Search results

That's a logical deduction, not evidence.

Quite happy, with all the plugs I've looked at since this subject was raised. (Provided the probe was rigid of course.)

Don't hedge BAS, say what you mean!

The obsolete BS 3042: 1992 for probes has been replaced by IEC 61032. While I believe that IEC 60529 uses the test probes defined in that standard, it doesn't cross-reference them but instead gives dimensioned drawings, so I can't extrapolate from 60529 to find which is the probe referred to by...

No, but I would be very surprised if even the 1mm diameter probe would be able to contact current-carrying parts of any usual design of plug, when fitted with a cable. (BS1363 specifies a 2-core 0,5mm² flex).

Or, given that it was manufactured in PRC, perhaps they just copied all the markings that were on a fitting that was Class II?

There are no "IP requirements" that I can find; although BS1363 states that "Live parts shall not be accessible when the plugs are wired as in normal use and in full engagement in a corresponding socket-outlet", verification is not by testing to IEC 60529, but instead 1363 has its own test...

BS1363 is a standard for the products, not how they are installed.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Absolutely right BAS. I look forward to seeing your evidence that God does not exist.

So why did you respond?

Oh yes we do!

Get LEDs, and stop worrying about them being left on.

Have you taken legal advice?

Depends what's on the other end of those thick cables.

If the socket that's the origin for the spur is on a ring final, it will have two 2.5mm² conductors in the terminals already, and I don't think you'll get a 6mm² in there as well?

Quite.

It seems they claim IP20: https://www.wholesaleledlights.co.uk/led-strip-lights/led-power-supplies/non-waterproof.html

Ah, OK, I'd read it as meaning that a pot end was required but there wasn't one fitted.

I'd assumed that too, but if this cable is linking two properties why would it have a pot end?