Electrical Safety testing

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Dave - Dave.net.nz, Apr 27, 2005.

  1. Hmmm
    the safety tester is stuck.
    HP digital Camera, and it seems to need to be charged prior to being
    electrical safety tested... note the problem.

    The problem is that the test fires the voltage through it, but the
    camera is dead as a dodo, because it has never been charged, and so the
    test fails because the device isn't on, I note something becoming very
    cyclic in nature.

    Anyone know how to get around this?
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Apr 27, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:28:31 +1200, "Dave - Dave.net.nz"
    <> wrote:

    >Hmmm
    >the safety tester is stuck.
    >HP digital Camera, and it seems to need to be charged prior to being
    >electrical safety tested... note the problem.
    >
    >The problem is that the test fires the voltage through it, but the
    >camera is dead as a dodo, because it has never been charged, and so the
    >test fails because the device isn't on, I note something becoming very
    >cyclic in nature.
    >
    >Anyone know how to get around this?


    Hi
    What model camera do you have and what model tester (is this a PAT
    tester)?

    Does the camera have mains connected directly to it for charging or
    via a separate charging unit which provides an isolated output? If the
    latter then you only need to test the charger.

    What is preventing you charging the camera before the test?
    --
    Regards
    Malcolm
    Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
    Malcolm Moore, Apr 28, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Malcolm Moore wrote:
    >>the safety tester is stuck.
    >>HP digital Camera, and it seems to need to be charged prior to being
    >>electrical safety tested... note the problem.


    >>The problem is that the test fires the voltage through it, but the
    >>camera is dead as a dodo, because it has never been charged, and so the
    >>test fails because the device isn't on, I note something becoming very
    >>cyclic in nature.
    >>
    >>Anyone know how to get around this?


    > What model camera do you have and what model tester (is this a PAT
    > tester)?


    Ummm, HP 4MP something, doesnt matter, we gave up and biffed it on an
    UPS that passed safety testing, so unplugged it from the wall, and left
    the camera charging :)

    > Does the camera have mains connected directly to it for charging or
    > via a separate charging unit which provides an isolated output? If the
    > latter then you only need to test the charger.


    direct plug to the camera.

    > What is preventing you charging the camera before the test?


    heh, the lack being allowed to plug it in without a safety test. :)


    It all passed in the end, just a bit of lateral thinking required.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Apr 28, 2005
    #3
  4. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    CSE Guest

    On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:27:21 +1200, Malcolm Moore
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:28:31 +1200, "Dave - Dave.net.nz"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>Hmmm
    >>the safety tester is stuck.
    >>HP digital Camera, and it seems to need to be charged prior to being
    >>electrical safety tested... note the problem.
    >>
    >>The problem is that the test fires the voltage through it, but the
    >>camera is dead as a dodo, because it has never been charged, and so the
    >>test fails because the device isn't on, I note something becoming very
    >>cyclic in nature.
    >>
    >>Anyone know how to get around this?

    >
    >Hi
    >What model camera do you have and what model tester (is this a PAT
    >tester)?
    >
    >Does the camera have mains connected directly to it for charging or
    >via a separate charging unit which provides an isolated output? If the
    >latter then you only need to test the charger.
    >
    >What is preventing you charging the camera before the test?




    How stupid can we get, this beets them all, he has probably killed the Camera


    HP does meet World standard so why do it all again, and for what Point..?


    This would be one of the most stupid things that I have read here.
    CSE, Apr 28, 2005
    #4
  5. CSE wrote:
    > How stupid can we get, this beets them all, he has probably killed the Camera


    better a dead camera than a dead staffer.

    > HP does meet World standard so why do it all again, and for what Point..?


    I work in a hospital, Im sure that the patients would be pleased that
    there is another step of electrical safety involved... How would you
    feel if say your kid(if youve got one) was lying in bed, and a
    non-tested cable hit the edge of the metal bed, frying them... Im sure
    you'd be stoked.

    > This would be one of the most stupid things that I have read here.


    so you don't read your own posts then huh?
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Apr 28, 2005
    #5
  6. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    Daniel Guest

    Almost all digital camera chargers are double insulated, so testing wiht a
    pat tester / mega is of no point, as both of these tests you are trying to
    see a "leak to ground" no ground no leak is posable. (the earth bond test
    is also of no point as there is no earth bond) All you can do for a DI
    device is to do the vishal inspection of the power lead.

    hmmm
    Daniel


    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > Malcolm Moore wrote:
    >>>the safety tester is stuck.
    >>>HP digital Camera, and it seems to need to be charged prior to being
    >>>electrical safety tested... note the problem.

    >
    >>>The problem is that the test fires the voltage through it, but the
    >>>camera is dead as a dodo, because it has never been charged, and so the
    >>>test fails because the device isn't on, I note something becoming very
    >>>cyclic in nature.
    >>>
    >>>Anyone know how to get around this?

    >
    >> What model camera do you have and what model tester (is this a PAT
    >> tester)?

    >
    > Ummm, HP 4MP something, doesnt matter, we gave up and biffed it on an
    > UPS that passed safety testing, so unplugged it from the wall, and left
    > the camera charging :)
    >
    >> Does the camera have mains connected directly to it for charging or
    >> via a separate charging unit which provides an isolated output? If the
    >> latter then you only need to test the charger.

    >
    > direct plug to the camera.
    >
    >> What is preventing you charging the camera before the test?

    >
    > heh, the lack being allowed to plug it in without a safety test. :)
    >
    >
    > It all passed in the end, just a bit of lateral thinking required.
    Daniel, Apr 28, 2005
    #6
  7. On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:51:56 +1200, "Dave - Dave.net.nz"
    <> wrote:

    >Malcolm Moore wrote:


    snip

    >> What is preventing you charging the camera before the test?

    >
    >heh, the lack being allowed to plug it in without a safety test. :)


    No, Regulation 45 states:

    45.Connection of power supply for testing, certification, or
    inspection purposes

    Nothing in these regulations prevents the connection, to any
    power supply, of any works, electrical installation, or electrical
    appliance, or the supply of electricity to any works, electrical
    installation, or electrical appliance, where that connection or supply
    is solely for the purposes of carrying out any testing, certification,
    or inspection required by these regulations.

    Regulation 76(3) states:

    (3)A fitting or electrical appliance (other than a medical/electrical
    fitting or appliance) that is in-service complies with regulation
    69(1)* if it has been tested, inspected, and tagged in accordance with
    AS/NZS 3760.

    While you are testing it, it is not "in-service" so you can
    apply power to get it in a state where your tester will work.

    *69(1) says things must be safe.


    >It all passed in the end, just a bit of lateral thinking required.

    --
    Regards
    Malcolm
    Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
    Malcolm Moore, Apr 28, 2005
    #7
  8. On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:36:49 +1200, Daniel <>
    wrote:

    >Almost all digital camera chargers are double insulated, so testing wiht a
    >pat tester / mega is of no point, as both of these tests you are trying to
    >see a "leak to ground" no ground no leak is posable. (the earth bond test
    >is also of no point as there is no earth bond) All you can do for a DI
    >device is to do the vishal inspection of the power lead.
    >
    >hmmm
    >Daniel


    Rubbish. Double Insulated devices can have exposed metal. That metal
    is not earthed and an earth leakage test is required to prove that the
    insulation between it and the supply conductors is still satisfactory.

    --
    Regards
    Malcolm
    Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
    Malcolm Moore, Apr 28, 2005
    #8
  9. Daniel wrote:
    > Almost all digital camera chargers are double insulated, so testing wiht a
    > pat tester / mega is of no point, as both of these tests you are trying to
    > see a "leak to ground" no ground no leak is posable. (the earth bond test
    > is also of no point as there is no earth bond) All you can do for a DI
    > device is to do the vishal inspection of the power lead.


    ok then, thats good I guess, not my area, just wondered if anyone had a
    clue as to get around it.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Apr 28, 2005
    #9
  10. Malcolm Moore wrote:
    >>>What is preventing you charging the camera before the test?

    >>heh, the lack being allowed to plug it in without a safety test. :)


    > No, Regulation 45 states:


    snip
    I didn't actually read it... I don't personally care.

    but then, it's not my area, I just wondered if anyone had a clue as to
    get around it.

    The safety guy has to test things, and either put a sticker on it, or
    not, it's not his place to argue with dumb managers, nor mine.

    "I am but a humble servent"
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Apr 28, 2005
    #10
  11. On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:36:30 +1200, CSE <>
    wrote:

    >How stupid can we get, this beets them all, he has probably killed the Camera


    Why? If it is designed to have the mains connected to it there is no
    way a properly performed insulation test is going to damage it.

    >HP does meet World standard so why do it all again, and for what Point..?


    Just because it was safe when it left the factory is no guarantee it
    will remain that way.

    If you had electrical registration you would have received a copy of
    AS/NZS3760 which is titled "In-service safety inspection and testing
    of electrical equipment".

    This details the intervals at which equipment must be re-tested . e.g.
    for class I (earthed equipment)
    Construction & Demolition sites every 3 months
    Factories & Workshops every 6 months
    Commercial Environments every 12 months
    Offices every 5 years.

    This testing is required by Regulation 76

    >This would be one of the most stupid things that I have read here.


    I refrain from commenting.
    --
    Regards
    Malcolm
    Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
    Malcolm Moore, Apr 28, 2005
    #11
  12. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    Keith Guest

    In article <>,
    says...

    > If you had electrical registration you would have received a copy of
    > AS/NZS3760 which is titled "In-service safety inspection and testing
    > of electrical equipment".
    >
    > This details the intervals at which equipment must be re-tested . e.g.
    > for class I (earthed equipment)
    > Construction & Demolition sites every 3 months
    > Factories & Workshops every 6 months
    > Commercial Environments every 12 months
    > Offices every 5 years.
    >
    > This testing is required by Regulation 76


    3760 is a means of compliance to 69 not a requirement
    Keith, Apr 28, 2005
    #12
  13. On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:15:14 +1200, Keith <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > says...
    >
    >> If you had electrical registration you would have received a copy of
    >> AS/NZS3760 which is titled "In-service safety inspection and testing
    >> of electrical equipment".
    >>
    >> This details the intervals at which equipment must be re-tested . e.g.
    >> for class I (earthed equipment)
    >> Construction & Demolition sites every 3 months
    >> Factories & Workshops every 6 months
    >> Commercial Environments every 12 months
    >> Offices every 5 years.
    >>
    >> This testing is required by Regulation 76

    >
    >3760 is a means of compliance to 69 not a requirement


    Yes, fair enough. My apologies.
    However, "it was safe when it was installed and it hasn't been tested
    since" is not going to go down very well when it becomes obvious that
    69 has been breeched.
    --
    Regards
    Malcolm
    Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
    Malcolm Moore, Apr 28, 2005
    #13
  14. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    CSE Guest

    On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:16:50 +1200, Malcolm Moore
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:15:14 +1200, Keith <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>In article <>,
    >> says...
    >>
    >>> If you had electrical registration you would have received a copy of
    >>> AS/NZS3760 which is titled "In-service safety inspection and testing
    >>> of electrical equipment".
    >>>
    >>> This details the intervals at which equipment must be re-tested . e.g.
    >>> for class I (earthed equipment)
    >>> Construction & Demolition sites every 3 months
    >>> Factories & Workshops every 6 months
    >>> Commercial Environments every 12 months
    >>> Offices every 5 years.
    >>>
    >>> This testing is required by Regulation 76

    >>
    >>3760 is a means of compliance to 69 not a requirement

    >
    >Yes, fair enough. My apologies.
    >However, "it was safe when it was installed and it hasn't been tested
    >since" is not going to go down very well when it becomes obvious that
    >69 has been breeched.




    YES NZ the way over regulated Country, for what reason, ? just to feed the
    Quangoes

    99% of stuff we service would not pass any tests what so ever as it was Crap
    in the first place.
    CSE, Apr 28, 2005
    #14
  15. On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:39:50 +1200, CSE <>
    wrote:


    >YES NZ the way over regulated Country, for what reason, ? just to feed the
    >Quangoes
    >
    >99% of stuff we service would not pass any tests what so ever as it was Crap
    >in the first place.


    I thought you were retired! So what's this "99% of stuff we service"
    then? :)

    If NZ is over regulated, and the manufacturers of 99% of the stuff you
    service are in countries that are under regulated (because it wouldn't
    pass any tests) what countries have, in your opinion, got it just
    right?

    --
    Regards
    Malcolm
    Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
    Malcolm Moore, Apr 28, 2005
    #15
  16. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    Richard Guest

    Daniel wrote:
    > Almost all digital camera chargers are double insulated, so testing wiht a
    > pat tester / mega is of no point, as both of these tests you are trying to
    > see a "leak to ground" no ground no leak is posable. (the earth bond test
    > is also of no point as there is no earth bond) All you can do for a DI
    > device is to do the vishal inspection of the power lead.



    Umm, in my experiance with AV gear, double insulated stuff is the worst at
    leakage to earth.

    The leakage test is largly meaningless as its not testing for a reactive leak to
    earth via filtering capacitors etc, which is what the bulk of the leakage is
    caused by.
    Richard, Apr 28, 2005
    #16
  17. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    CSE Guest

    On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:19:01 +1200, Malcolm Moore
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:39:50 +1200, CSE <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >
    >>YES NZ the way over regulated Country, for what reason, ? just to feed the
    >>Quangoes
    >>
    >>99% of stuff we service would not pass any tests what so ever as it was Crap
    >>in the first place.

    >
    >I thought you were retired! So what's this "99% of stuff we service"
    >then? :)
    >
    >If NZ is over regulated, and the manufacturers of 99% of the stuff you
    >service are in countries that are under regulated (because it wouldn't
    >pass any tests) what countries have, in your opinion, got it just
    >right?




    Have you ever brought stuff in NZ with the full details of the Reqs that it
    has passed..? even NZ made electrical stuff.

    I notice all UK stuff has it stuck on the back, and in most cases molded on
    the back.


    A lot of overseas stuff has stickers off all the Regs that it has passed..


    NZ Standards here are a utter Joke..
    CSE, Apr 28, 2005
    #17
  18. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    Craig Shore Guest

    On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:59:29 +1200, "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <>
    wrote:

    >Malcolm Moore wrote:
    >>>>What is preventing you charging the camera before the test?
    >>>heh, the lack being allowed to plug it in without a safety test. :)

    >
    >> No, Regulation 45 states:

    >
    >snip
    >I didn't actually read it... I don't personally care.
    >
    >but then, it's not my area, I just wondered if anyone had a clue as to
    >get around it.


    Take it home and charge it up, return it to work and have it tested.

    And to be safe, don't touch it while charging it at home.
    Craig Shore, Apr 28, 2005
    #18
  19. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    Don Hills Guest

    In article <>,
    "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:
    >
    >ok then, thats good I guess, not my area, just wondered if anyone had a
    >clue as to get around it.


    As was pointed out, you don't have to get around it. The person doing the
    testing has explicit permission to plug it in in order to test it. I'm
    surprised they didn't know that. While they erred on the safe side in this
    case, I wonder what other errors they may make due to an apparent lack of
    familiarity with the regulations.

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
    preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
    -- Microsoft advertisement on the box for Windows 2.11 for 286
    Don Hills, Apr 28, 2005
    #19
  20. > 99% of stuff we service would not pass any tests what so ever as it was Crap
    > in the first place.


    So just how does one service equipment when they are retired and
    non-registered ?

    If you're going to bitch about stupid posts Woger, you need to take a
    look at some fool posting as 'CSE' under the thread Warehouse DVD-R 50
    packs commenting about how cheap they get CDR disks.
    -=[Waylon Smithers]=-, Apr 28, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Boomer

    testing--news2004--testing

    Boomer, Sep 24, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    452
    William Poaster
    Sep 24, 2003
  2. daniel edwards

    testing testing 123

    daniel edwards, May 20, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    692
    joevan
    May 20, 2004
  3. neville

    testing testing

    neville, May 27, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    448
    neville
    May 27, 2005
  4. neville

    testing testing

    neville, Jun 5, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    828
    neville
    Jun 5, 2005
  5. neville

    testing testing 123

    neville, Jun 28, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    484
    nevillenevilleson
    Jun 28, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page