More than two years later, I reckon that this thread still makes interesting reading, and I commend it to one and all!
I notice also that the
poll is still open, if anyone wants to have a go.
Having just gone through it all again, a number of points emerge as far as I'm concerned:-
1) Now that the UK is blessed with more lawyers than police officers, I can see that what we might call the "Dowman Model" (that is, "trust the technician") may no longer really cut the mustard. And so some sort of record taking is probably a good idea.
2) I like Marcel's approach (about recorded result values demonstrating that the thing was actually plugged in and powered up,
etc.).
3) I also agree with Mike about ultrasound probes. But would probably draw the line there when it comes to comparison with previous values. As has been pointed out, simply swapping a mains cable, using a different tester, or having the tester re-calibrated (since the previous test) actually compromises any ideas about "trend analysis".
4) If any results look a bit high, then they should by all means be investigated. Otherwise it passes. But on the other hand, as I myself have said, if it fails, it fails. And I tend to edge towards the heroic stance taken by my Old Mate Mark of Taunton!
5) But no-one has (to my mind, at least) yet spilled the beans about what form these computer results files take, and (more importantly) how are they accessed again should anyone ever feel the need to take a look at them. OK, some (many) are probably plain ASCII files (CSV most likely), but some look like modern weirdness to me (that is, esoteric, or proprietary file formats).
6) The bottom line seems to be that recording a sub-set of EST results should be seen as a "good thing" (especially to "prove" - but does it? - that some sort of tests were indeed carried out).
7) OK, downloading (transferring, whatever) results from an automatic tester to the PC may only take less that fifteen minutes a week. But what about the techs who only have a good old Rigel 233 (or some such "manual" tester) at their disposal? Don't tell me, they have to fill in those old Rigel test sheets* and/or manually enter all those results (including the odd typo, no doubt) into the computer by hand!
8) I guess I shall have to think about which of the many results (which may be generated by an automatic tester) are the ones to be included in a valid sub-set of data for recording, storing and analysis (the last of which, in my expectation, is never likely to happen)!
About "proving":- I would suggest that any reasonably minded person would concede that records yet retained inside an automatic tester proves that a test was actually carried out, on the date given, together with results obtained. But once that data has been transferred to a PC, it can be "got at" (edited, added to, deleted even) can it not?
For the sake of completeness, kindly allow me to link in to
this thread as well.
*
Rigel Ref. 233-853 ... I happen to have one here. There are 36 boxes if you wanted to fill them all in. Almost as many as the Census form (but even most of those were just ticks)!
