Ring extension load

[ban-all-sheds]

I really do not understand why you think it is a good idea for you to continue arguing the same stupid point over and over again.

BS 1363 specifies a test load which sockets have to be able to cope with for a given period of time without overheating and without sustaining damage. As long as one can do that it complies with the standard. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, stopping a manufacturer from making an accessory which can cope with more than the test load required by the standard.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Goodness. It's New Year's Day FGS ... don't you ever "loosen up"?

I look forward to seeing a rational explanation from you of why the date should make any difference to how I view that ridiculous suggestion from Risteard.

I might even frame that one!

Or you could try injecting a bit of rational thought into your life.

 

[Risteard]

I really do not understand why you think it is a good idea for you to continue arguing the same stupid point over and over again.

BS 1363 specifies a test load which sockets have to be able to cope with for a given period of time without overheating and without sustaining damage. As long as one can do that it complies with the standard. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, stopping a manufacturer from making an accessory which can cope with more than the test load required by the standard.

So you refuse and therefore concede defeat.

 

[stillp]

Which edition of BS1363 do you have Risteard?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Risteard - I really did not think that you could make yourself look like an even bigger idiot that you have managed so far, but I am coming to the conclusion that your abilities in that respect know no bounds.

Note for the hard-of-reading: That is not calling you an idiot. Just observing that you have a seemingly unlimited capacity to make yourself look like one.

If you claim that a document says something then the idea is that you have to show where it says it, not that those who claim that it does not say it have to show where it does not say it.

Do you really think that anybody here except the pathetic children we are saddled with agrees with your attitude?

Do you have any other examples in any fields where a minimum required performance equates to a prohibition of any performance in excess of the minimum?

 

[JohnW2]

Do you have any other examples in any fields where a minimum required performance equates to a prohibition of any performance in excess of the minimum?

In the sort of context we're discussing, you're obviously right - but (since you've asked!), more generally, and in many fields, there will often be both minimum and maximum acceptable limits of 'performance' (in whatever sense).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

Tell you what, I'll take the time to find such if you'll first take the time to provide a legal citation that not providing 30mA RCD protection on a new socket is illegal.

If you claim that a document says something then the idea is that you have to show where it says it, not that those who claim that it does not say it have to show where it does not say it.

Can someone explain the difference to me?

 

[deadshort]

Hi, what is the safe wattage capacity on a 2.5mm cable as extension (1.5m) off a ring? (I believe this is called a spur?)


Is it enough to power a double socket for wash machine and dryer?

Hi, what is the safe wattage capacity on a 2.5mm cable as extension (1.5m) off a ring? (I believe this is called a spur?)


Is it enough to power a double socket for wash machine and dryer?

Hi, yes there would be sufficient power and if only one double socket is fitted it does meet the current electrical reguations.

Regards,

DS

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Can someone explain the difference to me?

An example.

You claim that the The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 forbid the use of red paint on cars.

I dispute that claim.

If your claim is to be upheld what makes sense is for you to show where it contains that prohibition.

What makes no sense is for me to be required to quote the entire regulations and say "as you can see it does not contain that prohibition".

 

[JohnD]

What if someone says "there is a requirement to fit an RCD in this case?"

Or

You claim that the The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 requires the use of red paint on cars.

I dispute that claim.

If your claim is to be upheld what makes sense is for you to show where it contains that requirement.

What makes no sense is for me to be required to quote the entire regulations and say "as you can see it does not contain that requirement."

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Do you have any other examples in any fields where a minimum required performance equates to a prohibition of any performance in excess of the minimum?

In the sort of context we're discussing, you're obviously right - but (since you've asked!), more generally, and in many fields, there will often be both minimum and maximum acceptable limits of 'performance' (in whatever sense).

I'm sure there will be. And I'm sure that in those cases the maxima would also be prescribed.

What I asked for were examples where a minimum requirement meant that exceeding that minimum was prohibited.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What if someone says "there is a requirement to fit an RCD in this case?"

Not sure how that is relevant to what BS 1363 says, or does not say, about prohibiting people from making sockets which don't catch fire if more than 20A is drawn from them.

 

[JohnD]

the relevance is of course the correct response to a person who says "X is required by law," and the way in which that person should substantiate their assertion.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Do you really think that anybody here except the pathetic children we are saddled with agrees with your attitude?

 

[JohnD]

Do you really think that anybody here, at all, agrees with your attitude?