PIV electrics

[JohnW2]

A further consideration is what is meant by 'adequate' internal protection. Is protection sufficient for 100% of cases, or 99%, or 90%?

Apologies. When I wrote my recent reply I had forgotten that you asked for probabilities.

100% is obviously unrealistic, and would undoubtedly lead to 'under-protection'. Since I am sympathetic to the manufacturer's concerns about warranties, I would be happy for there to be a pretty demanding criterion - at least 99%, probably 99.9% or higher. Again you will probably tell me that the manufacturer knows better, but I still very much doubt that the probability of EFLI's TV ever blowing a 3A fuse is greater than 0.1%.

What if the appliance is such that any overcurrent sufficient to blow a fuse will have caused irreparable damage to the appliance?

Do you mean 'any fuse'? As I've said, I fear that this is probably the most common scenario - that, by the time there is a current high enough to blow any fuse (that would allow the product to work) it is very likely that irreparable damage will already have been done.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So in other words not one scrap of evidence that fused plugs provide any benefit in reducing fires originating in appliances.

no

I am not arguing anything about the purpose of fuses. I am arguing that it is a fallacy to state that fuses only protect the cables and not the appliances connected via those cables

Then maybe you should stop posting, for it is the purpose which is being debated, and the debate is between those who believe that a purpose of the fuse is to protect the appliance, and those who believe that it is not.

and that the lower the value of the fuse, the more protection is provided to the appliance (and its cable).

The cable is protected or not.

Once protected, no more is needed.

Read the whole exchange. My statement was in answer to EFLI's "why was it considered necessary to fit other rated fuses in the plug"

OK - sorry - I had read the whole exchange, but mea culpa, clearly not well enough.

The protection provided by a lower value fuse is closer than the protection provided by a greater value. Don't you realise that?

Yes I do.

But there is still a big problem with what you wrote. EFLI asked "why was it considered necessary to fit other rated fuses in the plug", and you replied "to provide closer protection to the appliances that are connected to that installation".

So who was it, and where, how etc, that decided that it was essential to use plug fuses to provide closer protection appliances?

Since this is an internet forum and not a court of law, that is hardly relevant.

What utter nonsense.

Of course it is relevant.

You saying "somebody told me" is unacceptable, and does not constitute proof, and cannot be relied upon.

I have little hope that what I say here will be accepted by you as being true, since it is a view that differs from yours.

If I don't accept that what you say is true it is not because it is a view which differs from mine. It's because you think you can just claim that something is true when there is no proof whatsoever that it is, combined with an attitude that it really doesn't matter if there is proof or not.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Is it not rational that smaller value fuses allow less let-through energy than larger fuses? Do you need evidence of that fact?

Yes and no.

But that does not equate to doing something beyond that which is all that is required when there is absolutely no evidence that any benefits accrue.

It does not matter how much you talk about deduction - that will never be evidence.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well, neither you nor BAS has given an example of an instance where it would be harmful to fit a lower value plug fuse...

Probably because neither EFLI or I are trying to argue that.

But you and John are trying to argue that it is beneficial to fit a lower value, even though there is no evidence whatsoever that it actually is.

 

[JohnW2]

But you and John are trying to argue that it is beneficial to fit a lower value, even though there is no evidence whatsoever that it actually is.

I'm starting to wonder whether you fully understand what I'm talking about ...

I'm talking about items of equipment which have either no or 'sub-optimal' (as defined above) internal protection, or in situations in which one does not know whether or not such internal protection is present.

As I understand it, you are a believer in the view that manufacturers should provide such internal protection for their products, but we know that they all don't. If you think they 'should' provide it, you presumably must believe that there is a reason/need for it. That being the case, if one knows that internal protection is absent or 'sub-optimal', or if one doesn't know whether optimal internal protection is present, then it surely makes sense to provide the protection externally - and, whilst one is at it, it would also seem to make sense for that external protection to be as 'optimal' as possible (i.e. the lowest rated available fuse that will allow the product to work).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm starting to wonder whether you fully understand what I'm talking about ...

I'm starting to wonder whether you fully understand what I'm talking about ...

I'm talking about items of equipment which have either no or 'sub-optimal' (as defined above) internal protection, or in situations in which one does not know whether or not such internal protection is present.

I'm talking about items of equipment which are demonstrably more dangerous when used in geographies where they can only rely on their internal protection.

As I understand it, you are a believer in the view that manufacturers should provide such internal protection for their products, but we know that they all don't. If you think they 'should' provide it, you presumably must believe that there is a reason/need for it.

As I understand it, you are a believer in the view that because manufacturers do, or might, not provide such internal protection for their products there is a reason/need for the users of the equipment to provide the protection externally to the equipment in the form of a fuse in a plug or FCU.

That being the case, if one knows that internal protection is absent or 'sub-optimal', or if one doesn't know whether optimal internal protection is present, then it surely makes sense to provide the protection externally - and, whilst one is at it, it would also seem to make sense for that external protection to be as 'optimal' as possible (i.e. the lowest rated available fuse that will allow the product to work).

That being the case then the makers must knowingly be selling inadequate products to billions of people, and have been doing so "for ever".

That being the case then combination of so many products in use for so many years must have given rise to evidence showing that they need their users to provide external protection to them.

 

[JohnW2]

As I understand it, you are a believer in the view that because manufacturers do, or might, not provide such internal protection for their products there is a reason/need for the users of the equipment to provide the protection externally to the equipment in the form of a fuse in a plug or FCU.

If one believes (as I thought you did) that there is reason why the manufacturer should provide internal protection, then yes.

That being the case then the makers must knowingly be selling inadequate products to billions of people, and have been doing so "for ever".

That depends upon what you mean by "inadequate". If there are products without internal protection, or without as much internal protection than they could have, then the products would be "less adequate" than they could be in minimising damage to the product in the event of a fault.

That being the case then combination of so many products in use for so many years must have given rise to evidence showing that they need their users to provide external protection to them.

I would wish you luck in trying to find such evidence, particularly since no-one has suggested that external protection is likely to produce more than a small, probably very small, potential 'practical benefit'.

One might also ask why it is so common, when the products are sold in the UK, for the manufacturer to indicate that one should have some fuse other than a 13A one in the associated BS1363 plug (and undoubtedly would try to wriggle out of a warranty claim if someone had used a plug fuse of higher rating than they had specified).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If one believes (as I thought you did) that there is reason why the manufacturer should provide internal protection, then yes.

If one believes (as I thought you did) that there is reason why the manufacturer should provide internal protection but have not then how is the need addressed by users who are unable to provide external protection to fill the need?

That depends upon what you mean by "inadequate". If there are products without internal protection, or without as much internal protection than they could have, then the products would be "less adequate" than they could be in minimising damage to the product in the event of a fault.

That depends on what you mean by "inadequate".

I do not believe that the millions of products sold to millions of people are inadequate.

You do believe this, but can produce no evidence to show that it is fact.

I would wish you luck in trying to find such evidence, particularly since no-one has suggested that external protection is likely to produce more than a small, probably very small, potential 'practical benefit'.

I do not have to find such evidence, for I am not arguing that it is the case that appliances are not properly protected without a fuse in their plug.

You are the one saying that it is the case, therefore it falls to you to find the evidence to prove it.

One might also ask why it is so common, when the products are sold in the UK, for the manufacturer to indicate that one should have some fuse other than a 13A one in the associated BS1363 plug (and undoubtedly would try to wriggle out of a warranty claim if someone had used a plug fuse of higher rating than they had specified).

That question is often asked, and assuming that it is not because of the size of the cord, it is never answered, and neither is the corollary "so what do they do in countries where plug fuses are not an option and all there is is the B16 back at the CU?"

 

[JohnW2]

If one believes (as I thought you did) that there is reason why the manufacturer should provide internal protection but have not then how is the need addressed by users who are unable to provide external protection to fill the need?

It obviously isn't. Why that is accepted in most countries other than ours is something you would have to ask them.

That depends on what you mean by "inadequate". I do not believe that the millions of products sold to millions of people are inadequate.

Fair enough. You're obviously free to have your opinion, based on whatever definition of "inadequate" you are working to.

You are the one saying that it is the case, therefore it falls to you to find the evidence to prove it.

I disagree. Even if it is not possible to find evidence, if one can produce a theoretical argument as to why there might be an advantage, then, if there is no downside or significant cost, it is reasonable to work on the basis of the the theoretical argument that cannot currently be supported by evidence.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

It obviously isn't. Why that is accepted in most countries other than ours is something you would have to ask them.

No, it is up to you to show where that acceptance is unreasonable by giving examples of products which should not be accepted.

Fair enough. You're obviously free to have your opinion, based on whatever definition of "inadequate" you are working to.

No, Bas and I believe that product protection is adequate, so the standard definition of adequate will suffice.
Levels of inadequacy do not come into it.

I disagree. Even if it is not possible to find evidence, if one can produce a theoretical argument as to why there might be an advantage, then, if there is no downside or significant cost, it is reasonable to work on the basis of the the theoretical argument that cannot currently be supported by evidence.

No, if you can find no evidence then it is reasonable to believe that none exists.

 

[JohnW2]

No, it is up to you to show where that acceptance is unreasonable by giving examples of products which should not be accepted.

I haven't suggested that 'acceptance' is unreasonable. I'm merely saying that if one wants to know why standard practices in different countries (which I presume are 'accepted' in the countries concerned) are different, you would have to ask the people who established those practices, not me.

No, Bas and I believe that product protection is adequate, so the standard definition of adequate will suffice. Levels of inadequacy do not come into it.

You and BAS, and anyone else, is obviously fully entitled to that opinion. I'm not sure that one can actually dismiss 'levels of adequacy' but, if you and BAS feel that product protection is 'adequate enough', then fair enough.

Do you also feel that the 'product protection is adequate' when there is no such protection?

If were talking about, say, safety-related requirements specified in BS7671, I don't think that you would be too critical of someone who, for whatever reason, wanted to go beyond the minimum safety requirements of the Standard, would you? If not, why is your attitude seemingly different in relation to the matter we are discussing, with some (UK) people feeling it worthwhile to exceed the degree of product protection (if any) provided by the manufacturer.

Given there are cynics around, I'm a little surprised that no-one has pointed out that some manufacturers may not necessarily see the benefit (to them) of taking steps to minimise the chances of people having to buy replacements for a failed product!

No, if you can find no evidence then it is reasonable to believe that none exists.

Do you really believe that, as a generalisation? Are you, for example, an atheist? Is it reasonable to believe that RCDs do not save lives? Prior to the discovery of antibiotics, we had found no evidence than anything could kill bacteria within a human body, so does that mean that it was then reasonable (even though incorrect) to assume that no such substances existed? ... and the same for millions of other discoveries/inventions.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I haven't suggested that 'acceptance' is unreasonable. I'm merely saying that if one wants to know why standard practices in different countries (which I presume are 'accepted' in the countries concerned) are different, you would have to ask the people who established those practices, not me.

But - it is Britain that has chosen to be different so are things in this respect better in Britain?

Do you also feel that the 'product protection is adequate' when there is no such protection?

Well, that is a pointless question.
As it stands 'No' but what does that tell us?

It is you who is maintaining that there are such products without being able to give an example - or even state which type of product you have in mind.
You admit it doesn't apply to TV sets, yet still fit lower rated fuses.

If were talking about, say, safety-related requirements specified in BS7671, I don't think that you would be too critical of someone who, for whatever reason, wanted to go beyond the minimum safety requirements of the Standard, would you? If not, why is your attitude seemingly different in relation to the matter we are discussing, with some (UK) people feeling it worthwhile to exceed the degree of product protection (if any) provided by the manufacturer.

Because I don't think it affords greater protection - in the sense that the product (or user) will be any better off.

Given there are cynics around, I'm a little surprised that no-one has pointed out that some manufacturers may not necessarily see the benefit (to them) of taking steps to minimise the chances of people having to buy replacements for a failed product!

So - you do think that your item will be saved.

Do you really believe that, as a generalisation?

We are not generalising - in this case, I do.
Why do you presume the rest of the world is so stupid?

Are you, for example, an atheist?

Yes, and that's quite a good example.
In a discussion, it is for believers to prove the existence; not non-believers to prove the negative.
(Atheist was first coined as an insult by believers to denigrate those who disagreed with them.
There is no need for a word to describe people who do not believe a thing exists)

Is it reasonable to believe that RCDs do not save lives?

No. There is at least one example where an electrician (IET Forum) has caused an RCD to trip possibly saving him.
The discussion is whether it is worth the expense. Obviously it is if it is you.

Prior to the discovery of antibiotics, we had found no evidence than anything could kill bacteria within a human body, so does that mean that it was then reasonable (even though incorrect) to assume that no such substances existed? ... and the same for millions of other discoveries/inventions.

Do you really think that is a comparable example?

 

[JohnW2]

But - it is Britain that has chosen to be different so are things in this respect better in Britain?

Ask whoever invested UK fused plugs then, not me!

It is you who is maintaining that there are such products without being able to give an example - or even state which type of product you have in mind. You admit it doesn't apply to TV sets, yet still fit lower rated fuses.

Well, it could apply to some TV sets. As I've said, if I had your 180W LED TV (and certainly if I had a modern ~35W equivalent) and knew that its internal protection was provided by a 6.3A fuse, I would be at least be tempted to put a fuse with a lower rating than 6.3A into the plug.

Yes, and that's quite a good example. In a discussion, it is for believers to prove the existence; not non-believers to prove the negative.

Maybe, but there are an awful lot of 'believers' (of various faiths) who do not feel that the lack of evidence means that they can't 'believe'. I'm not sure what the figures are now, but it's probably only a few decades ago that we would have been talking about the majority (>50%) of the entire world's population.

No. There is at least one example where an electrician (IET Forum) has caused an RCD to trip possibly saving him.

Does "possibly saving him" count as 'evidence' or 'proof'? As I keep saying, whether a person survives a shock which caused an RCD to operate or died as a result of a shock when there was no RCD, one cannot know what would have happened in the 'other situation' (RCD or no RCD).

If a plug fuse, but not the (higher-rated) internal fuse in a piece of equipment, blows, can one not similarly say that the plug fused has "possibly saved" a degree of damage to the equipment?

The discussion is whether it is worth the expense. Obviously it is if it is you.

Are you suggesting that I believe that RCDs are "worth the expense"? As you know, I have repeatedly said that I believe that if the amount spent on RCDs (and their installation) had instead been directed to something like road safety (or maybe even medical research), I think it very likely that a lot more lives would have been saved.

Do you really think that is a comparable example?

It's an example of "assuming that something doesn't exist" because we do not (yet) have any evidence of its existence - which is the principle you were proposing.

Kind Regards, John

 

[winston1]

One might also ask why it is so common, when the products are sold in the UK, for the manufacturer to indicate that one should have some fuse other than a 13A one in the associated BS1363 plug (and undoubtedly would try to wriggle out of a warranty claim if someone had used a plug fuse of higher rating than they had specified).

Kind Regards, John

Quite simply, yet another case, of a manufacturer being wrong. Their technical writers obviously don't know what the fuse is for as is the case with many posters on here.