2 way wall socket question

[ban-all-sheds]

Friday afternoon I spoke to an ex-colleague who deals with product compliance issues for a major manufacturer of wiring accessories.

You do realise, don't you, that whatever he tells you, it is not applicable to any products except the ones which that manufacturer manufactures?

At no time have I said that there are no twin sockets made which can't "handle" (however you want to define that) 26A.

I'm quite prepared to accept that there are manufacturers who make twin sockets which can handle a 26A load indefinitely, without overheating.

But that does not make that a generic capability. If a conformant socket does not have to be able to do that in order to conform, then you cannot have any degree of certainty that one will. (Apart from one from Brand X Electrical Accessories Ltd if they say that theirs do.)

When I asked him how much current could safely be drawn from a twin socket-outlet his response was "For how long?".

Indeed.

Let's call the 14+6A the lower bound.

And let's call 1,000,000 amps the upper bound.

We know that at the lower bound for several hours the socket has to not overheat, and to not still be heating up. Probably fair to say that at that lower bound it could cope indefinitely.

I think that without any testing we could all form a reasonable opinion that at the upper bound the socket would exhibit extreme thermal distress within a very short time.

So - somewhere between the lower bound and the upper bound a twin socket is not going to be able to "cope" with the current.

But at what point? We don't know, because to conform to BS 1363 a twin socket does not have to demonstrate any ability to cope with any load for any length of time apart from 14A+6A.

Would that point be 26A for 10 minutes? We don't know, because to conform to BS 1363 a twin socket does not have to demonstrate any ability to cope with any load for any length of time apart from 14A+6A.

Would that point be 26A for 4-8 hours? We don't know, because to conform to BS 1363 a twin socket does not have to demonstrate any ability to cope with any load for any length of time apart from 14A+6A for 4-8 hours.

Would that point be 26A for 1 hour? We don't know, because to conform to BS 1363 a twin socket does not have to demonstrate any ability to cope with any load for any length of time apart from 14A+6A for 4-8 hours.

Does the ability to cope with 14A+6A for 4-8 hours mean that it must be able to cope with any load beyond that? Clearly not.

Does the ability to cope with 14A+6A for 4-8 hours mean that it must be able to cope with 13A+13A? We don't know, because to conform to BS 1363 a twin socket does not have to demonstrate any ability to cope with any load for any length of time apart from 14A+6A for 4-8 hours.

Can you not see? WE DON'T KNOW.

I suggested 30 minutes,

Why that long? Is 30 minutes the duration associated with the "normal use" provision(s) in BS 1363? I thought we didn't know.

when his next question was "Is it on a ring?".

I'm not sure why that would be relevant.

But if it is, then that is one more factor which we don't know about when saying what a socket can handle, as we don't know whether a socket will necessarily be on a ring or on a radial. If it is relevant then that is one more reason why we don't know how one would perform when loaded more onerously than the standard requires one to tolerate.

I suggested that we consider one with an incoming and an outgoing cable, as would be the case on a ring final,

It would also be the case for some sockets on a radial.

Oh - and BTW, from the POV of a socket on a ring, both the cables are incoming.

and unlike the heat rise test in BS1363 which only uses an incoming cable.

Which it does, although until now I'd never looked.

As it does, I do have a couple of questions about that.

• Both I and Herr Dr. Kirchoff would be fascinated to know how one could arrange for an extra 6A to flow through the cable if it served only the socket drawing 14A.

• And I would love to understand the scientific/engineering principles behind it being relevant to how hot a socket gets when current is drawn from it.

But be that as it may, if it is relevant then I'm afraid that whatever argument you think you have made in support of your assertion that a twin socket must be able to cope with 26A has just crumbled to dust and blown away, because any socket might be the last one on a radial and therefore not have the significant outgoing cable.

Shall I add "please show me where BS 1363 specifies different ratings/performance/behaviour/whatever-you-want-to-call-it for sockets on rings, radials and the ends of radials" to the list of things you can't find in BS 1363?

He was confident that a good make of twin socket could comfortably carry 13A through each outlet under those circumstances.

And is he equally confident that every single make of twin socket in the world which legitimately conforms with BS 1363 could comfortably carry 13A through each outlet under those circumstances?

Or is it a case that when considering the capabilities of every single make of socket in the world, "we don't know"?

And even with his sockets, what about different circuit topologies? That variable is not considered by the standard. So if it is relevant, then what happens when sockets are not wired according to the circumstances you specified to him? Could it perhaps be "we don't know"?

He told me that their in-house sample tests are performed at 15A on each outlet (exceeding the BS1363 test),

I have no reason to have even a shred of doubt that that is true.

But so what? Other makers may not do that test because they are not required to.

Can you really not see?

All we know is that a conforming twin socket has to be able to handle 14A + 6A without overheating. The standard does not require any demonstration of any characteristics at any loading outside of that for any length of time.

Can you really not see? We don't know.

I now have some contact details for a couple of independent test labs, so I'll see what they have to say on the subject next week.

Unless they have tested every single make and model of socket available, and unless they have procedures in place to ensure that they always test all new ones, and unless they have the power to force the withdrawal from sale of any sockets which cannot perform in a way which BS 1363 does not require them to behave, whatever they tell you is irrelevant.

Because unless they can say "yes" to all of those provisos we don't know how a socket will perform outside of the environment mandated by BS 1363.

Can you really not see?

WE

JUST

DON'T

KNOW.

 

[stillp]

You do realise, don't you, that whatever he tells you, it is not applicable to any products except the ones which that manufacturer manufactures?

Of course. However it demonstrates another opinion, from someone whose opinion matters since he is directly involved in the design, manufacture and testing.

I'm quite prepared to accept that there are manufacturers who make twin sockets which can handle a 26A load indefinitely, without overheating.

Good, you're making progress.

If a conformant socket does not have to be able to do that in order to conform, then you cannot have any degree of certainty that one will.

But they do, or they aren't 13A socket-outlets. Just because they don't have to pass a test does not mean they are excused from conforming to the requirements.

Why that long? Is 30 minutes the duration associated with the "normal use" provision(s) in BS 1363? I thought we didn't know.

It was the first duration less than 4 hours that came to mind.

I'm not sure why that would be relevant.

I'm not sure why you can't see why it is relevant. (see below)

It would also be the case for some sockets on a radial.

Yes.

Oh - and BTW, from the POV of a socket on a ring, both the cables are incoming.

I used the terminology of the standard, as you should be aware if you've read it.

Both I and Herr Dr. Kirchoff would be fascinated to know how one could arrange for an extra 6A to flow through the cable if it served only the socket drawing 14A.

Eh? WOE are you on about?

• And I would love to understand the scientific/engineering principles behind it being relevant to how hot a socket gets when current is drawn from it.

Have you never heard of heat sinks? 2 cables will conduct about twice as much heat away from the socket than a single cable would.

Shall I add "please show me where BS 1363 specifies different ratings/performance/behaviour/whatever-you-want-to-call-it for sockets on rings, radials and the ends of radials" to the list of things you can't find in BS 1363?

If it makes you happy. When are you going to show me where BS1363 states that a 13A socket is not a 13A socket if it shares a faceplate with another identical one?

And is he equally confident that every single make of twin socket in the world which legitimately conforms with BS 1363 could comfortably carry 13A through each outlet under those circumstances?

Of course not, any more than he could be confident that there are no twin (and single, triple, quadruple...) socket outlets from the less reputable manufacturers that do not conform to various requirements of BS1363.

The standard does not require any demonstration of any characteristics at any loading outside of that for any length of time.

The fact that it does not require a demonstration of performance of a twin socket-outlet at full load does not absolve the manufacturer from meeting the requirement for each 13A socket-outlet to meet certain performance requirements at 13A.

Unless they have tested every single make and model of socket available, and unless they have procedures in place to ensure that they always test all new ones, and unless they have the power to force the withdrawal from sale of any sockets which cannot perform in a way which BS 1363 does not require them to behave, whatever they tell you is irrelevant.

They are supposed to be experts in determining whether or not products conform to the standard. Their opinion will therefore be somewhat less irrelevant than yours, or, come to that, mine.

Can you really not see?

WE

JUST

DON'T

KNOW.

I can see that you don't know. You don't need to keep telling me.

 

[stillp]

Think about IP ratings; they are verified by tests that are, in some cases, as short as 10 minutes, yet the requirements of whichever IP rating is applied far exceed the duration of the test that is necessary for the verification that the requirements are met.

I have thought about that.

And I can quite envisage that a 10-minute test is a perfectly good indicator of how the item would perform over a longer period, just as a 4-8 hour test of the heating effect of a 20A load on a socket is a perfectly good indicator of how it would perform over a longer period.

What I can't envisage is a manufacturer claiming that his product does not leak (or, in your argot, "experience unacceptable liquid ingress") at an immersion depth of 26m because he has shown that it does not leak at 20m.

A brown paper bag sealed with wallpaper paste has passed a 10 minute oscillating water spray. Can I assume that you would be happy to rate it at IP63?
More realistically, consider an enclosure made from unpainted mild steel 0,5 mm thick. It passes the IP66 test, but would you say it was adequately "protected against water jets"?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Of course. However it demonstrates another opinion, from someone whose opinion matters since he is directly involved in the design, manufacture and testing.

It is an opinion of no relevance to whether all twin sockets must be able to handle 26A, because his experience is only with one particular make of socket. He doesn't know what tests other manufacturers do, nor what the results are.

All he knows is that BS 1363 only requires a twin socket to not overheat under a sustained load of 14A+6A.

All I know is that BS 1363 only requires a twin socket to not overheat under a sustained load of 14A+6A.

And that's all you know as well.

It doesn't matter for how long, or how often you say "but they are called 13A sockets" (nor how reasonable), the fact is that there is no requirement for a twin socket to demonstrate any performance in any area at 26A, and therefore there cannot possibly be any guarantee that one will perform in an acceptable way at 26A.

There just cannot be.

I'll make you an offer.

I will stop trying to get you to understand that because the standard explicitly requires a twin socket to handle only 20A without overheating, and because it does not explicitly require one to handle 26A without overheating, your claim that because it is called a "twin 13A socket" it must be able to handle 26A is nonsense, shortly after you stop making that nonsense claim.

Good, you're making progress.

I've never believed otherwise.

But if Acme Accessories plc decide to make a twin socket which performs better than the minimum mandated by BS 1363 that does not mean that every other manufacturer in the world makes all of his various twin socket models performs better than the minimum mandated by BS 1363, nor does it mean that any other manufacturer makes any twin socket which does.

I genuinely don't understand why you think it does.

But they do, or they aren't 13A socket-outlets. Just because they don't have to pass a test does not mean they are excused from conforming to the requirements.

But there are no requirements wrt not overheating under load for them to conform to apart from sustaining 14A+6A without overheating.

It doesn't matter for how long, or how often you say "but they are called 13A sockets" (nor how reasonable), the fact is that there is no requirement for a twin socket to demonstrate any performance in any area at 26A, and therefore there cannot possibly be any guarantee that one will perform in an acceptable way at 26A.

There just cannot be.

I'll make you an offer.

I will stop trying to get you to understand that because the standard explicitly requires a twin socket to handle only 20A without overheating, and because it does not explicitly require one to handle 26A without overheating, your claim that because it is called a "twin 13A socket" it must be able to handle 26A is nonsense, shortly after you stop making that nonsense claim.

It was the first duration less than 4 hours that came to mind.

It's of no value, then. You, stillp, may not go around making up performance criteria which are not in the standard, finding one maker out of countless who thinks that a "good product" (another meaningless term) would meet those criteria and claiming that therefore all products must meet them.

I'm not sure why that would be relevant.

I'm not sure why you can't see why it is relevant. (see below)

Because I can't see how a socket would behave differently if it was on a ring rather than a radial.

I used the terminology of the standard, as you should be aware if you've read it.

I've not read it often enough to have memorised it.

Both I and Herr Dr. Kirchoff would be fascinated to know how one could arrange for an extra 6A to flow through the cable if it served only the socket drawing 14A.

Eh? WOE are you on about?

I'm on about the fact that if you have only an incoming cable to a 1-gang socket under test, which has a load of 14A applied to it, you're going to find it pretty difficult to arrange for another 6A to be flowing in the cable.

But it doesn't matter - I didn't read it closely enough - single sockets where there is to be an extra load on the cable are tested with an incoming and an outgoing cable. For twin sockets there is only the incoming because the total 20A load goes through the socket.

Have you never heard of heat sinks?

Yes, I have.

2 cables will conduct about twice as much heat away from the socket than a single cable would.

But I very much doubt that a PVC insulated and sheathed twin and earth cable would be a very effective heatsink.

You do believe it though, but ironically that is just one more thing which weakens the validity of your argument - BS 7671 does not require sockets to always be wired with both an incoming and an outgoing cable, therefore any beneficial effect that it might have on the ability of a socket to withstand a load greater than that required by BS 1363 must be ignored. You cannot rely on it being there, therefore you cannot rely on its heat-sinking properties being a reason why a twin socket must be able to handle 26A.

Shall I add "please show me where BS 1363 specifies different ratings/performance/behaviour/whatever-you-want-to-call-it for sockets on rings, radials and the ends of radials" to the list of things you can't find in BS 1363?

If it makes you happy.

It doesn't make me happy, as it isn't of any value. All along you have shown yourself to not have the slightest interest in the fact that you are making claims regarding the performance of BS 1363 conformant sockets which do not appear in the standard, so one more won't stop you. Sadly.

When are you going to show me where BS1363 states that a 13A socket is not a 13A socket if it shares a faceplate with another identical one?

Here:

A twin 13A socket is not required to be able to deliver 26A without overheating, it is only required to be able to deliver 14A+6A.

It doesn't matter for how long, or how often you say "but they are called 13A sockets" (nor how reasonable), the fact is that there is no requirement for a twin socket to demonstrate any performance in any area at 26A, and therefore there cannot possibly be any guarantee that one will perform in an acceptable way at 26A.

There just cannot be.

I'll make you an offer.

I will stop trying to get you to understand that because the standard explicitly requires a twin socket to handle only 20A without overheating, and because it does not explicitly require one to handle 26A without overheating, your claim that because it is called a "twin 13A socket" it must be able to handle 26A is nonsense, shortly after you stop making that nonsense claim.

Of course not, any more than he could be confident that there are no twin (and single, triple, quadruple...) socket outlets from the less reputable manufacturers that do not conform to various requirements of BS1363.

So everything you have written about what he says about the performance of one brand of sockets is a complete waste of time and space, because it does not tell us anything about how other brands might perform, and therefore cannot be used to justify an assertion that because something is called a 13A socket a twin one must be able to handle 26A even though there is no official requirement for it to do so.

The fact that it does not require a demonstration of performance of a twin socket-outlet at full load does not absolve the manufacturer from meeting the requirement for each 13A socket-outlet to meet certain performance requirements at 13A.

But those requirements do not include a twin socket being able to sustain a load of 26A without overheating.

They really don't.

Unless they have tested every single make and model of socket available, and unless they have procedures in place to ensure that they always test all new ones, and unless they have the power to force the withdrawal from sale of any sockets which cannot perform in a way which BS 1363 does not require them to behave, whatever they tell you is irrelevant.

They are supposed to be experts in determining whether or not products conform to the standard. Their opinion will therefore be somewhat less irrelevant than yours, or, come to that, mine.

These are real questions - please answer either yes or no to each of them:

1. Have they tested every make and model of twin socket available to see if it will perform in excess of what is required by BS 1363?
2. Do they have procedures in place to ensure that they always test all new ones to see if they will perform in excess of what is required by BS 1363?
3. If they find a twin socket which does perform as BS 1363 requires but fails to perform in excess of that, do they have any powers to force it to be withdrawn from sale?

Yes or no, please, to each one.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I can see that you don't know. You don't need to keep telling me.

Neither do you. You cannot know because there is no way to know how something will perform under stress which exceeds that required to be withstood by the standard.

You just can't.

Sadly, though, you won't stop making claims even though you cannot know that they are not nonsense.

It doesn't matter for how long, or how often you say "but they are called 13A sockets" (nor how reasonable), the fact is that there is no requirement for a twin socket to demonstrate any performance in any area at 26A, and therefore there cannot possibly be any guarantee that one will perform in an acceptable way at 26A.

There just cannot be.

I'll make you an offer.

I will stop trying to get you to understand that because the standard explicitly requires a twin socket to handle only 20A without overheating, and because it does not explicitly require one to handle 26A without overheating, your claim that because it is called a "twin 13A socket" it must be able to handle 26A is nonsense, shortly after you stop making that nonsense claim.

 

[stillp]

All he knows is that BS 1363 only requires a twin socket to not overheat under a sustained load of 14A+6A.

That is not correct. The requirement of BS1363 is that a twin socket-outlet shall not overheat "in normal use". This requirement is verified by a test at 14A + 6A for more than 4 hours but not more than 8 hours. Please don't confuse the requirements of the standard with the test specifications.

therefore there cannot possibly be any guarantee that one will perform in an acceptable way at 26A

There is no guarantee that a poorly-manufactured product will meet any of the requirements of BS1363. A good manufacturer will design and build to the requirements specified in the standard, and for the expected service conditions, including those that are not even mentioned in the standard, rather than just designing a product that will pass the tests. Please don't confuse the requirements of the standard with the test specifications.

You, stillp, may not go around making up performance criteria which are not in the standard, finding one maker out of countless who thinks that a "good product" (another meaningless term) would meet those criteria and claiming that therefore all products must meet them.

It is not I that is making things up, it is you who has made up a derating for 13A socket-outlets when two of them share a common faceplate. Please don't confuse the requirements of the standard with the test specifications.

I'm on about the fact that if you have only an incoming cable to a 1-gang socket under test, which has a load of 14A applied to it, you're going to find it pretty difficult to arrange for another 6A to be flowing in the cable.

I don't have a clue what you mean by that.

But it doesn't matter

I agree.

I very much doubt that a PVC insulated and sheathed twin and earth cable would be a very effective heatsink.

How much testing have you done then? A 2.5mm² T & E will conduct a surprising amount of heat from a terminal.

BS 7671 does not require sockets to always be wired with both an incoming and an outgoing cable

Correct. Perhaps that is why the test in BS1363 uses only a single cable? As an aside, I wonder why a single socket-outlet is tested with two cables, and a twin with only one?

Here:

Please read the caption of the Table. Please don't confuse the requirements of the standard with the test specifications.

A twin 13A socket is not required to be able to deliver 26A without overheating, it is only required to be able to deliver 14A+6A.

Please read 16.12. Please don't confuse the requirements of the standard with the test specifications.

everything you have written about what he says about the performance of one brand of sockets is a complete waste of time and space, because it does not tell us anything about how other brands might perform, and therefore cannot be used to justify an assertion that because something is called a 13A socket a twin one must be able to handle 26A even though there is no official requirement for it to do so

It is an expert's interpretation of the requirements of the standard. IHNI how much expertise you have in this area, but an opinion that differs from yours is not necessarily "a complete waste of time and space".

But those requirements do not include a twin socket being able to sustain a load of 26A without overheating.

Yes they do. Please don't confuse the requirements of the standard with the test specifications.

These are real questions - please answer either yes or no to each of them:

1. Have they tested every make and model of twin socket available to see if it will perform in excess of what is required by BS 1363?
2. Do they have procedures in place to ensure that they always test all new ones to see if they will perform in excess of what is required by BS 1363?
3. If they find a twin socket which does perform as BS 1363 requires but fails to perform in excess of that, do they have any powers to force it to be withdrawn from sale?

Yes or no, please, to each one.

No, no, and no, as you should know. Please don't confuse test houses with regulatory authorities.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

This whole thing is utterly pointless.

You keep on saying "please don't confuse the requirements of the standard with the test specifications", but the standard specifies the tests which a product has to pass in order to comply with the standard.

Perhaps I should be saying to you please don't confuse the way that everybody else in the world thinks with your madness.

It doesn't matter for how long, or how often you say "but they are called 13A sockets" (nor how reasonable), the fact is that there is no requirement for a twin socket to demonstrate any performance in any area at 26A, and therefore there cannot possibly be any guarantee that one will perform in an acceptable way at 26A.

There just cannot be.

I'll make you an offer.

I will stop trying to get you to understand that because the standard explicitly requires a twin socket to handle only 20A without overheating, and because it does not explicitly require one to handle 26A without overheating, your claim that because it is called a "twin 13A socket" it must be able to handle 26A is nonsense, shortly after you stop making that nonsense claim.

In fact I will go further than that.

I will observe that you know full well that what you are saying is not true, and god only knows what is wrong with the way your brain is wired that makes you keep on saying it, but you KNOW that it is not true.

Therefore you are lying.

And every time you repeat this lie, I will make sure that I do all that I can to make it abundantly clear to everybody reading that you are lying.

The standard does not impose any requirements which can be measured, verified, or tested in court, of a twin socket regarding its ability to sustain a load greater than 14A+6A for 4-8 hours.

You know that it does not.

You know that you cannot show where it requires more.

So you know that your claim that the standard requires it is untrue.

An untruth knowingly and deliberately told is a lie.

Stop lying.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There are these things.

They are called "13A sockets".

There is a British Standard which applies to them.

That standard defines what characteristics they shall have - dimensions, glow-wire resistance, breaking capacity, insertion force, aging, mechanical strength, insulation strength, voltage drop - all sorts of things.

If a socket complies with all of the requirements it may be labelled as compliant with BS 1363.

It does not have to do/exhibit/comply with anything which is not prescribed in BS 1363 in order to be so labelled. You know this.

One of the requirements is that it shall not get too hot in normal use.

Is "normal use" defined? No it is not. You know this.

So if it is not defined, can it be said, by some non-authoritative person (such as you, or I) that it must mean whatever they think it must mean? No it cannot. You know this.

Does the term "normal use" appear in many places in the standard, often in the context of how a socket must perform or must (or must not) do "in normal use"? Yes it does.

Does it often say something like "socket outlets shall <whatever> so that in normal use they <whatever>. Compliance shall be checked by <some sort of test>". Yes it does. You know this.

Does it say

Accessories purporting to comply with this standard
shall be capable of meeting all the relevant
requirements and tests specified in this standard.​

?

Yes it does. You know this.

Does it say

16 Temperature rise

16.1 Accessories and their surroundings shall not
attain excessive temperatures in normal use.

16.1.1 Compliance shall be checked by the tests
described in 16.1.2, 16.1.3 and 16.1.4 for plugs,
fixed socket-outlets and portable socket-outlets
respectively.​

?

Yes it does. You know this.

Does compliance for a twin socket require a verification of non-excessive temperature rise under a load greater than 14A+6A? No it does not. You know this.

Do you have the authority to require a twin socket to not attain an excessive temperature under a load greater than 14A+6A? No you do not. You know this.

If a maker decides that his interpretation of "normal use" is a sustained load of no greater than 14A+6A do you have the authority to tell him he is wrong? No you do not. You know this.

If a socket meets all the relevant requirements and tests specified in the standard (please note the word specified) and therefore purports to comply with it, do you have the authority to require the maker to stop claiming compliance or to withdraw the items from sale if it does not also meet a requirement, or pass a test, not specified in the standard? No you do not. You know this.

Does any person or body have the authority to do that, short of obtaining a judgement in court? No they do not. You know this.

In short, you know that the standard says that if an accessory meets all the relevant requirements and tests specified in it it may purport to comply.

You know that the only requirement for not overheating in normal use is to pass the relevant test at a loading of 16A+4A.

You know that no other test is specified.

You know that nothing about how a twin socket behaves under a load of 13A+13A is specified.

You know that "normal use" is not defined to mean, or include, being loaded at 13A+13A.

You know that unless there is a legal judgement to the contrary, a maker can quite reasonably decide that "normal use" wrt loading is the loading specified in the test for temperature rise under load.

You know that just because you have decided that normal use includes being loaded at 13A+13A that does not make it so.


You know that when you say that a twin socket must be able to handle 13A through both outlets simultaneously it is not so.

 

[stillp]

I will observe that you know full well that what you are saying is not true, and god only knows what is wrong with the way your brain is wired that makes you keep on saying it, but you KNOW that it is not true.

Therefore you are lying.

And in return I will observe that however many times you repeat your assertions, however many petty insults you add, and however much you SHOUT, you are wrong. However I will be more charitable than you, and accept that you are probably wrong through ignorance, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead, and to excuse those manufacturers who make products that are only good enough to pass the tests, without meeting the requirements of the standard.

The standard does not impose any requirements which can be measured, verified, or tested in court, of a twin socket regarding its ability to sustain a load greater than 14A+6A for 4-8 hours.

Quite correct. That does not mean that it does not impose any requirements on a twin socket-outlet regarding its ability to sustain a load greater than 14A + 6A for some unspecified time shorter than 4 hours. Perhaps it should, but it doesn't. Neither does it include a concession for a 13A socket-outlet to be derated if it shares a faceplate with another similar one.

You know that it does not.

No, I don't. You are not correct.

You know that you cannot show where it requires more.

Yes I can. Read the title. Read the requirements. If you still cannot understand the difference between the requirements of a standard and the test specifications that are considered to verify those requirements, then please study BS0, which will refer you to the ISO/IEC Directives.

 

[stillp]

If a socket complies with all of the requirements it may be labelled as compliant with BS 1363.

That is correct. In fact, it would be more accurate to say "Only if a socket complies with all of the requirements it may be labelled as compliant with BS 1363." One of those requirements is that it shall meet certain performance requirements at a load current of 13A. That requirement does not disappear, or reduce, if the socket shares a faceplate with another.

Does it say
Accessories purporting to comply with this standard
shall be capable of meeting all the relevant
requirements and tests specified in this standard.

?

Yes it does. You know this.

No, I don't know that, because it doesn't say that. Are you using an out-of-date edition, or some third-party document that is not a genuine BS1363? However, even if that were a correct quotation, please note the words "requirements and tests", which should be sufficient to show you that requirements and tests are different provisions of a standard.

Does it say

16 Temperature rise

16.1 Accessories and their surroundings shall not
attain excessive temperatures in normal use.

16.1.1 Compliance shall be checked by the tests
described in 16.1.2, 16.1.3 and 16.1.4 for plugs,
fixed socket-outlets and portable socket-outlets
respectively.

?

Yes it does. You know this.

No, I don't know that, because it doesn't say that. What document are you quoting from?

Does compliance for a twin socket require a verification of non-excessive temperature rise under a load greater than 14A+6A? No it does not. You know this.

Both those points are correct.

Do you have the authority to require a twin socket to not attain an excessive temperature under a load greater than 14A+6A? No you do not. You know this.

No, of course I don't. However the standard does make that requirement, since the socket-outlets shall be rated to carry a load current of 13A, with no reduction specified for those that share a common faceplate.

If a maker decides that his interpretation of "normal use" is a sustained load of no greater than 14A+6A do you have the authority to tell him he is wrong? No you do not. You know this.

If a socket meets all the relevant requirements and tests specified in the standard (please note the word specified) and therefore purports to comply with it, do you have the authority to require the maker to stop claiming compliance or to withdraw the items from sale if it does not also meet a requirement, or pass a test, not specified in the standard? No you do not. You know this.

No, I have no authority over any manufacturers, I am retired. In any case, if a twin socket-outlet meets all the relevant requirements and tests specified in the standard, then it will carry 13A + 13A for some (unspecified) period likely to be experienced in normal use, so the issue does not arise.

Does any person or body have the authority to do that, short of obtaining a judgement in court? No they do not. You know this.

No, I don't know that. Trading Standards have that authority.

In short, you know that the standard says that if an accessory meets all the relevant requirements and tests specified in it it may purport to comply.

See above, noting the words "requirements and tests", i.e., not just the tests.

You know that just because you have decided that normal use includes being loaded at 13A+13A that does not make it so.


You know that when you say that a twin socket must be able to handle 13A through both outlets simultaneously it is not so.

No, I don't.

 

[securespark]

Can I request an adjournment for a ten minute refreshment break?

 

[securespark]

Thanks. That's better. Do carry on!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And in return I will observe that however many times you repeat your assertions, however many petty insults you add, and however much you SHOUT, you are wrong.

No, I am right, you are wrong.

I know what that standard requires sockets to do, and so do you.

I know what it does not require them to do, and so do you.

You know that you are wrong to say it requires them to do things which it does not say it requires them to do, and therefore when you say it you are saying something untrue.

However I will be more charitable than you, and accept that you are probably wrong through ignorance, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead, and to excuse those manufacturers who make products that are only good enough to pass the tests, without meeting the requirements of the standard.

That's the way that standards work - they stipulate the minimum performance required. They do not prevent somebody from making something which performs better than the standard requires, but they do not, obviously, mandate that the thing has to perform better than the standard requires.

What it says, in the standard, is that if a socket purports to comply, it must be capable of meeting all the relevant requirements and tests specified in the standard.

Again, note the word specified.

There is no specification for "normal use". You know that.

Therefore there is nothing specified wrt normal use which a socket has to do.

What is specified is that compliance with the requirement to not overheat in normal use shall be verified by passing the test involving a 14A+6A load. If a socket passes that test then it is deemed to be compliant with the requirement to not overheat in normal use.

You think that it should be able to handle a greater load. You are entitled to think that it should, and there is some logic to it. But the fact is that there is nothing in the standard specified wrt to being able to handle a greater load. (You know that.).

Therefore a socket can be marked as compliant without having to meet any other requirement because no other requirement is specified.

Saying "Accessories and their surroundings shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use" when excessive temperature and normal use are not defined is not a specification with which anything can be said to comply, at least not in any way which gives anybody any guarantee that their opinion of what constitutes excessive temperature or normal use is the same as the opinion of the maker.

If you want to successfully claim that you don't know that there is no guarantee that what you say are excessive temperature and normal use have a meaning which can be relied upon to indicate how hot a socket may get under a given load for a given time then you are going to have to show where BS 1363 defines those terms.

Otherwise we remain at the position where YOU DO NOT KNOW how a socket will perform under a given load which is more onerous than the one which the standard requires it to sustain.

You just don't. You cannot.

The standard does not impose any requirements which can be measured, verified, or tested in court, of a twin socket regarding its ability to sustain a load greater than 14A+6A for 4-8 hours.

Quite correct. That does not mean that it does not impose any requirements on a twin socket-outlet regarding its ability to sustain a load greater than 14A + 6A for some unspecified time shorter than 4 hours. Perhaps it should, but it doesn't.

No other requirements are specified. " shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use" is not a specification.

You said it - "unspecified". To comply with the standard a socket does not have to comply with unspecified requirements which you think it should.

If I make a socket, and it passes the test at 14A+6A for 4-8 hours, that is regarded by the standard as a successful check of compliance with the requirement to not attain excessive temperatures in normal use, and I can claim compliance with the standard.

Now, you come along, and say that because the socket has a name containing 13A it must therefore be able to deliver 2x13A. What if I, the maker, say "as far as I am concerned it would not be normal to draw that much current from a twin socket for more than 5 seconds"? What if, after 10 seconds parts of the socket have got to 100°C, and after 1 minute it's on fire? What can be done about me claiming compliance with BS 1363 and saying "well, of course if you go beyond what is normal you must expect abnormal behaviour"?

Neither does it include a concession for a 13A socket-outlet to be derated if it shares a faceplate with another similar one.

It doesn't have to have. Standards don't work on the basis of assumptions of behaviour based on a name, which have to be formally countered if they are invalid, they work on the basis of specifying what something has to be, or do.

And nowhere does it say that each side of a twin socket has to be able to cope with 13A through both sides at the same time. It doesn't matter for how long, or how often you say "but they are called 13A sockets" (nor how reasonable), the fact is that there is no requirement for a twin socket to demonstrate any performance in any area at 26A, and therefore there cannot possibly be any guarantee that one will perform in an acceptable way at 26A.

You know that it does not.

No, I don't. You are not correct.

I would only be incorrect if you were unable to distinguish between "know" and "assume".

You know that you cannot show where it requires more.

Yes I can. Read the title. Read the requirements. If you still cannot understand the difference between the requirements of a standard and the test specifications that are considered to verify those requirements, then please study BS0, which will refer you to the ISO/IEC Directives.[/QUOTE]
I have read the requirements.

The relevant requirement is "Accessories and their surroundings shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use."

Can you tell me what the terms "excessive temperatures" and "normal use" mean in that context?

If you can, please show me how.

If you can't, then please explain how you can KNOW what they mean. Not assume. Not guess. Not reason what would be a logical interpretation based on the name of the item.

KNOW.

 

[securespark]

I know the old adage "assume makes an ass of u and me" and your argument is that one should not assume anything.

Having said that, this system was designed for use by unskilled persons, so I think it fair to say that "normal use" does not exceed the 13A limit at any given outlet.

The problem is, if you make blanket statements like "normal use" and "excessive temperatures" without specifying the exact parameters, you will find it being interpreted by designers, rather like 7671.

Furthermore, the unskilled persons operating this system will make assumptions (quite reasonably) that they can plug 2 x 13A appliances into one double socket.

Thus I conclude the Standard is flawed if you cannot.

 

[stillp]

I know what that standard requires sockets to do, and so do you

Yes, I know that the standard requires them to meet certain performance requirements at 13A. I also know that those requirements are not reduced when two socket-outlets share a common faceplate.

What it says, in the standard, is that if a socket purports to comply, it must be capable of meeting all the relevant requirements and tests specified in the standard.

Yes, it sahll conform to all the requirements, as well as passing all of the test. There is a difference.

Therefore there is nothing specified wrt normal use which a socket has to do.

There are requirements applicable in normal use. However you are correct to point out that "normal use" is only broadly defined in the standard, and that broad definition does not include any mention of the load connected to the socket-outlet.

There is no specification for "normal use". You know that.

There is. See above. What document are you using?

What is specified is that compliance with the requirement to not overheat in normal use shall be verified by passing the test involving a 14A+6A load. If a socket passes that test then it is deemed to be compliant with the requirement to not overheat in normal use.

Again, you have omitted the duration of the test. Please read all of what is in the standard (or in whatever the document is that you have, since it is not the standard) and do not add or omit things that you think should be in there, or that you think are irrelevant. the requirement that a twin 13A socket-outlet shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use is considered to be verified by a test whose specification includes currents of 14A + 6A for a duration of at least 4 hours and a maximum of 8 hours or when thermal stability is achieved, and gives the maximum temperatures that parts of each socket-outlet are permitted to reach after that time.

Now, you come along, and say that because the socket has a name containing 13A it must therefore be able to deliver 2x13A. What if I, the maker, say "as far as I am concerned it would not be normal to draw that much current from a twin socket for more than 5 seconds"? What if, after 10 seconds parts of the socket have got to 100°C, and after 1 minute it's on fire? What can be done about me claiming compliance with BS 1363 and saying "well, of course if you go beyond what is normal you must expect abnormal behaviour"?

There are several requirements, not just the name, with which a 13A socket-outlet shall comply.

And nowhere does it say that each side of a twin socket has to be able to cope with 13A through both sides at the same time.

Correct. And nowhere does it state that the requirements relating to the ability of a 13A socket to carry 13A are reduced when that 13A socket shares a faceplate with another.

Standards don't work on the basis of assumptions of behaviour based on a name, which have to be formally countered if they are invalid, they work on the basis of specifying what something has to be, or do.

Again you are quite correct. In this case the standard specifies various requirements that 13A socket-outlets shall meet. None of them are reduced when that 13A socket-outlet shares a faceplate with another.

The relevant requirement is "Accessories and their surroundings shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use."

That is only one of the relevant requirements. In order to claim conformity to a standard is is necessary to conform to all the normative provisions of that standard, i.e. to all the requirements as well as all the tests.