Ring extension load

[ban-all-sheds]

I belong to the set of people who like to see evidence to support assertions.

So do I.

Like I believe that I would like to see Risteard produce evidence to support his assertion that BS 1363 forbids sockets from being able to cope with more than 20A.

Do you believe that it is reasonable to expect me to post the entire text of BS 1363 here for people to pore over as evidence to support my assertion that it does not?

Or, as you might put it "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."

That is how I put it earlier in this topic.

Should I assume that you agree, or should I assume that you believe that those who claim that BS 1363 does not impose a maximum load capacity should have to show where it does not?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

"PBC_1966 on another thread said things which were lies"

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Might not be a good idea - would depend on their confidence that 100% of production could withstand whatever the increased rating was, and their willingness to argue with customers who had experienced failures resulting from exceeding the rating. It's not always good marketing to exceed the norm.

I essentially agree with you - but that's why I said that the problem would be that there would be no relevant/ 'supportive' Standard with which they could comply, and which compliance they could claim. If there were a Standard for double sockets designed to be able to carry 2 x 13A loads indefinitely, then citing compliance with that Standard (with whatever tests it included) would go a long way to allaying the manufacturer's concerns you mention above.

Kind Regards, John

Where would we be if we had to rely on the word of reputable manufacturers that their products performed as they claimed.

If 'we' were happy to rely on that, we would not need to have Standards with which reputable manufacturers had to comply, and indicate compliance.

A problem is that someone has to decide what results in what tests, performed under what conditions, are adequate to support a particular claim. If that decision is made by some sort of official or quasi-official independent body (e.g. specified in a Standard), then people will be more comfortable than if each manufacturer makes their own (possibly differing) decisions.

Kind Regards, John

The practical difficulties of which you speak are very real.

But be that as it may, do you agree with this:

the Standard requires 20A rating and they must not be used to supply more than this.

If you do, can you show where it says that?

If you do not, do you believe it should be up to me to show where it does not say that, or up to Risteard to show where it does?

 

[Iggifer]

They never have to cite a test. They only claim conformity with the standard. If they made a product that had passed testing at some greater load than the temperature rise test specifies, they could say so, but probably wouldn't want to.

I'm sure MK used to claim that about their Logic Plus range, can't find any reference to it now though

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I too thought they did.

But whether they did, or did not, or whether any maker ever has, or has not, who here believes that when a standard lays down a minimum level of performance that it is perforce forbidding a performance exceeding that minimum?

 

[PBC_1966]

That would give them a very high share of the market among people who wanted to use continuous high loads. Might not be a good idea - would depend on their confidence that 100% of production could withstand whatever the increased rating was, and their willingness to argue with customers who had experienced failures resulting from exceeding the rating. It's not always good marketing to exceed the norm.

I really don't see that. If they are confident that their double socket can withstand 2 x 13A loads indefinitely, surely they would want to sell based on that point? And if they're not confident that every double socket can withstand it, then they shouldn't be advertising them as such.

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

Fair enough - and that is obviously not ever going to happen.

Any chance that you could explain that to Risteard, Mr Rupert and PBC_1966 in a simple enough way for them to be able to understand it?

Count me out of that - I've never said that I don't think a product can exceed the minimum standard required of it.

 

[Echo the husky]

I'm sure MK used to claim that about their Logic Plus range, can't find any reference to it now though

The MK socket I was messing about with has a different construction to the new one I broke apart. It was very clear that cost cutting has taken place between the 10 year old one and the 1 year old one. I wonder if the internal parts are now smaller and those claims no longer apply. I may have to break open the old one now.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm sure MK used to claim that about their Logic Plus range, can't find any reference to it now though

What are we to make of this:

 

[Iggifer]

I'm sure MK used to claim that about their Logic Plus range, can't find any reference to it now though

The MK socket I was messing about with has a different construction to the new one I broke apart. It was very clear that cost cutting has taken place between the 10 year old one and the 1 year old one. I wonder if the internal parts are now smaller and those claims no longer apply. I may have to break open the old one now.

Don't do it. If it's one of the good ones, it'll outlast you! I'm sure it used to be a lifetime guarantee, now the literature says 20 years (Still more than you get from most)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Count me out of that - I've never said that I don't think a product can exceed the minimum standard required of it.

Shall I count you out of thinking that if Risteard says that BS 1363 does forbid a product exceeding the minimum standard required of it he should be able to show where it forbids it?

 

[Iggifer]

I'm sure MK used to claim that about their Logic Plus range, can't find any reference to it now though

What are we to make of this

Oh yea I know there's that, but I'm sure the blurb at the start of the catalogue said something along the lines of 'Our Logic Plus range of sockets is made to exceed the standards of BS1363' It may have been in reference to their 3-pin shutter exclusively. But without the actual catalogue, I can't prove any of it.

 

[PBC_1966]

Shall I count you out of thinking that if Risteard says that BS 1363 does forbid a product exceeding the minimum standard required of it he should be able to show where it forbids it?

Not at all.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh yea I know there's that, but I'm sure the blurb at the start of the catalogue said something along the lines of 'Our Logic Plus range of sockets is made to exceed the standards of BS1363' It may have been in reference to their 3-pin shutter exclusively. But without the actual catalogue, I can't prove any of it.

 

[Iggifer]

That's what I was thinking of! Just found a similar quote on the MK website from 2000 too.

The Logic Plus range was designed using the latest CAD/CAM techniques and employs the most sophisticated materials and manufacturing processes. They are thoroughly tested in excess of British Standard requirements as well as 100% on-line tested during automatic assembly.

That's the catalogue I was looking at too! I was scanning for 1363 though. Whoops

 

[PBC_1966]

What are we to make of this:

I would take it to mean that for single and double sockets the rating is 13A per socket maximum. In other words, 13A total for the single socket and 26A total for the double.

The triple obviously contains a BS1362 fuse, hence 13A total across the three.