Home Articles Downloads Forum Products Services EBME Expo Contact
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#3754 06/11/00 9:40 AM
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 140
Garrith Offline OP
Expert
OP Offline
Expert
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 140
We are looking to replace several aged Testers (8001, 233, 244). We already have QA90 & 255 but find there is still a need for a manual tester (they're quicker!). Anybody got any ideas or suggestions or recommendations Please ?


Sometimes the gene pool just gets muddy.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,959
Likes: 32
Hero
Offline
Hero
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,959
Likes: 32
Garrith
We've got a mix too, QA80 , rigel, & IEC601PRO.
Why don't you contact Qados and Ultramedic and get some testers on trial? With automatic testers, it boils down too personal preference in the end. We use the 601 for PPM work and the QA80 in the workshop.


Be Proactive and reactive.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 969
Likes: 1
Roy Offline
Philosopher
Offline
Philosopher
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 969
Likes: 1
Some of my colleagues at other hospitals have a mixture of QA80 and QA90 machines and the general opinion is that the QA80 is much easier and quicker, plus the QA90 hasn't got a printer.
My department has Rigel 244 and Graseby 255 testers. The 255 is very good, but slow (14 minutes for a test on patient connected equipment) and I think everybody must have a 244 ! !


Today is the day you worried about yesterday - and all is well !
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 14
Novice
Offline
Novice
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 14
Have you seen the new tester from Seaward. Its half the size of the best of the rest and half the price to boot. I am hoping to trial one in the not too distant future, so will post my findings as soon as I can.


Service Manager
Medical Physics Department
The Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 160
Mentor
Offline
Mentor
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 160
I went to a QADOS/Metron seminar recently, lovely people they are, Dawn wonders why I always forget she's coming and go out. Anyway the new main tester (can't remember the number cos I am at home now) is designed to some standard (can't remember 'cos I am still at home) VDE something - shortly to be an IEC standard and is intended for PM only, doesn't do insulation tests, uses 100mA for PE tests! Goes against the grain somewhat!

On the bright side the new fetal simulator looks wonderful. I saw the new Seward Rigel, it looked a bit odd but seemed OK, must remember to check the spec and BUY ONE.

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 27
Dreamer
Offline
Dreamer
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 27
We are using the new Seward 266 safety tester. Great portability, and can be operated in manual/semi-automatic modes. Ideal for portable use. Good price too

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 45
Technologist
Offline
Technologist
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 45
We've bought 2 Seaward 266's. We like them, but during acceptance found faults with both. They've gone back for repair, bit disappointing.

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,959
Likes: 32
Hero
Offline
Hero
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,959
Likes: 32
Seaward telephone number please?


Be Proactive and reactive.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 140
Garrith Offline OP
Expert
OP Offline
Expert
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally posted by John Sandham:
Seaward telephone number please?

Tel 0191 586 3511
Fax 0191 586 0227 www.seaward.co.uk


Sometimes the gene pool just gets muddy.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 264
Likes: 5
Master
Offline
Master
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 264
Likes: 5
>We are looking to replace several aged >Testers (8001, 233, 244). We already have >QA90 & 255 but find there is still a need >for a manual tester (they're quicker!). >Anybody got any ideas or suggestions or >recommendations Please ?

We currently use the biotek 601 pro, it is suitable for testing hei95, iec601, Vde etc
when testing in fully automated mode it can complete a test in under 2 minutes with minimum user intervention. I've found it to be easy to use and very fast.
If you have path kit in your hospital then it may be an idea to get the new 601Pro XL version as this tests with a path suitable test load, rather than the 601 standard load.


[This message has been edited by Joe Emmerson (edited 21-04-2001).]

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  DaveC in Oz, RoJo 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
1 members (daisizhou), 435 guests, and 401 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
MDevins, EmsR16, Fergusben1, Guilherme Gomes, Salvatore
10,173 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums25
Topics11,055
Posts73,707
Members10,173
Most Online5,980
Jan 29th, 2020
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5