a good idea but are you aware that the light
still needs PAT testing if testing is required?

AB

If the light were powered from a SELV wallwart, only the wallawart would need PAT testing - at times when a PAT test is warranted that is. Which it isn't anyway. But with an external wallwart the safety requirements for the ELV luminaire become lower & easier to achieve.

For arguments sake, you remove the mains lamp from the box and insert
one lamp and PSU.

How do you gain?

I'm not recommending it, but you gain by the luminaire being exempt from the rules & regulations that apply to mains appliances. It's why wallwarts are so popular.

If the client demands a PAT test on the lamp, it's unlikely that he'll
allow the new version to go through also.

quite the opposite, wallwarts are trivial to pat test. A wallwart powered luminaire is exempt from PAT testing as it's not a mains electrical device. It would also be exempt from the need to be class I or II, for strain relief & so on.

A test is a test full stop. You plug a device into the mains, it's a
portable appliance. To argue that testing is somehow easier or less
stringent by adding a PSU is ridiculous.

AB

Then you need to brush up on your PAT testing knowledge. Laptops powered by a brick are PAT exempt, only the PSU needs testing.

And I can't see any way in which exempting the 19v laptop from PAT testing would be ridiculous. On the contrary it would be a bit ridiculous to PAT test it, as it's never connected to the mains.


NT
Let me make it simple for you.


A test is a test full stop. You plug a device into the mains, it's a
portable appliance.

There we are, I got rid of the confusing bits.


Is there anythin else you dont understand?

AB

yes, why I bother replying to you.

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 14:43:40 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 13:30:40 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:




Finally I can recommend the PAT testing course run by City & Guilds,
it's quite comprehensive and if you are fortunate enough to get
someone who sees it as a bit more than a sticker pasting operation, it
can be very interesting.


One I did yesterday ;-)

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/7/3/2...0579740_tp.jpg


AB

I used one of those as a teenager. Did it not have a wire guard at
some stage?

The later ones did.

A chrome grid that clipped into four holes in the reflector.

The device depicted does not have the mounting holes.

An excellent example of the dispensation with silly EU safety rules
that continue to deprive British manufacturers of vast profits for
shoddy unsafe goods.

On the plus point those heaters reduced the lung cancer rate amongst
smokers.

AB
You could actually light a cigarette from the bare wire version of the
elements. Handy if you had no matches.

You most certainly could!

And the "lucky" smokers were those that didnt remove the tinfoil from
the wrapper inside the ciggy packet.

The more astute removed the foil and went on to a miserable end.

AB

It is a very unfair world. The statistics are in their favour, but some
of the people who spend every waking minute doing healthy things still
come to a miserable end prematurely.

--

Roger Hayter

On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 02:03:01 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 14:43:40 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 13:30:40 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:




Finally I can recommend the PAT testing course run by City & Guilds,
it's quite comprehensive and if you are fortunate enough to get
someone who sees it as a bit more than a sticker pasting operation, it
can be very interesting.


One I did yesterday ;-)

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/7/3/2...0579740_tp.jpg


AB

I used one of those as a teenager. Did it not have a wire guard at
some stage?

The later ones did.

A chrome grid that clipped into four holes in the reflector.

The device depicted does not have the mounting holes.

An excellent example of the dispensation with silly EU safety rules
that continue to deprive British manufacturers of vast profits for
shoddy unsafe goods.

On the plus point those heaters reduced the lung cancer rate amongst
smokers.

AB
You could actually light a cigarette from the bare wire version of the
elements. Handy if you had no matches.

You most certainly could!

And the "lucky" smokers were those that didnt remove the tinfoil from
the wrapper inside the ciggy packet.

The more astute removed the foil and went on to a miserable end.

AB

It is a very unfair world. The statistics are in their favour, but some
of the people who spend every waking minute doing healthy things still
come to a miserable end prematurely.

True!

The world would be a little more fair maybe, if we locked tobacco
company CEO's up alongside the other drug dealers :-)

AB

On 03-Feb-18 12:11 PM, Adrian Brentnall wrote:
....
I'm ahead of you on that one - all suitably labelled with appropriate
warnings (about weight & lifting, rather than licking the lead g)

Also has a page of 'installation instructions'....

As compliance is self-certified, nobody is going to worry about what you
do, unless something goes wrong. If that happens you will need a paper
trail, to prove that the product was properly designed, made and
inspected. Spending some time on writing a quality manual and a
technical file would probably be worth while. A comprehensive risk
assessment will give the rational for any tests you deem necessary. I
would also ask the makers of the components you buy in for certificates
of conformity for their products.

--
--

Colin Bignell

In article ,
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
The world would be a little more fair maybe, if we locked tobacco
company CEO's up alongside the other drug dealers :-)

Given the problems the US is having with prescription pain killers, would
you add in doctors and drug companies too?

And then there's alcohol...

--
*They call it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already taken.

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

On Sunday, 4 February 2018 11:01:00 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

The world would be a little more fair maybe, if we locked tobacco
company CEO's up alongside the other drug dealers :-)

Given the problems the US is having with prescription pain killers, would
you add in doctors and drug companies too?

there's a list of problems with doctors.

And then there's alcohol...

Cars and OTC painkillers kill many too. Where do you draw the line? How do you decide who is responsbile?


NT

On Sun, 04 Feb 2018 10:58:42 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
The world would be a little more fair maybe, if we locked tobacco
company CEO's up alongside the other drug dealers :-)

Given the problems the US is having with prescription pain killers, would
you add in doctors and drug companies too?

No! Totally different scenario, apparrantly the problems with
painkillers in the US are based on what started as a genuine treatment
for pain relief.

One would be tempted to think that the cause of the problem was
private medical practice and a failiure to provideaffordable joint
surgery, but some of the deaths have occurred to people that One would
think were well able to afford a few new joints.

Anyway, I have little doubt that most of the doctors involved are
acting in what they see as the best interests of their patients.

God help the American people if that isn't the general case, the poor
dears have a very big blonde millstone around their necks already :-)


And then there's alcohol...

A tool, like the odd spanner or screwdriver in the toolbox.

Some get great pleasure from it and use it as a way to release their
creativity, careful use of said tool can lead to more effective social
interaction and can help build relationships.

Sadly there are a few who's use of alcohol and also spanners and
screwdrivers incidentally, will lead to misery, financial difficulties
and a life that is full of incoherent ramblings about their great
"successes" and of course the propensity for constantly telling others
how to do things.

AB

On 04/02/2018 09:44, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Feb-18 12:11 PM, Adrian Brentnall wrote:
...
I'm ahead of you on that one - all suitably labelled with appropriate
warnings (about weight & lifting, rather than licking the lead g)

Also has a page of 'installation instructions'....

As compliance is self-certified, nobody is going to worry about what you
do, unless something goes wrong. If that happens you will need a paper
trail, to prove that the product was properly designed, made and
inspected. Spending some time on writing a quality manual and a
technical file would probably be worth while. A comprehensive risk
assessment will give the rational for any tests you deem necessary. I
would also ask the makers of the components you buy in for certificates
of conformity for their products.

HI Colin
Yes - that's the course of action I was going to follow.
I used to get paid for writing Quality manuals - but I guess I'll just
do this one for free g
Planning on using a PAT tester, just because it's a recognisable set of
tests. Incoming C's of C being arranged..
As we used to say when preparing for a Quality Audit - 'Head them off at
the pass!'
Thanks
Adrian

On 4 Feb 2018 13:38:43 GMT, Huge wrote:

In article ,
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
The world would be a little more fair maybe, if we locked tobacco
company CEO's up alongside the other drug dealers :-)

The world might be a little more fair if the likes of you stopped telling
people how to lead their lives and if the likes of you realised that people's
bodies belong to them, and and not to the likes of you and that adults get
to choose for themselves, no matter what the likes of you think of those
decisions.
I,m sorry

At what point did I tell anyone to do anything.

The reference you have included is merely a supposition, people do
choose for themselves no matter what I think, have you any evidence to
the contrary?

Believe me this planet would be a miserable place, if everyone adhered
to my, or any other individuals whim as to what the population should
do.

Incidentally, the "believe me" is just a phrase, don't for one moment
think of it as a command. You are entirely at liberty to disbelieve me
if it takes your fancy.

I do humbly apologise for the misunderstandings my posts have caused
you, but you have to remember that most contributers to uk.d-i-y are
reasonably sensible and can comprehend English. I cannot always
remember to cater for the likes of your good self.


AB

On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 14:45:20 -0800, tabbypurr wrote:

yes, why I bother replying to you.

This idiot's a troll posting under various different monikers.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 13:31:42 +0000, Adrian Brentnall wrote:

Good for you.
Sadly, we only have UK ones at the moment - but have been thinking about
applying for Irish ones as well. Might be a worthwhile investment.

Yes, and when you do please **** off and live over there, eh?



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 17:56:46 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 13:31:42 +0000, Adrian Brentnall wrote:

Good for you.
Sadly, we only have UK ones at the moment - but have been thinking about
applying for Irish ones as well. Might be a worthwhile investment.

Yes, and when you do please **** off and live over there, eh?

I think he is living there old bean!

Still we cant allow mere facts to interfere with our output of bigoted
racist drivel, can we?


AB

On 04/02/2018 17:54, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 14:45:20 -0800, tabbypurr wrote:

yes, why I bother replying to you.

This idiot's a troll posting under various different monikers.




And you aren't a troll?

On Sunday, 4 February 2018 18:42:24 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 04/02/2018 17:54, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 14:45:20 -0800, tabbypurr wrote:

yes, why I bother replying to you.

This idiot's a troll posting under various different monikers.

And you aren't a troll?

No, I've read plenty from CD and he isn't. I'm starting to think he's right about tarquin.


NT

Have you actually read the IET Code of Practice for In Service Inspection and Testing?
It might be simpler if the OP and many others invested in a copy of the current edition. Amazon is a good place to start.

On 04/02/2018 17:56, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 13:31:42 +0000, Adrian Brentnall wrote:

Good for you.
Sadly, we only have UK ones at the moment - but have been thinking about
applying for Irish ones as well. Might be a worthwhile investment.

Yes, and when you do please **** off and live over there, eh?



Not sure what it's got to do with you - but we've been resident over
here (Ireland) for the past 12 years, thanks.

On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 12:35:24 -0800 (PST), Cynic
wrote:

Have you actually read the IET Code of Practice for In Service Inspection and Testing?
It might be simpler if the OP and many others invested in a copy of the current edition. Amazon is a good place to start.

Have you actually read the initial enquiry to see what the
communications relate to?

You like a number of others in this NG, dip in giving out choice
advice on the solution to problems you do not understand or do nor
care enough about to give a few minutes of time assimilating the
information.

In service inspection and testing is precisely what the title say's.
It wouldn't be simpler to invest in a copy.

Impressive as the document is, it isn't simpler to invest in a copy of
something that does not apply to an appliance that not only has never
seen service, but it hasn't even arrived at the place of use.

Perthaps an outline of harmonic rejection techniques might be woth
investigating, I'm sure a procedure for testing for third harmonics
could be found also.

AB

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 10:08:54 AM UTC, Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 02/02/2018 09:26, Andy Burns wrote:
Adrian Brentnall wrote:

he wouldn't be able to sell these
lamps because 'They would need PAT testing, first'

I can only think of one device I've purchased new, that came ready PAT
tested (an oscilloscope scope, the nice reseller had opened the box,
upgraded the firmware, included a UK mains lead and stuck a PAT sticker
on it).

I think the retailer is over-egging the PAT pudding.

Thanks Andy
It does seem a bit strange.
I can buy me a little PAT tester (probably 2nd-hand) - and do a formal
test, and stick a sticker on the lamp - but then (to be strictly
correct) you're into the calibration thing, which carries additional costs.
Bit of a slippery slope, perhaps?

The more important part of a PAT test is the viaual inspection. Either way, to carry one out and for it to have any weight, you would need to have a City & Guilds in PAT testing (at least that was the requirement about 10 - 15 years ago when I did it (one day course (not even a day if I recall correctly).

Cheers

Chris

In article ,
wrote:
On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 10:08:54 AM UTC, Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 02/02/2018 09:26, Andy Burns wrote:
Adrian Brentnall wrote:

he wouldn't be able to sell these lamps because 'They would need PAT
testing, first'

I can only think of one device I've purchased new, that came ready
PAT tested (an oscilloscope scope, the nice reseller had opened the
box, upgraded the firmware, included a UK mains lead and stuck a PAT
sticker on it).

I think the retailer is over-egging the PAT pudding.

Thanks Andy It does seem a bit strange. I can buy me a little PAT
tester (probably 2nd-hand) - and do a formal test, and stick a sticker
on the lamp - but then (to be strictly correct) you're into the
calibration thing, which carries additional costs. Bit of a slippery
slope, perhaps?

The more important part of a PAT test is the viaual inspection. Either
way, to carry one out and for it to have any weight, you would need to
have a City & Guilds in PAT testing (at least that was the requirement
about 10 - 15 years ago when I did it (one day course (not even a day if
I recall correctly).

I have a piece of paper that says I attended a PAT course, but there's
nothing about City & Guilds on it.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 04:07:49 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 10:08:54 AM UTC, Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 02/02/2018 09:26, Andy Burns wrote:
Adrian Brentnall wrote:

he wouldn't be able to sell these
lamps because 'They would need PAT testing, first'

I can only think of one device I've purchased new, that came ready PAT
tested (an oscilloscope scope, the nice reseller had opened the box,
upgraded the firmware, included a UK mains lead and stuck a PAT sticker
on it).

I think the retailer is over-egging the PAT pudding.

Thanks Andy
It does seem a bit strange.
I can buy me a little PAT tester (probably 2nd-hand) - and do a formal
test, and stick a sticker on the lamp - but then (to be strictly
correct) you're into the calibration thing, which carries additional costs.
Bit of a slippery slope, perhaps?

The more important part of a PAT test is the viaual inspection. Either way, to carry one out and for it to have any weight, you would need to have a City & Guilds in PAT testing (at least that was the requirement about 10 - 15 years ago when I did it (one day course (not even a day if I recall correctly).

Cheers

Chris

On the first point, correct. This will pick nearly every fault up in
most circumstances.

As far as the second goes, Weight with who?

Can you justify that statement?

AB

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 6:05:57 PM UTC, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 04:07:49 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 10:08:54 AM UTC, Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 02/02/2018 09:26, Andy Burns wrote:
Adrian Brentnall wrote:

he wouldn't be able to sell these
lamps because 'They would need PAT testing, first'

I can only think of one device I've purchased new, that came ready PAT
tested (an oscilloscope scope, the nice reseller had opened the box,
upgraded the firmware, included a UK mains lead and stuck a PAT sticker
on it).

I think the retailer is over-egging the PAT pudding.

Thanks Andy
It does seem a bit strange.
I can buy me a little PAT tester (probably 2nd-hand) - and do a formal
test, and stick a sticker on the lamp - but then (to be strictly
correct) you're into the calibration thing, which carries additional costs.
Bit of a slippery slope, perhaps?

The more important part of a PAT test is the viaual inspection. Either way, to carry one out and for it to have any weight, you would need to have a City & Guilds in PAT testing (at least that was the requirement about 10 - 15 years ago when I did it (one day course (not even a day if I recall correctly).

Cheers

Chris

On the first point, correct. This will pick nearly every fault up in
most circumstances.

As far as the second goes, Weight with who?

Can you justify that statement?

AB

I can't justify it with chapter & verse, but the day something one has PAT tested catches fire the next week, HSE or someone might well come looking for your qualification(s) and evidence of (public liability??) insurance (which dependiing on the size of the fire, you might need to claim on (but perhaps only if you were held to be negligent?)

When I say "you", no critiscism of you in particular is expressed or implied, I am sure you know what you are doing with electricery.

Such concerns are one reason I will be having my CU changes done professionally. I could probably hire some test equipment and follow the guides in the WiKi, but I still don't have the bits of paper, membership of prefessional bodies, or insurance.

In article ,
wrote:
I can't justify it with chapter & verse, but the day something one has
PAT tested catches fire the next week, HSE or someone might well come
looking for your qualification(s) and evidence of (public liability??)
insurance (which dependiing on the size of the fire, you might need to
claim on (but perhaps only if you were held to be negligent?)

They would have to prove the item was faulty *at the time of the test*
which might prove tricky if destroyed by fire.

--
*It is wrong to ever split an infinitive *

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

On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 06:44:15 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 6:05:57 PM UTC, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 04:07:49 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 10:08:54 AM UTC, Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 02/02/2018 09:26, Andy Burns wrote:
Adrian Brentnall wrote:

he wouldn't be able to sell these
lamps because 'They would need PAT testing, first'

I can only think of one device I've purchased new, that came ready PAT
tested (an oscilloscope scope, the nice reseller had opened the box,
upgraded the firmware, included a UK mains lead and stuck a PAT sticker
on it).

I think the retailer is over-egging the PAT pudding.

Thanks Andy
It does seem a bit strange.
I can buy me a little PAT tester (probably 2nd-hand) - and do a formal
test, and stick a sticker on the lamp - but then (to be strictly
correct) you're into the calibration thing, which carries additional costs.
Bit of a slippery slope, perhaps?

The more important part of a PAT test is the viaual inspection. Either way, to carry one out and for it to have any weight, you would need to have a City & Guilds in PAT testing (at least that was the requirement about 10 - 15 years ago when I did it (one day course (not even a day if I recall correctly).

Cheers

Chris

On the first point, correct. This will pick nearly every fault up in
most circumstances.

As far as the second goes, Weight with who?

Can you justify that statement?

AB

I can't justify it with chapter & verse, but the day something one has PAT tested catches fire the next week, HSE or someone might well come looking for your qualification(s) and evidence of (public liability??) insurance (which dependiing on the size of the fire, you might need to claim on (but perhaps only if you were held to be negligent?)

When I say "you", no critiscism of you in particular is expressed or implied, I am sure you know what you are doing with electricery.

Such concerns are one reason I will be having my CU changes done professionally. I could probably hire some test equipment and follow the guides in the WiKi, but I still don't have the bits of paper, membership of prefessional bodies, or insurance.

It's just the City & Guilds requirement that is false.

No formal qualifications are needed. To be honest, when I did the
course there were a group from I think, the council all doing the
classes with me in between their the jolly japes. I would have more
confidence in an enthusiastic amateur!

Don't get me wrong it's an excellent course, but at the end of the day
it isn't exactly a demanding task to train someone to measure
conductivity.

I would without a shadow of a doubt recommend it to anyone involved
with the practice incidentally, a lot of people engaged in testing
freely advertise that they don't know what they are doing.

As far as your CU changes go, you are totally correct. In my own
personal experience no matter what the source of reference used and
how thourough One's approach, the first job or maybe ten jobs, provide
the experience to enable the next one to be done properly :-(

AB

On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 14:44:19 UTC, wrote:
On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 6:05:57 PM UTC, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 04:07:49 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 10:08:54 AM UTC, Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 02/02/2018 09:26, Andy Burns wrote:
Adrian Brentnall wrote:

he wouldn't be able to sell these
lamps because 'They would need PAT testing, first'

I can only think of one device I've purchased new, that came ready PAT
tested (an oscilloscope scope, the nice reseller had opened the box,
upgraded the firmware, included a UK mains lead and stuck a PAT sticker
on it).

I think the retailer is over-egging the PAT pudding.

Thanks Andy
It does seem a bit strange.
I can buy me a little PAT tester (probably 2nd-hand) - and do a formal
test, and stick a sticker on the lamp - but then (to be strictly
correct) you're into the calibration thing, which carries additional costs.
Bit of a slippery slope, perhaps?

The more important part of a PAT test is the viaual inspection. Either way, to carry one out and for it to have any weight, you would need to have a City & Guilds in PAT testing (at least that was the requirement about 10 - 15 years ago when I did it (one day course (not even a day if I recall correctly).

Cheers

Chris

On the first point, correct. This will pick nearly every fault up in
most circumstances.

As far as the second goes, Weight with who?

Can you justify that statement?

AB

I can't justify it with chapter & verse, but the day something one has PAT tested catches fire the next week, HSE or someone might well come looking for your qualification(s)


No they will not. As explained by our PAT tester after an item has been tested all it means is that item was safe when tested it means NOTHING else.

If something happens to the item it does NOT mean the PAT tester is at fault, neither the machinary or the person doing the tests.
Which is why PAT testing is pretty much a waste of time, unless it picks up something that has failed, it can NOT tell you that an electrical product won't go faulty in the future.




and evidence of (public liability??) insurance (which dependiing on the size of the fire, you might need to claim on (but perhaps only if you were held to be negligent?)




When I say "you", no critiscism of you in particular is expressed or implied, I am sure you know what you are doing with electricery.

Such concerns are one reason I will be having my CU changes done professionally. I could probably hire some test equipment and follow the guides in the WiKi, but I still don't have the bits of paper, membership of prefessional bodies, or insurance.

That is a bit differnt from PAT testing.