2 way wall socket question

[stillp]

But you do not KNOW that it is the opinion held by every single maker of 13A sockets in the world.

Please don't shout.
Correct, I do not know that. In fact I suspect that there are some cheats and shysters among the manufacturers of 13A sockets in some parts of the world who find it convenient to make a product that only passes the specified tests of the standard.

You do not KNOW that 13A through each outlet for any amount of time is what is considered normal use in the context of BS 1363.

Correct, I don't. BS1363 does not define "excessive temperatures", and it does not define "normal use". Instead it uses a carefully-designed test to verify that the requirement to not attain excessive temperatures in normal use is met. This test contains some parameters that cannot be considered "normal use"; the twin socket-outlet is flush-mounted in a wooden block, has only a single cable connected, one of the sockets is loaded at 14A, the plugs contain heaters, the earth pins of the plugs are not connected. (Yes, I know that there will only be a single cable if the socket-outlet is at the end of a radial or spur, and I know that not every appliance that will be connected via a 13A plug requires an earth connection.) The maximum allowable temperature rise is specified.

And not one of them is a requirement which relates to the heating effect of a load sustained for several hours.

Not one.

And you know that.

I know that there is not a test relating to the ability of a socket-outlet to carry 13A for several hours. I am aware of the requirement that a socket-outlet shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use.

No, I think they need not be because the standard does not say that they must be. And because what it does say, in this context, is that they must not overheat in normal use (a condition not defined), and that if they don't overheat at 14A+6A for 4-8 hours that is considered proof that they won't overheat in normal use.

The standard does not say that they must be capable of carrying 13A in each outlet concurrently, because it does say that 13A socket-outlets shall be capable of carrying (and making and braking, and switching, where relevant), and it does not relax those requirements for twin socket-outlets.

Unless you are totally ignorant of what happens when a current flows through which has electrical resistance, you will know that the heating effect of 13A+13A will be greater than that of 14A+6A.

Therefore you know that at 13A+13A a socket which meets the requirement to not overheat at 14A+6A might not meet that requirement when the load is increased by 30%.

If the criteria for passing that test included only a measurement of the average temperature, you'd be right. As I tried to explain, the test was apparently designed to reveal hot spots, by overloading one of the outlets. It was considered by the members of PEL/23, including experts in the design. manufacture, and testing, that this test is sufficient, given the fairly benign temperature rises involved, to verify that the requirement that the socket-outlet shall not overheat in normal use, is met.

And it really doesn't matter how often, or how correctly, you observe that if it's OK at 20A it will probably be OK at 26A, at the end of the day you just do not KNOW.

What I observe does not matter. The fact is that there are requirements relating to the ability of a 13A socket-outlet to carry 13A, and they are nor reduced for a twin socket.

And if it managed to sustain that load for several hours I think most reasonable people would say that normal use probably doesn't involve running it flat out for several hours and that therefore it probably does comply.

But what happens between those two bounds? You said it yourself, it is undefined. If, after a period of time, which could be longer or shorter than an undefined period of time, the socket does overheat, what then?

Who would hold the manufacturer to account for the "unacceptable", or "non-compliant" behaviour of his product in that it failed to meet an undefined requirement?

And how would they do that?

I assume that the customer who had bought that non-conformant product would have a complaint to Trading Standards. They in turn would probably ask the opinion of a test house. TS would have the authority to demand the cessation of sale of those products and the destruction of stock.

Unless and until somebody nails their opinion to the mast and goes to court and successfully argues that "normal use" means 13A through both sides for x minutes/hours/days/whatever, so that the "some undefined period of time" becomes defined through the precedent of the decision of a court, nobody can KNOW how long a socket claimed to be compliant with BS 1363 can handle a 26A load.

That is of course correct. Similarly, nobody can know a duration for which a twin socket-outlet to BS1363 cannot handle 13A+13A.

You and they have an opinion of how a twin socket should perform.

Do you or they KNOW that that opinion is shared, has always been shared, and will always be shared by every single manufacturer on the planet?

No. However there is an association to which these test houses belong, and they share information and interpretations of the grey areas in standards, so I have no doubt that that opinion is shared among the reputable test houses. There will always be manufacturers who will fail to comply with requirements of a standard.

But if a socket fails to perform how they think it should, do they refuse to run the tests as specified in BS 1363 and refuse to certify that the socket passes the tests specified in the standard?

No they don't, but they will refuse to certify that the product conforms to the standard. They will also share the result of their tests with other test houses so that the manufacturer of the non-conforming product cannot simply shop around until he finds one that agrees with him.

Even if they do, do you and they KNOW that every other testing house on the planet does the same?

No, I don't, unfortunately there are cowboys among the test houses, just as there are among manufacturers.

So you are simply discounting the possibility that the defined period was chosen because "normal use" was not considered to mean a substantial load sustained for more than 8 hours?

No, I'm not discounting anything. I am repeating what I have been told. The test is not intended to simulate 'normal use', but it is to verify a requirement. The experts involved judged that, if a twin socket-outlet did not exceed certain specified temperatures after carrying 14A+6A for between 4 - 8 hours under the specified conditions, it would not attain excessive temperatures in normal use.

You are simply discounting the possibility that if between hours 4 and 8 a socket has pretty much stopped getting hotter it can be considered to not be likely to get any hotter from 8 hours onwards?

No, whatever gives you that impression?

Maybe so, but if so then they will be test houses which are unable to offer the full range of tests specified in BS 1363, because some of them last more than 8 hours. At least one lasts for 48 hours.

And one lasts for 7 days, but in those cases the product is simply left in a test chamber for that period, with no need for any human involvement.

Let's not forget that BS 1363 actually specifies only one cable. If a second cable were to be connected then they would not be testing in accordance with the standard.

Exactly my point. A single cable is specified in order to limit the heat loss from the item under test, so as to shorten the time needed to achieve thermal stabilty. For the same reason, the plugs include heaters, and the earth conductors of the plugs are not connected.

But then the opinion you hold was not arrived at by reasoning in the first place.

And yours was?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But you do not KNOW that it is the opinion held by every single maker of 13A sockets in the world.

Please don't shout.

Well, if you are speaking to someone, and over and over again they don't hear what you are saying you might raise your voice. If you've done that so as to get them to hear you probably wouldn't think it valid to be criticised for shouting.

I wrote that word in large letters because you just didn't seem to be seeing it.

It seems to have worked:

Correct, I do not know that.

Precisely.

You don't know if everybody who makes sockets shares your opinion of how they should perform when used in a way which the standard does not define.

So therefore you cannot know that every socket on the market can handle 13A through both sides at once.

Therefore when you say that they must be able to because of their name, you are saying something untrue.

In fact I suspect that there are some cheats and shysters among the manufacturers of 13A sockets in some parts of the world who find it convenient to make a product that only passes the specified tests of the standard.

Those are the only tests they have to pass.

When "normal use" is not defined, it is not a specification. No manufacturer can possibly know how his socket has to perform under load except for the test specified. If they have a different opinion to you about a 26A loading, then that does not make them cheats and shysters, it makes them someone who has a different opinion to you about how a socket should perform when used in a way which the standard does not define.

You do not KNOW that 13A through each outlet for any amount of time is what is considered normal use in the context of BS 1363.

Correct, I don't.

Therefore you cannot say that a twin socket must be able to cope with it.

BS1363 does not define "excessive temperatures", and it does not define "normal use". Instead it uses a carefully-designed test to verify that the requirement to not attain excessive temperatures in normal use is met. This test contains some parameters that cannot be considered "normal use"; the twin socket-outlet is flush-mounted in a wooden block, has only a single cable connected, one of the sockets is loaded at 14A, the plugs contain heaters, the earth pins of the plugs are not connected. (Yes, I know that there will only be a single cable if the socket-outlet is at the end of a radial or spur, and I know that not every appliance that will be connected via a 13A plug requires an earth connection.) The maximum allowable temperature rise is specified.

So apart from that it does not specify any behaviour at any loading for any length of time.

And you know that.

I am aware of the requirement that a socket-outlet shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use.

Indeed.

But you don't know what normal use is.

You don't know that it is 13A through both sides simultaneously.

If it is 13A through both sides simultaneously you don't know for how long.

In short, you don't know how a twin socket will perform at 26A.

So you cannot say that it must be able to cope with 26A.

The standard does not say that they must be capable of carrying 13A in each outlet concurrently

So why do you keep claiming that they must be able to?

because it does say that 13A socket-outlets shall be capable of carrying (and making and braking, and switching, where relevant)

But not concurrently.

and it does not relax those requirements for twin socket-outlets.

Since none of the other tests, or requirements, relate to the heating effect of two concurrent loads that is irrelevant.

The only requirement which does relate to the heating effect of two concurrent loads is undefined, and the only test which relates to it does not use a load of 26A.

If the criteria for passing that test included only a measurement of the average temperature, you'd be right. As I tried to explain, the test was apparently designed to reveal hot spots, by overloading one of the outlets. It was considered by the members of PEL/23, including experts in the design. manufacture, and testing, that this test is sufficient, given the fairly benign temperature rises involved, to verify that the requirement that the socket-outlet shall not overheat in normal use, is met.

But what is normal use? Do you know?

What I observe does not matter.

You are quite correct - it doesn't matter how often you say that a twin socket must be able to carry 26A because there is no relaxation of a non-existent requirement for it to carry 26A, you will be wrong.

The fact is that there are requirements relating to the ability of a 13A socket-outlet to carry 13A, and they are nor reduced for a twin socket.

Will you please tell us what the requirement relating to the heating effect of a long term load is for a single socket?

Will you please tell us what the requirement relating to the heating effect of a long term load is for a twin socket?

If both of those are that it shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use, will you please explain how you know that there is no de-rating for the normal-use loading of a twin socket?

I assume that the customer who had bought that non-conformant product would have a complaint to Trading Standards.

And how would TS know that he had a valid compliant because his socket had not performed properly under normal use? How would they find out what "normal use" meant and therefore determine that the consumer had a valid compliant?

They in turn would probably ask the opinion of a test house.

As is sometimes said - opinions are like assholes - everybody has one.

Can you please tell us which laws or regulations make the opinion of a test house legally binding?

TS would have the authority to demand the cessation of sale of those products and the destruction of stock.

I think you've forgotten the somewhat important matter of a court case, which would be needed if any such demands could be enforced. A court case where the concept of reasonable doubt will raise its head, and where proceedings would be presided over by a member of a group who tend to be somewhat disapproving of vague and undefined regulations.

Good luck to anybody trying to prove that normal use must, beyond reasonable doubt, mean 26A from a twin socket.

Unless and until somebody nails their opinion to the mast and goes to court and successfully argues that "normal use" means 13A through both sides for x minutes/hours/days/whatever, so that the "some undefined period of time" becomes defined through the precedent of the decision of a court, nobody can KNOW how long a socket claimed to be compliant with BS 1363 can handle a 26A load.

That is of course correct.

But we've had days and days and days of nonsense from you saying that a twin socket must be able to handle 26A.

Similarly, nobody can know a duration for which a twin socket-outlet to BS1363 cannot handle 13A+13A.

Of course they can.

It's a duration which exceeds the duration in the definition of normal use.

You and they have an opinion of how a twin socket should perform.

Do you or they KNOW that that opinion is shared, has always been shared, and will always be shared by every single manufacturer on the planet?

No.

Therefore you don't know if any particular socket behaves in a way which you think it should.

Why do you keep on trying to claim that it must?

However there is an association to which these test houses belong, and they share information and interpretations of the grey areas in standards, so I have no doubt that that opinion is shared among the reputable test houses. There will always be manufacturers who will fail to comply with requirements of a standard.

Will you please explain how a product could fail to comply with an undefined requirement?

No they don't, but they will refuse to certify that the product conforms to the standard.

And their lawyers are quite happy with that, are they?

They are quite happy with the scenario where a product they have tested passes every single test which it is required to do, but because it doesn't do things which are unspecified but which they think it should be able to do they can just say "it doesn't comply"?

They will also share the result of their tests with other test houses so that the manufacturer of the non-conforming product cannot simply shop around until he finds one that agrees with him.

Even assuming that sharing of commercially confidential information like that is legal, I doubt that it is legal for test house A to tell test house B that they may not have a different opinion about what is meant by an undefined term.

No, I don't, unfortunately there are cowboys among the test houses, just as there are among manufacturers.

If they have a different opinion to you about what an undefined requirement requires that does not make them cowboys, it makes them someone who has a different opinion to you about what an undefined requirement requires.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The experts involved judged that, if a twin socket-outlet did not exceed certain specified temperatures after carrying 14A+6A for between 4 - 8 hours under the specified conditions, it would not attain excessive temperatures in normal use.

I'm sure they did.

Will you please tell us what, in this context, is considered to be normal use?

You are simply discounting the possibility that if between hours 4 and 8 a socket has pretty much stopped getting hotter it can be considered to not be likely to get any hotter from 8 hours onwards?

No, whatever gives you that impression?

So you are not suggesting that if between hours 4 and 8 a socket has pretty much stopped getting hotter it cannot be considered to not be likely to get any hotter from 8 hours onwards?

What gives me that impression is this:

As I suspected, some parameters of the test are designed to ensure that thermal stability is reached before the 8 hour maximum time under test, purely for the convenience of those performing the test

In other words you are discounting the possibility that the 8-hour limit was chosen because if between hours 4 and 8 a socket has pretty much stopped getting hotter it can be considered to not be likely to get any hotter from 8 hours onwards. You are suggesting it was chosen for the convenience of the test houses.

Exactly my point. A single cable is specified in order to limit the heat loss from the item under test, so as to shorten the time needed to achieve thermal stabilty.

But of course a single cable is not specified for the test of a single socket. In fact, two are explicitly required.

So in tests which are deemed, if successfully passed, to indicate that a socket will not overheat in normal use, the test of a twin socket is not, in terms of loading or in terms of wiring, equivalent to the tests that would be taking place on two separate single sockets if they were being done concurrently. The test of a twin socket is not, in terms of loading or in terms of wiring, equivalent to 2 x the test of a single socket.

Yet over and over again you insist that the unspecified "normal use" of a twin socket is 2 x the unspecified "normal use" of a single socket.

Why?

But then the opinion you hold was not arrived at by reasoning in the first place.

And yours was?

Yes, because it is based on what the standard requires, and on the reasoning that if a significant test to indicate real-world performance of a twin socket is not 2 x the test to indicate real-world performance of a single socket, then whatever is meant by "normal use" it is not that a twin socket will support 2 x the load of a single.

And it's also based on the reasoning that if you don't know how a twin socket will perform under a loading which exceeds the one in the test then it is untrue to say that you do.

 

[stillp]

Well, if you are speaking to someone, and over and over again they don't hear what you are saying you might raise your voice.

I might, if I had reason to believe that they hadn't heard what I was saying, and not that they actually heard what I was saying but did not agree, or thought it irrelevant.

You don't know if everybody who makes sockets shares your opinion of how they should perform when used in a way which the standard does not define.

So therefore you cannot know that every socket on the market can handle 13A through both sides at once.

Therefore when you say that they must be able to because of their name, you are saying something untrue.

You are of course correct that I do not know what goes on in the minds of every manufacturer of 13A sockets in the world. Some of them probably think something like "If I only design sockets that just pass the tests of the standard I can save some money".
They must be able to carry 13A concurrently, not only because of their name, but because of the requirements of the standard that each 13A socket-outlet shall be able to meet certain performance requirements at 13A. Those requirements are not reduced when two socket-outlets share a common faceplate.

So apart from that it does not specify any behaviour at any loading for any length of time.

And you know that.

In fact it does. It specifies certain performance requirements at 13A. Those requirements are not reduced when two socket-outlets share a common faceplate.

When "normal use" is not defined, it is not a specification.

Really? What about some other things that are undefined, such as "reasonable provision for safety", "suitable for their intended use", and many others? Even in BS1363, "Socket-outlets shall be so designed and constructed that in normal use their performance is reliable and without danger..."

No manufacturer can possibly know how his socket has to perform under load except for the test specified.

That is not correct. He is told that his product must not attain excessive temperatures in normal use.

But what is normal use? Do you know?

Do I need to? I think not. Actually there was a court case (not involving 13A sockets) some years ago in which it was argued that 'normal use' is 'use that is not abnormal', which is little help without knowing the context. Normal use of a desk-mounted socket in a hotel room would probably not include connection of 3kW loads, whereas normal use of a metalclad socket in a garage or workshop might. But, it doesn't matter. The experts of PEL/23 have designed a test in order to verify that socket-outlets are capable of meeting the requirement to not attain excessive temperatures in normal use.

If both of those are that it shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use, will you please explain how you know that there is no de-rating for the normal-use loading of a twin socket?

Because there is no derating specified in the standard.

And how would TS know that he had a valid compliant because his socket had not performed properly under normal use? How would they find out what "normal use" meant and therefore determine that the consumer had a valid compliant?

I imagine they would make a judgement as to whether the complainant had behaved reasonably or not. If he had connected two 13A non-thermostatic heaters to the twin socket and left them on overnight, for example, they might conclude that did not constitute normal use. If he'd only left them on for half an hour, that might be considered normal use.

Can you please tell us which laws or regulations make the opinion of a test house legally binding?

There are none, but those opinions are frequently used in courts of law to indicate what experts consider to be a reasonable interpretation of a standard's provisions.

I think you've forgotten the somewhat important matter of a court case, which would be needed if any such demands could be enforced.

I think you'll find that TS have powers to issue and enforce Notices without needing a court's decision.

It's a duration which exceeds the duration in the definition of normal use.

But since there is no duration specifed, it might be considered that there is no maximum duration.

Therefore you don't know if any particular socket behaves in a way which you think it should.

Why do you keep on trying to claim that it must?

I don't know if every socket manufacturer on the planet complies with any of the requirements of BS1363. That does not mean that those requirements are invalid.

Will you please explain how a product could fail to comply with an undefined requirement?

If a socket were to overheat under conditions of use which Trading Standards, or a court, consider to be normal use.

And their lawyers are quite happy with that, are they?

Presumably so, or they would not conduct their business in such a way.

They are quite happy with the scenario where a product they have tested passes every single test which it is required to do, but because it doesn't do things which are unspecified but which they think it should be able to do they can just say "it doesn't comply"?

Yes, they can. It is not uncommon.

Even assuming that sharing of commercially confidential information like that is legal, I doubt that it is legal for test house A to tell test house B that they may not have a different opinion about what is meant by an undefined term.

The results of tests are the property of the test houses that performed them. I don't know precisely how much information they share, but it has to be sufficient to prevent a manufacturer/importer from hawking a product around until he finds a test house willing to sell him a certificate. Test house B will be aware that should a non-conformity come to court, or to Trading Standards, the opinion of test house Q could be used against them.

If they have a different opinion to you about what an undefined requirement requires that does not make them cowboys, it makes them someone who has a different opinion to you about what an undefined requirement requires.

That is correct. However if they invent a derating that does not exist in order to issue a certificate for a product that does not conform to all the requirements of a standard, then I would call them cowboys.

 

[stillp]

Will you please tell us what, in this context, is considered to be normal use?

I would assume something along the lines of "use likely to be encountered in a typical installation" or similar. Why? The definition if 'normal use' is not important. What is important is that PEL/23 experts have designed a test, and criteria, to verify that a socket-outlet is considered not to attain excessive temperatures in normal use, however that latter term is defined.

So you are not suggesting that if between hours 4 and 8 a socket has pretty much stopped getting hotter it cannot be considered to not be likely to get any hotter from 8 hours onwards?

No, I am not suggesting that - it is simple physics, why should I deny it?

What gives me that impression is this:
In other words you are discounting the possibility that the 8-hour limit was chosen because if between hours 4 and 8 a socket has pretty much stopped getting hotter it can be considered to not be likely to get any hotter from 8 hours onwards. You are suggesting it was chosen for the convenience of the test houses.

No, I am not discounting that possibility. I have stated already, that the information I received from someone involved in the design of the test and the choice of criteria was that the test is designed so that thermal stability of a loaded twin 13A socket-outlet will be achieved within 8 hours. If the test were intended simply to simulate 'normal use', some of the test conditions would be different, but thermal stability would then not always be reached within 8 hours, which would increase the duration and the cost of the tests for no good reason.

But of course a single cable is not specified for the test of a single socket. In fact, two are explicitly required.

Because it is not necessary to reduce the number of cables connected to a single socket in order to achieve thermal stability within 8 hours.

The test of a twin socket is not, in terms of loading or in terms of wiring, equivalent to 2 x the test of a single socket.

Neither is the mounting of the socket equivalent.

And yours was?

Yes, because it is based on what the standard requires, and on the reasoning that if a significant test to indicate real-world performance of a twin socket is not 2 x the test to indicate real-world performance of a single socket, then whatever is meant by "normal use" it is not that a twin socket will support 2 x the load of a single.[/QUOTE]
No, your opinion is not based on what the standard requires, but it is based on a flawed assumption that because a particular test, designed to verify that one of the requirements of the standard is met, uses a lower current than 2 x the rating of a single socket, then the other requirements that each socket-outlet shall be capable of carrying 13A become invalid.

And it's also based on the reasoning that if you don't know how a twin socket will perform under a loading which exceeds the one in the test then it is untrue to say that you do.

I have not said that I know how a twin socket will perform under a load exceeding that in the test, although I have a pretty good idea. I have said that the requirements of the standard apply to 13A socket-outlets. The requirements for them to carry 13A are not reduced when two share a common faceplate.

 

[securespark]

But what is normal use? Do you know?

I don't think anyone knows, including the writers of the Standards.

OED definition: "Normal....usual, typical, what you would expect."

Where millions of members of the public are concerned, there isn't a "usual, typical, what you would expect."

Which is why the standard applies the WCS re excessive temperatures.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I would think that millions of members of the public would expect to plug in two appliances to a double socket and think it quite normal.

That these two appliances were both 13A, even if they knew, would not alter that opinion.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I might, if I had reason to believe that they hadn't heard what I was saying, and not that they actually heard what I was saying but did not agree, or thought it irrelevant.

I did have reason, because it was so blindingly obviously true that it was impossible for any sane, intelligent person to not agree.

And I was right, because eventually you did agree that you don't know.

You are of course correct that I do not know what goes on in the minds of every manufacturer of 13A sockets in the world. Some of them probably think something like "If I only design sockets that just pass the tests of the standard I can save some money".

Maybe they do.

But unless and until there is an authoritative ruling to the effect that their interpretation of "normal use" is wrong, and what they think is meant by a requirement with no meaning is so wrong that they are not allowed to say that their socket complies with BS 1363 and that they are committing a trading standards offence by selling them, nobody (including you) will know that they are wrong, and nobody (including you) will know that the performance of their product is inadequate.

And nobody, including you, will know that what you think is the required performance actually is.

They must be able to carry 13A concurrently, not only because of their name, but because of the requirements of the standard that each 13A socket-outlet shall be able to meet certain performance requirements at 13A.

Will you please tell us what the requirement is wrt the ability to carry a sustained load without overheating. And will you please tell us how you know what it is.

Those requirements are not reduced when two socket-outlets share a common faceplate.

Will you please tell us how you know that normal use for a twin socket is considered to be the same as the simultaneous normal use for two single sockets.

In fact it does. It specifies certain performance requirements at 13A. Those requirements are not reduced when two socket-outlets share a common faceplate.

Will you please tell us what that performance requirement is wrt the ability to carry a sustained load without overheating. And will you please tell us how you know what it is, and how you know that normal use for a twin socket is considered to be the same as the simultaneous normal use for two single sockets.

Really? What about some other things that are undefined, such as "reasonable provision for safety", "suitable for their intended use", and many others? Even in BS1363, "Socket-outlets shall be so designed and constructed that in normal use their performance is reliable and without danger..."

If they are undefined, then they are undefined. In which case you are entitled to have an opinion on what these undefined requirements require, as am I, and as are the makers of accessories.

And our opinions might differ in some areas.

But unless and until there is an authoritative ruling on whose opinion is right, and whose is wrong, nobody (including you) will know who is right and who is wrong.

And nobody, including you, will know that what you think is the required performance actually is.

That is not correct. He is told that his product must not attain excessive temperatures in normal use.

Indeed he is.

But he is not told what that means.

Given that he is not told that, please explain why you think he knows what it means.

But what is normal use? Do you know?

Do I need to? I think not.

Maybe you don't, in your disconnected from reality world, but in the real world you do if you are to keep on claiming that you do.

Actually there was a court case (not involving 13A sockets) some years ago in which it was argued that 'normal use' is 'use that is not abnormal', which is little help without knowing the context. Normal use of a desk-mounted socket in a hotel room would probably not include connection of 3kW loads, whereas normal use of a metalclad socket in a garage or workshop might. But, it doesn't matter. The experts of PEL/23 have designed a test in order to verify that socket-outlets are capable of meeting the requirement to not attain excessive temperatures in normal use.

Well now.

First of all, you keep on saying that complying with the test is inadequate, and that people who make sockets which only pass the test and do not additionally comply with your opinion of what a requirement with no meaning actually means are shysters and cowboys.

And secondly, that test which the experts of PEL/23 have designed in order to verify that socket-outlets are capable of meeting the requirement to not attain excessive temperatures in normal use does derate the requirement for a twin socket from 2x the requirement for a single one. Will you please tell us how you know what it is, and how you know that normal use for a twin socket is considered to be the same as the simultaneous normal use for two single sockets.

Because there is no derating specified in the standard.

But there is no rating specified either.

Will you please explain how you know what "normal use" means? You would if it was part of a properly specified rating.

And given that the test, which you agree was designed by experts in order to verify that socket-outlets are capable of meeting the requirement to not attain excessive temperatures in normal use does derate the requirement for a twin socket from 2x the requirement for a single one, will you please tell us how you know that normal use for a twin socket is considered to be the same as the simultaneous normal use for two single sockets.

I imagine they would make a judgement as to whether the complainant had behaved reasonably or not. If he had connected two 13A non-thermostatic heaters to the twin socket and left them on overnight, for example, they might conclude that did not constitute normal use. If he'd only left them on for half an hour, that might be considered normal use.

Indeed. All of these patterns of use, and many others, might or might not be determined to constitute normal use.

But as that hasn't happened yet, will you please explain how you know what "normal use" means.

There are none, but those opinions are frequently used in courts of law to indicate what experts consider to be a reasonable interpretation of a standard's provisions.

Yes, but I wasn't talking about courts arriving at a judgement given the evidence from expert witnesses.

I asked "Can you please tell us which laws or regulations make the opinion of a test house legally binding?"

And you said "There are none".

Therefore the opinions of a test house are not, per se, legally binding on a manufacturer, and they cannot be compelled to do something just because a test house thinks they should.

That means that until there is such a court case, nobody (including you) knows whether a court agrees that the opinion of a test house is what the law demands, and nobody (including you) knows that the opinion of a manufacturer is wrong.

So will you please explain why you keep claiming that you know that your opinion is correct, and, more crucially, you know that manufacturers share it and that therefore it is safe for people to rely on your assertion that a twin socket can cope with 26A.

I think you'll find that TS have powers to issue and enforce Notices without needing a court's decision.

And I think you'll find that if the subject of such action disagrees with it, a court case will be needed. That's what I meant by "enforce" - we have not yet reached the stage where local authority employees can force people out of business, or force stock to be removed from sale, or force manufacturers to do, or not do, something without due legal process.

But since there is no duration specifed, it might be considered that there is no maximum duration.

It might.

Or it might not.

Will you please explain how you know what the duration is.

I don't know if every socket manufacturer on the planet complies with any of the requirements of BS1363. That does not mean that those requirements are invalid.

Even if they did, will you please explain how you know what the meaning of a term with no meaning is, and how you know that every socket manufacturer on the planet agrees with you about the meaning of a term with no meaning.

Will you please explain how a product could fail to comply with an undefined requirement?

If a socket were to overheat under conditions of use which Trading Standards, or a court, consider to be normal use.

Will you please explain how you know what they would consider to be normal use.

 

[stillp]

I did have reason, because it was so blindingly obviously true that it was impossible for any sane, intelligent person to not agree.

If it were blindingly obviously true, then surely any sane, intelligent person wouldn't feel the need to shout?

Will you please tell us what the requirement is wrt the ability to carry a sustained load without overheating. And will you please tell us how you know what it is.

The requirement, as you well know, is that socket-outlets shall to attain excessive temperatures in normal use. I know that, because I read it in the standard.

Maybe you don't, in your disconnected from reality world, but in the real world you do if you are to keep on claiming that you do.

Well we shall have to differ on that. I do not claim to know precisely what is 'normal use', and neither do I need to.

But unless and until there is an authoritative ruling to the effect that their interpretation of "normal use" is wrong, and what they think is meant by a requirement with no meaning is so wrong that they are not allowed to say that their socket complies with BS 1363 and that they are committing a trading standards offence by selling them, nobody (including you) will know that they are wrong, and nobody (including you) will know that the performance of their product is inadequate.

Why are you so obsessed with the definition of 'normal use'?

First of all, you keep on saying that complying with the test is inadequate, and that people who make sockets which only pass the test and do not additionally comply with your opinion of what a requirement with no meaning actually means are shysters and cowboys.

No, I keep saying that people who make sockets which only pass the test and do not additionally comply with a general requirement that has no specific definition are shysters and cowboys.

And secondly, that test which the experts of PEL/23 have designed in order to verify that socket-outlets are capable of meeting the requirement to not attain excessive temperatures in normal use does derate the requirement for a twin socket from 2x the requirement for a single one.

No, the test doesn't derate anything. It uses a combination of currents and other parameters selected to ensure that it reveals overheating while achieving thermal stability within a single working day of 8 hours.

But as that hasn't happened yet, will you please explain how you know what "normal use" means.

I neither know precisely what it means, nor see any need to.

I asked "Can you please tell us which laws or regulations make the opinion of a test house legally binding?"

And you said "There are none".

Therefore the opinions of a test house are not, per se, legally binding on a manufacturer, and they cannot be compelled to do something just because a test house thinks they should.

That means that until there is such a court case, nobody (including you) knows whether a court agrees that the opinion of a test house is what the law demands, and nobody (including you) knows that the opinion of a manufacturer is wrong.

I'm not sure that the law demands anything about socket-outlets, except their compliance with a recognised standard.

So will you please explain why you keep claiming that you know that your opinion is correct, and, more crucially, you know that manufacturers share it

As I have already explained, I have asked the opinion of a major manufacturer and a couple of test houses. Do you have any expert opinions that share your belief that a twin 13A socket-outlet need not carry 13A concurrently through each outlet?

And I think you'll find that if the subject of such action disagrees with it, a court case will be needed.

And in turn, I think you'll find that a court case is only needed if the subject refuses to comply, not merely that he disagrees. There is an appeal procedure.

we have not yet reached the stage where local authority employees can force people out of business, or force stock to be removed from sale, or force manufacturers to do, or not do, something without due legal process.

Trading Standards and Environmental Health force people out of business all the time (often fast-food outlets and market traders), without a need to involve the courts.

Will you please explain how you know what the duration is.

I don't. I haven't claimed that I do. That does not mean that there is not some duration during which a twin 13A socket-outlet can provide 13 A from each outlet concurrently.

Even if they did, will you please explain how you know what the meaning of a term with no meaning is, and how you know that every socket manufacturer on the planet agrees with you about the meaning of a term with no meaning.

Are you now claiming that because you don't know the meaning of something, it cannot have a meaning? I believe there is a medical term for beliefs like that!

Will you please explain how you know what they would consider to be normal use.

I don't, and I haven't claimed that I do. I suspect they would, after taking expert advice, make a judgement on the basis of what was felt reasonable. "Was it reasonable for Mr X to plug two 3kW heaters into a twin 13A socket-outlet?" Of course it was. "Was it reasonable for Mrs Y to plug a 3kW hot tub and a 3kW patio heater into a twin 13A socket-outlet?" Perhaps not.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

They are quite happy with the scenario where a product they have tested passes every single test which it is required to do, but because it doesn't do things which are unspecified but which they think it should be able to do they can just say "it doesn't comply"?

Yes, they can. It is not uncommon.

Will you please explain how you know that they can bend every manufacturer to their will, how you know that they can make every manufacturer conform to what they think should be a requirement. Remember you have agreed that there are no laws or regulations which make the opinion of a test house legally binding.

For clarification here - I'm not talking about manufacturers who really are cowboys, but ones who simply use a different (but perfectly reasonable) meaning for a term with no meaning to the meaning which you and/or test houses think they should use.

The results of tests are the property of the test houses that performed them. I don't know precisely how much information they share, but it has to be sufficient to prevent a manufacturer/importer from hawking a product around until he finds a test house willing to sell him a certificate.

Or until he finds a test house who assigns the same meaning to a term with no meaning as he does.

Just because a test house has a different opinion to another (or to you) on what is required by an undefined requirement that does not make them cheats and shysters, prostituting themselves to cowboy manufacturers, it makes them someone who has a different opinion about how a socket should perform when used in a way which the standard does not define.

Test house B will be aware that should a non-conformity come to court, or to Trading Standards, the opinion of test house Q could be used against them.

I think you are making a number of unsubstantiated leaps of faith there. You seem to be assuming that if B has an opinion that differs from Q, that B could firstly be charged with something, and secondly that what Q believed would be given more credence than B.

But in any event, has such a case of non-conformity with the requirement to not overheat in normal use ever come to court? I would assume that if you knew it had you would have said so by now, so either it never has or it has and you don't know.

So will you please explain how you know that your opinion of what a term with no meaning means is universally shared?

That is correct. However if they invent a derating that does not exist in order to issue a certificate for a product that does not conform to all the requirements of a standard, then I would call them cowboys.

Since "normal use" is undefined, please explain how you know, absolutely KNOW, not just believe as a matter of faith, that it does not include any concept of de-rating, and how you know, absolutely KNOW, not just believe as a matter of faith, that normal use for a twin socket is 2 x the concurrent normal use of two single sockets.

When doing so please explain how you know that the test which the experts of PEL/23 have designed in order to verify that socket-outlets are capable of meeting the requirement to not attain excessive temperatures in normal use and which does derate the requirement for a twin socket from 2x the requirement for a single one cannot possibly be taken to indicate that there might be the concept of de-rating in whatever "normal use" means.

I would assume something along the lines of "use likely to be encountered in a typical installation" or similar. Why? The definition if 'normal use' is not important.

Err....

I think you will find that the definition of "normal use" is what this whole sorry sequence of nonsense claims from you has been about.

You claim that it means something which it does not say, even though you don't KNOW what it means.

So what it means is extremely important.

What is important is that PEL/23 experts have designed a test, and criteria, to verify that a socket-outlet is considered not to attain excessive temperatures in normal use, however that latter term is defined.

A test which DOES derate the requirements for a twin socket from 2x the requirements for a single socket.

And yet, despite the test, (which is designed to check compliance with the requirement to not attain excessive temperatures in normal use), having that derating for a twin socket, for some reason you are convinced that the undefined "normal use" does not, and cannot, have any derating in it.

Because it is not necessary to reduce the number of cables connected to a single socket in order to achieve thermal stability within 8 hours.

Maybe not.

It is, of course, absolutely necessary to have 2 cables for a single socket if one wants to have a background load on the cable.

But your comment is interesting - it reads as if you are suggesting that the tests were tweaked to give the results they wanted, rather than being designed to verify the requirements they wanted.

But whatever - it is another example of how the only test of relevance to this normal use requirement differs when a twin socket is tested instead of two isolated single ones.

And yet for some reason you are convinced that the undefined "normal use" does not, and cannot, have any derating in it.

Neither is the mounting of the socket equivalent.

So another example of how the only test of relevance to this normal use requirement differs when a twin socket is tested instead of two isolated single ones.

And yet for some reason you are convinced that the undefined "normal use" does not, and cannot, have any derating in it.

No, your opinion is not based on what the standard requires

Oh yes it is - you are the one with an opinion based on something which the standard does not require, namely that a twin socket has to be able to handle 26A.

Maybe you would be happier with me saying that my opinion is not based on something not required by the standard?

but it is based on a flawed assumption that because a particular test, designed to verify that one of the requirements of the standard is met, uses a lower current than 2 x the rating of a single socket, then the other requirements that each socket-outlet shall be capable of carrying 13A become invalid.

I do not see how it can possibly be a flawed assumption that because we don't know what "normal use" is we don't know that it is the same for a twin socket as it is for the aggregate of two singles. Particularly as the test, designed by experts to verify that a socket-outlet is considered not to attain excessive temperatures in normal use, is not the same for a twin as the aggregate of two singles.

As for "the other requirements that each socket-outlet shall be capable of carrying 13A", please tell us what those requirements are.

And it's also based on the reasoning that if you don't know how a twin socket will perform under a loading which exceeds the one in the test then it is untrue to say that you do.

I have not said that I know how a twin socket will perform under a load exceeding that in the test, although I have a pretty good idea.

If you do not know then you have to stop saying that you do. You have to stop saying that it can handle 26A.

And if you have known all along that you do not know how a twin socket will perform under a load exceeding that in the test then you have behaved disgracefully in claiming that you do know that it must be able to handle 26A.

Having a "pretty good idea" is not good enough when you are telling people that a twin socket can cope with a load which you do not KNOW won't cause it to overheat.

I have said that the requirements of the standard apply to 13A socket-outlets. The requirements for them to carry 13A are not reduced when two share a common faceplate.

1. Please show where the standard defines a requirement for a single socket wrt the heating effect of a sustained load.
2. Please show where the standard defines a requirement for a twin socket wrt the heating effect of a sustained load.
3. Please show how that means that the standard defines a requirement for a twin socket wrt the heating effect of a sustained load which is 2 x the requirement for a single socket.

If you can't do those things then we are back to the inescapable conclusion that you are making claims which you do not KNOW are true.[/QUOTE]

Spoiler: Shouting.

Yeah, I know, shouting again. But I really, really cannot think of any other way to drive the concept of knowing into stillp's head.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If it were blindingly obviously true, then surely any sane, intelligent person wouldn't feel the need to shout?

But you yourself said you too might raise your voice in this type of circumstance:

Well, if you are speaking to someone, and over and over again they don't hear what you are saying you might raise your voice.

I might, if I had reason to believe that they hadn't heard what I was saying, and not that they actually heard what I was saying but did not agree, or thought it irrelevant.

It's precisely because you were giving no indication of having read something so blindingly obviously true that it was impossible for any sane, intelligent person to not agree that I had reason to believe that you hadn't "heard what I was saying", and that it could not have been the case that you did not agree, or thought it irrelevant

The requirement, as you well know, is that socket-outlets shall to attain excessive temperatures in normal use. I know that, because I read it in the standard.

And what is normal use, wrt sustained loading? If you don't KNOW what it is then you must stop telling people it is 26A

Well we shall have to differ on that. I do not claim to know precisely what is 'normal use', and neither do I need to.

Yes you do.

If you are going to tell people that it is 26A for a twin socket then you do have to know that.

Why are you so obsessed with the definition of 'normal use'?

Because it is fundamental to this issue.

If you don't know what "normal use" is then you don't know that for a twin socket it is a sustained load of 26A.

So if you don't know that you must stop telling people that it is.

First of all, you keep on saying that complying with the test is inadequate, and that people who make sockets which only pass the test and do not additionally comply with your opinion of what a requirement with no meaning actually means are shysters and cowboys.

No, I keep saying that people who make sockets which only pass the test and do not additionally comply with a general requirement that has no specific definition are shysters and cowboys.
How is it possible to comply with an undefined requirement?

You do keep saying what I have claimed. You seem to think that you have the right to decide what an undefined requirement actually requires, and that if a manufacturer also exercises that right you'll let him get away with it as long as he decides it requires the same that you've decided. Should, however, he decide that it means something different to you you brand him a shyster and a cowboy. If he's a testing house you call him a cheat.

Just who gave you the right to decide what an undefined requirement actually requires, and the right to call anybody else who makes their own decision a shyster, a cowboy, a cheat?

No, the test doesn't derate anything.

The test requires 14A from a single socket.

It does not require 28A from a twin, it requires 20A. It does not require 14A from one outlet and 14A from the other, it requires 14A + 6A.

That is derating.

I neither know precisely what it means, nor see any need to.

There a probably quite a few terms for the sort of person who does not know something, does not see any need to know it, but goes around telling people that he does know it and insulting anyone who doesn't think the same as him.

Right now I cant think of any which wouldn't get me into trouble with the mods

I'm not sure that the law demands anything about socket-outlets, except their compliance with a recognised standard.

Indeed. But you are demanding that their take on compliance should be the same as yours, even though you admit that you don't know precisely what compliance entails and that you don't see why you should need to know, not even when you decide to brand anybody who has a different take to you as shysters, cowboys and cheats.

As I have already explained, I have asked the opinion of a major manufacturer and a couple of test houses.

Jolly good. You've all got opinions. You all think you know what an undefined requirement requires, and you all think that there cannot possibly be any other opinion which is not that of a cowboy, or a cheat, or a shyster, or which could not be used against the holder of it in court.

Now will you please answer the question, or at least the crucial part - how do you KNOW that other manufacturers have the same opinion?

Do you have any expert opinions that share your belief that a twin 13A socket-outlet need not carry 13A concurrently through each outlet?

I'm trying hard to see why it becomes a matter of opinion, mine or anybody else's, expert or not, that a standard does not contain a requirement which it does not contain.

Nope - can't do it. It simply does not work that way.

If you are going to claim that a standard means something which it does not say, and what I am going to do is to keep on pointing out that it does not say that, I'm not the one who is espousing a "belief".

I don't. I haven't claimed that I do. That does not mean that there is not some duration during which a twin 13A socket-outlet can provide 13 A from each outlet concurrently.

But you are happy to brand people who make sockets which can only provide that for a duration which you think is too short as cheats, cowboys, shysters.

If you think that the assertion that a twin socket can provide 13 A from each outlet concurrently is to be of use to people, do you think that the duration which it can provide it for without overheating ought to be a significant one, or would it be OK if it was only a few seconds?

Even if they did, will you please explain how you know what the meaning of a term with no meaning is, and how you know that every socket manufacturer on the planet agrees with you about the meaning of a term with no meaning.

Are you now claiming that because you don't know the meaning of something, it cannot have a meaning? I believe there is a medical term for beliefs like that!
Err, no - please read it again.

I'm quite happy to say that I don't know what it means - that is not the same as saying that it cannot have a meaning.

I was asking you to explain how you know what the meaning is, and how you know that every socket manufacturer on the planet agrees with you that that is the meaning.

Will you please explain how you know what they would consider to be normal use.

I don't, and I haven't claimed that I do.

I asked you to explain how a product could fail to comply with an undefined requirement. You said it could fail if it were to overheat under conditions of use which Trading Standards, or a court, consider to be normal use.

But you don't know what they would consider normal use.

You don't know, you don't claim to know, you don't see why you should have to know, you don't know, you don't claim to know, you don't see why you should have to know, you don't know, you don't claim to know, you don't see why you should have to know, you don't know, you don't claim to know, you don't see why you should have to know, you don't know, you don't claim to know, you don't see why you should have to know, you don't know, you don't claim to know, you don't see why you should have to know - that seems to be the state of affairs in relation to every single thing which you would have to know if you were to have any justification in claiming that normal use for a twin socket is a sustained load of 26A.

 

[stillp]

It's precisely because you were giving no indication of having read something so blindingly obviously true that it was impossible for any sane, intelligent person to not agree that I had reason to believe that you hadn't "heard what I was saying", and that it could not have been the case that you did not agree, or thought it irrelevant

Had that (hypothetical?) sane, intelligent person actually read my response, (s)he would have understood that I had heard what they were saying, and had explained why it was incorrect.

And what is normal use, wrt sustained loading? If you don't KNOW what it is then you must stop telling people it is 26A

I am not telling people that 'normal use, wrt sustained loading', is 26A. Furthermore, unless you know that 'normal use' includes connection of a single cable to a twin socket-outlet that is flush-mounted in a wooden block, and fitted with plugs that include heaters to maintain a 35 K temperature rise, without conductors connected to their earth pins, then you must stop telling people that normal use is 14A + 6A.

The test requires 14A from a single socket.

It does not require 28A from a twin, it requires 20A. It does not require 14A from one outlet and 14A from the other, it requires 14A + 6A.

That is derating.

No. Derating is the reduction of a rating by an amount that depends on the value of another parameter. What you are describing is simply selection values for test currents. In this case the value has been selected to be greater than the rating for one outlet, less than the rating for the other outlet, for reasons that I have tried to explain to you.

There a probably quite a few terms for the sort of person who does not know something, does not see any need to know it, but goes around telling people that he does know it and insulting anyone who doesn't think the same as him.

It is not I that is obsessed with the meaning of the term 'normal use'. I do not claim to know how it would be defined by a court or anyone else who needed to have a definition. Like many other things in life (due care and consideration; in a sensible manner; a comfortable temperature; suitable and sufficient, etc.) the term does not have, and perhaps does not need, in this context, a precise definition.

and insulting anyone who doesn't think the same as him

Pot, kettle?

But you are demanding that their take on compliance should be the same as yours

I am not demanding anything. I am pointing out that the standard has requirements for (each, all) 13A socket-outlets to meet at a current of 13A, and that it does not reduce those requirements when two socket-outlets share a common faceplate.

you all think that there cannot possibly be any other opinion which is not that of a cowboy, or a cheat, or a shyster, or which could not be used against the holder of it in court

Do we? Have you added mind-reading to your list of skills? I think it likely that as well as the cowboys, cheats and shysters who know what the requirements of the standard are yet choose to ignore them, there are some deluded persons who believe that because a specific combination of currents is specified for a particular test, that current must take the place of that which is required by the rest of the standard.

Now will you please answer the question, or at least the crucial part - how do you KNOW that other manufacturers have the same opinion?

I don't know that, and I have not claimed to know. Do you know any manufacturers who you are certain agree with your opinion? In fact, I'm quite sure that there are manufacturers who would prefer not to share my opinion, because it might cost them a little more to make their socket-outlets correctly.

If you are going to claim that a standard means something which it does not say, and what I am going to do is to keep on pointing out that it does not say that, I'm not the one who is espousing a "belief".

As I have asked you previously, please show me the words of BS1363 where it says that a 13A socket-outlet need not be able to carry a load current of 13A when it shares a faceplate with another 13A socket-outlet. If you can't find those words, then please reconsider which of us is espousing a belief.

But you are happy to brand people who make sockets which can only provide that for a duration which you think is too short as cheats, cowboys, shysters.

Or deluded. Or just plain stupid. But as I've said previously, it is not what I think that really matters, it is what would be considered 'reasonable'.

But you are happy to brand people who make sockets which can only provide that for a duration which you think is too short as cheats, cowboys, shysters.

Am I? I'd be even happier if people who design products just to pass the tests of a standard, rather than meeting all the requirements and tests, did not exist.

If you think that the assertion that a twin socket can provide 13 A from each outlet concurrently is to be of use to people, do you think that the duration which it can provide it for without overheating ought to be a significant one, or would it be OK if it was only a few seconds?

The answer would depend somewhat on what you mean by 'overheating', but if we accept for the moment that it means exceeding the temperature rise criteria in BS1363, than I would consider the duration should be greater than some tens of minutes.

I was asking you to explain how you know what the meaning is, and how you know that every socket manufacturer on the planet agrees with you that that is the meaning.

But how can I explain how I know what the meaning is, when you have referred to a term with no meaning? That does not compute, Will Robinson!
How would I know the opinion of every manufacturer? I Only know what the standard says, and how it is interpreted by a reputable manufacturer and a couple of reputable test houses.

I asked you to explain how a product could fail to comply with an undefined requirement. You said it could fail if it were to overheat under conditions of use which Trading Standards, or a court, consider to be normal use.

But you don't know what they would consider normal use.

Neither do I know what they would consider satisfies any number of provisions of legislation and standards that do not have a precise numerical definition. Many of these provisions are undefinable, yet the courts and other regulators seem to be able to make judgments. Does that alter the meaning of the words in BS1363? I think not.

You don't know, you don't claim to know, you don't see why you should have to know, you don't know, you don't claim to know, you don't see why you should have to know, you don't know, you don't claim to know, you don't see why you should have to know, you don't know, you don't claim to know, you don't see why you should have to know, you don't know, you don't claim to know, you don't see why you should have to know, you don't know, you don't claim to know, you don't see why you should have to know

Are you feeling all right BAS?

that seems to be the state of affairs in relation to every single thing which you would have to know if you were to have any justification in claiming that normal use for a twin socket is a sustained load of 26A

Would you care to quote the words in which I claimed that 'normal use for a twin socket is a sustained load of 26A'?

 

[securespark]

You don't know, you don't claim to know, you don't see why you should have to know, you don't know, you don't claim to know, you don't see why you should have to know, you don't know, you don't claim to know, you don't see why you should have to know, you don't know, you don't claim to know, you don't see why you should have to know, you don't know, you don't claim to know, you don't see why you should have to know, you don't know, you don't claim to know, you don't see why you should have to know

[Buzzer]Repetition![/Buzzer]

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I am not telling people that 'normal use, wrt sustained loading', is 26A.

They are 13A socket-outlets. Nowhere in the standard is that requirement reduced for a twin socket-outlet. 2 X 13A = 26A.

All 13A socket-outlets are tested at 100% of their rating. It is only the combination of two on a common faceplate that is not tested at the maximum rating for that combination.

So there can't be anything about a twin socket being able to supply 26A.

Why should there be? 2 x 13 = 26.

There is not a statement in BS1363 to the effect that a twin socket-outlet shall be able to deliver 26A for any length of time. Such a statement would be unnecessary (except perhaps for the avoidance of ambiguity) since it has already stated that they are 13A socket-outlets.

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 are requirements that apply to each socket-outlet, and there is no concession for those requirements to be reduced when two are mounted on a common faceplate.

Can you show any concession for a 13A socket to be derated because it is part of a twin socket?

The only requirement relating to not overheating under load IS reduced to not overheating under a load less than 2x13A when two are mounted on a common faceplate!

The requirement is that they shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use. This is verified by a test. The test takes place at less than the maximum load that a twin socket-outlet shall be able to withstand.

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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.

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.

Can you tell me the words that say that a 13A socket-outlet need not be able to carry 13A if it shares a faceplate with another?
Thought not.

I think that a twin 13A socket-outlet should be capable of carrying 13A through each outlet for some undefined period of time, because BS1363 contains several requirements relating to the ability to carry 13A, which are nor reduced if two outlets share a common faceplate.

I've previously posted the view of a major manufacturer, who shares my opinion that a twin 13A socket-outlet should be capable of carrying 13A through each outlet for some undefined period of time.

I have since spoken to a couple of test houses that perform tests to BS1363. ... (One) shares my opinion that a 13A socket should continue to be a 13A socket when there are two sharing a common faceplate (and other components).

The standard does not say that they must be capable of carrying 13A in each outlet concurrently, because it does say that 13A socket-outlets shall be capable of carrying (and making and braking, and switching, where relevant), and it does not relax those requirements for twin socket-outlets.

They must be able to carry 13A concurrently, not only because of their name, but because of the requirements of the standard that each 13A socket-outlet shall be able to meet certain performance requirements at 13A. Those requirements are not reduced when two socket-outlets share a common faceplate.

It specifies certain performance requirements at 13A. Those requirements are not reduced when two socket-outlets share a common faceplate.

I have said that the requirements of the standard apply to 13A socket-outlets. The requirements for them to carry 13A are not reduced when two share a common faceplate.

The fact is that there are requirements relating to the ability of a 13A socket-outlet to carry 13A, and they are nor reduced for a twin socket.

Would you care to quote the words in which I claimed that 'normal use for a twin socket is a sustained load of 26A'?

You have not used that exact phrase.

But given what you have said (quoted above) there is absolutely no way that you could even begin to argue that that is not precisely what you intended to convey unless you want to claim that every single thing you have said about the rating of a twin socket is of no use whatsoever, because you don't actually think that a twin socket can be regarded as being able to support a 26A load in any useful or meaningful way.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Furthermore, unless you know that 'normal use' includes connection of a single cable to a twin socket-outlet that is flush-mounted in a wooden block, and fitted with plugs that include heaters to maintain a 35 K temperature rise, without conductors connected to their earth pins, then you must stop telling people that normal use is 14A + 6A.

14+6A is the only "normal use" which the standard requires a twin socket to manage without attaining excessive temperatures

No, that is a test condition.

Rather a futile test, then

Why? It's intended to represent a realistic in-use scenario.

But not one to which it may be subjected and Mr. Public rightfully may expect.

Eh? Why do you think that's unrealistic?