2 way wall socket question

[ban-all-sheds]

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.

The value of another parameter? How about the parameter of the number of other outlets sharing the same faceplate, which can take the values 0 or 1?

Is it the case that you now want to use a definition of "derating" which excludes the perfectly valid concept which you know we have been talking about, and which you used when you wrote these:

it is you who has made up a derating for 13A socket-outlets when two of them share a common faceplate.

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.

?

What about this?:

"Rated" can mean a lot of things, depending on the item concerned, and the qualifier. Many items have multiple ratings for different utilisation categories, conditions of use, etc.

Do you now want to claim that although "rated" can mean a lot of things, depending on the item concerned, and the qualifier, "derated" can't?


This?:

socket-outlets shall be rated to carry a load current of 13A, with no reduction specified for those that share a common faceplate.

Do you now want to claim that "derating" is not a perfectly good word to describe a "reduction specified for those that share a common faceplate"?


This?:

[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

Do you now want to claim that "derating" is not a perfectly good word to describe a process which results in "a lower current than 2 x the rating of a single socket"?

You, I and everybody else here knows exactly what we have been arguing about - it is your assertion that the rating of a twin socket is 2 x the rating of a single one.

And you, I and everybody else here knows exactly why you've now decided to introduce the idea that we cannot have been talking about derating because that the reduction of a rating by an amount that depends on the value of another parameter. It's called clutching at straws, and trying to muddy the waters and get so many strands of disagreements going that your doomed-to-failure one gets lost in the morass. It's the same technique you've tried before when you tried to make out that "a requirement to not overheat in normal use shall be verified by passing the test involving a 14A+6A load" is not a perfectly good, perfectly clear, perfectly understandable and perfectly valid reference to "requirement that a twin 13A socket-outlet shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use is considered to be verified by a test whose specification includes currents of 14A + 6A for a duration of at least 4 hours and a maximum of 8 hours or when thermal stability is achieved, and gives the maximum temperatures that parts of each socket-outlet are permitted to reach after that time."

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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.

It is an act of gross irresponsibility to go around telling people that a twin socket won't overheat at 26A if you don't know that 26A counts as normal use.

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.

Yes, it has all sorts of requirements.

But not the overheating one.

It does not require a single socket to not overheat at 13A, it requires it to not overheat in normal use. And as you say, you don't know what normal use means.

It does not require a twin socket to not overheat at 26A, it requires it to not overheat in normal use. And as you say, you don't know what normal use means.

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

You cannot say that that is what they are doing.

You don't know what normal use is, and neither do they.

If they decide it means something different to what you have decided it means, who is to say that you are right and they are wrong? Who is to say that they are cowboys, cheats and shysters who are choosing to ignore what they know the requirements of the standard to be and not simply people who have a different opinion to you about what normal use means?

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.

If you could tell us what current is required by the standard, and for how long, that a socket has to be able to pass in normal use and not overheat that would be a great help.

I don't know that, and I have not claimed to know.

So how can you know that people who don't build their sockets to the specification you think they should are cowboys, cheats and shysters? If they don't share your opinion of what normal use means (and you've said that you don't know that they do), then they are not cynically ignoring what the standard requires, they are doing what they think it requires. They are acting in good faith.

Do you know any manufacturers who you are certain agree with your opinion?

No I don't.

But then that is hardly surprising, as it is the uncertainty of what is quantifiably required from an engineering specifications POV which makes your assertion at best naive and at worst dangerously irresponsible.

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.

And I have asked you previously to show where BS 1363 specifies what current and for how long a 13A socket outlet has to support and not overheat in normal use.

If you can't find those words, then please reconsider which of us is espousing a belief.

I believe that BS 1363 does not specify what current and for how long a 13A socket outlet has to support and not overheat in normal use. That is because I cannot find the words which do specify that.

You cannot find the words either, but you believe that you are right when you make pronouncements about what the standard implies them to be.

My position is based on what the standard actually requires. Yours is based on what you believe it requires.

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.

How much greater?

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!

It computes just as well as your assertion that you know what current, and for how long, normal use entails.

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.

What make you, and them, the only ones who are right?

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.

Indeed.

And if there were a legally binding judgement made concerning what current, and for how long, normal use entails, then the provision would no longer be undefined.
But until then it is.

Your opinion carries no legal or official weight.

Does that alter the meaning of the words in BS1363? I think not.

You're right - they still have no meaning.

 

[stillp]

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

Wrong again. It is you who have introduced the word "sustained".

 

[stillp]

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?

Yes, I was at the time unaware of the reasons behind the parameters of the test.

 

[stillp]

It is an act of gross irresponsibility to go around telling people that a twin socket won't overheat at 26A if you don't know that 26A counts as normal use.

Possibly so, but I am not aware of anyone going. around telling people that a twin socket won't overheat at 26A. I am aware of someone telling people that manufacturers need not comply with the requirements of the standard, they just need to design their products to pass the tests, even though BS1363 requires all socket-outlets to be capable of meeting all the requirements and tests.

It does not require a single socket to not overheat at 13A, it requires it to not overheat in normal use. And as you say, you don't know what normal use means.

It does not require a twin socket to not overheat at 26A, it requires it to not overheat in normal use. And as you say, you don't know what normal use means.

That does not make the requirement invalid.

You cannot say that that is what they are doing.

That's why I said "I think it is likely".

You don't know what normal use is, and neither do they.

Correct, neither party knows for certain. However it is clear that members of the public are likely to use both outlets of a twin 13A socket-outlet to power loads of 3kW for some period, so such use could be expected during normal use.

Who is to say that they are cowboys, cheats and shysters who are choosing to ignore what they know the requirements of the standard to be and not simply people who have a different opinion to you about what normal use means?

It is not a matter of having a different opinion to mine about what is 'normal use', but a matter of them choosing to ignore the requirements that relate to the ability of each and every 13A socket-outlet to carry 13A.

If you could tell us what current is required by the standard, and for how long, that a socket has to be able to pass in normal use and not overheat that would be a great help.

I can tell you the current, and have done so several times already. I have also pointed out that the duration is not specified in BS1363.

So how can you know that people who don't build their sockets to the specification you think they should are cowboys, cheats and shysters? If they don't share your opinion of what normal use means (and you've said that you don't know that they do), then they are not cynically ignoring what the standard requires, they are doing what they think it requires.

If they cannot see that each 13A socket must be able to carry 13A, then they have no business selling such products.

They are acting in good faith.

They might be - perhaps because someone has told them, or their English is not good enough to understand the standard, or they might be deluded...

No I don't.

But then that is hardly surprising, as it is the uncertainty of what is quantifiably required from an engineering specifications POV which makes your assertion at best naive and at worst dangerously irresponsible.

I'm not sure why you think the second sentence is a valid reply, but there is nothing dangerously irresponsible about pointing out the requirements of the standard. I cannot say the same for claiming that a twin 13A socket-outlet need not be capable of carrying 13A as long as it does not exceed certain temperatures at 14A + 6A under specified test conditions.

And I have asked you previously to show where BS 1363 specifies what current and for how long a 13A socket outlet has to support and not overheat in normal use.

Well, I asked first! I have already told you what current a 13A socket shall carry. The time is not specified.

I believe that BS 1363 does not specify what current and for how long a 13A socket outlet has to support and not overheat in normal use. That is because I cannot find the words which do specify that.

You cannot find the words either, but you believe that you are right when you make pronouncements about what the standard implies them to be.

The current is specified, in several places. The duration is not.

My position is based on what the standard actually requires. Yours is based on what you believe it requires.

I have said, many times, what the standard requires. Passing the temperature rise test is just one of those provisions.

It computes just as well as your assertion that you know what current, and for how long, normal use entails.

If I had asserted that I know those things, you might be correct, but I have not asserted those things.

What make you, and them, the only ones who are right?

There might well be others. I have not conducted a survey. However, it is more impartial evidence than you have offered to support your opinion.

You're right - they still have no meaning.

Their meaning is clear.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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

Wrong again. It is you who have introduced the word "sustained".

It is normal for loads to be sustained.

Being able to sustain a given load is what would normally be expected when seeing something specified as being "rated" for a given load.

A load which cannot be sustained is not a load which reflects normal use.

Every time you have claimed that a twin socket must be able to handle a 26A load in normal use without overheating you have claimed that it can support a sustained load of 26A without overheating.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes, I was at the time unaware of the reasons behind the parameters of the test.

You knew what the parameters were, you said that they were intended to represent a realistic in-use scenario and then you tried to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion that they represented normal use.

Anything else you'd like to own up to having been wrong about, or "been unaware of"?

You've got a lot to choose from.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I am not aware of anyone going. around telling people that a twin socket won't overheat at 26A.

I am.

It's you.

Every time you tell people that normal use is a 26A load you are telling them that the socket won't overheat under a load of 26A.

I am aware of someone telling people that manufacturers need not comply with the requirements of the standard, they just need to design their products to pass the tests, even though BS1363 requires all socket-outlets to be capable of meeting all the requirements and tests.

Well if you are then please take that up with them - don't try and introduce that argument into this thread where it has no place, because nobody here as said that manufacturers need not comply with the requirements of the standard.

It does not require a single socket to not overheat at 13A, it requires it to not overheat in normal use. And as you say, you don't know what normal use means.

It does not require a twin socket to not overheat at 26A, it requires it to not overheat in normal use. And as you say, you don't know what normal use means.

That does not make the requirement invalid.

Indeed not.

It makes it a requirement that the socket shall not overheat in normal use. That requirement is not that a single socket shall not overheat at 13A, nor is it that a twin socket shall not overheat at 26A.

It's a requirement that a socket shall not overheat in normal use. Not the same.

That's why I said "I think it is likely".

Maybe you do.

But your unauthoritative non-evidential opinion is worthless.

Correct, neither party knows for certain.

I'm glad you have at long last admitted that.

All that remains now is to get you to see that you must therefore stop claiming that normal use is a load of 26A.

However it is clear that members of the public are likely to use both outlets of a twin 13A socket-outlet to power loads of 3kW for some period, so such use could be expected during normal use.

I do not disagree with you there, and the discrepancy between what members of the public are likely to expect and what the standard requires is quite possibly a significant issue.

But I would remind you that a great many members of the public expect a black/blue at a light switch to be a neutral, and they expect to be able to replace a ceiling rose with something where all the blacks/blues are connected together and have it work OK.

Expecting something doesn't mean that they are right.

It is not a matter of having a different opinion to mine about what is 'normal use', but a matter of them choosing to ignore the requirements that relate to the ability of each and every 13A socket-outlet to carry 13A.

There you go again, and until you stop this topic will go on and on until it gets locked or I die, because I will never, ever, EVER let you get away with that lie.

There is no requirement for each and every 13A socket to carry 13A without overheating.

There just isn't.

It doesn't matter how many times you claim that there must be because there is a requirement for them to break a 13A current a number of times, or whatever, the fact will remain that the standard does not require a twin socket to carry 26A without overheating.

I can tell you the current, and have done so several times already.

No you cannot, and no you have not.

You have told us what you think is the current required by the standard for a twin socket, but you have not told us what the standard says is required.

Please stop making untrue claims.

I have also pointed out that the duration is not specified in BS1363.

Without a duration any claim that a socket can handle a certain current is as useful, and as true, as a claim that newspaper is water resistant.

So how can you know that people who don't build their sockets to the specification you think they should are cowboys, cheats and shysters? If they don't share your opinion of what normal use means (and you've said that you don't know that they do), then they are not cynically ignoring what the standard requires, they are doing what they think it requires.

If they cannot see that each 13A socket must be able to carry 13A, then they have no business selling such products.

If you can't see that a genuine difference of opinion about what is needed to comply with a requirement which is not defined does not make them cowboys, cheats and shysters then you have no business commenting on their probity.

If you cannot see that advising people that they can use their sockets in a way which could bring about their deaths because you think that your totally unsubstantiated opinion of what is required represents the truth then you have no business being a member of this forum.

They might be - perhaps because someone has told them, or their English is not good enough to understand the standard, or they might be deluded...

Or they might simply have a different opinion to you on what is meant by "normal use".

there is nothing dangerously irresponsible about pointing out the requirements of the standard.

There is very much something dangerously irresponsible about telling people that the requirements of the standard are something that you only think they are when if you are wrong you could bring about their deaths due to failures of a socket when used in a way that you only think they should be able to be used.

I cannot say the same for claiming that a twin 13A socket-outlet need not be capable of carrying 13A as long as it does not exceed certain temperatures at 14A + 6A under specified test conditions.

1. If someone had claimed that it would not be dangerously irresponsible as it would not be a claim that a twin socket could carry more than it actually could. Telling people that a socket can carry less than it really can does not create any danger. Telling them that a socket can carry more than it really can does.
2. Nobody has claimed that a twin 13A socket-outlet need not be capable of carrying 13A.

Well, I asked first! I have already told you what current a 13A socket shall carry. The time is not specified.

Without a duration any claim that a socket can handle a certain current is as useful, and as true, as a claim that newspaper is water resistant.

The current is specified, in several places. The duration is not.

Without a duration any claim that a socket can handle a certain current is as useful, and as true, as a claim that newspaper is water resistant.

I have said, many times, what the standard requires.

No - you have said many times what you believe it requires.

Not once have you shown what it actually requires.

If I had asserted that I know those things, you might be correct, but I have not asserted those things.

You have to know what duration is required. Without a duration any claim that a socket can handle a certain current is as useful, and as true, as a claim that newspaper is water resistant.

There might well be others. I have not conducted a survey. However, it is more impartial evidence than you have offered to support your opinion.

I have all the impartial evidence that is needed to support my opinion that BS 1363 does not define normal use - it's called the official standard published by the British Standards Institute.

With your opinion it does not matter if there are 1, 2, 3, or 3,000,000 people or companies who share it, until it becomes official it is worthless.

It doesn't matter that if there ever was a process wherein all your opinions were taken into account and the weight of them was so overwhelming that the outcome of the process was a foregone conclusion, until that process takes place all your opinions are just that, they are not official, and not one of the people holding that opinion has the right, or the authority, to declare that they are right and that anybody who has a different opinion is wrong.

Their meaning is clear.

Tell us what the meaning is then.

In doing so feel free to refer to formal definitions, and feel obliged to not rely in any way on opinions or interpretations or extrapolations of or inferences from what is formally required.

 

[stillp]

Every time you tell people that normal use is a 26A load you are telling them that the socket won't overheat under a load of 26A.

No, I am not saying that normal use is a 26A load, and neither am I saying that a socket will not overheat (another unquantified term) under a combined load of 26A for an indefinite time.

nobody here as said that manufacturers need not comply with the requirements of the standard.

Yet you seem to be saying that they need only to design their product to pass the tests.

It's a requirement that a socket shall not overheat in normal use. Not the same.

So can you identify the words in BS1363 that state that normal use for a 13A socket does not include a current of 13A, or that that current is reduced when two sockets share a common faceplate?

your unauthoritative non-evidential opinion is worthless

It is at least supported by expert opinion, which cannot be said for your equally unauthoritative non-evidential opinion.

There you go again, and until you stop this topic will go on and on until it gets locked or I die, because I will never, ever, EVER let you get away with that lie.

That is not a lie.

There is no requirement for each and every 13A socket to carry 13A without overheating.

There are several requirements that relate to the ability of a 13A socket to carry 13A.

you must therefore stop claiming that normal use is a load of 26A.

I am not claiming that normal use is a load of 26A. I am claiming that twin 13A socket-outlets shall be able to carry 13A in each outlet for some unspecified period of time.

Without a duration any claim that a socket can handle a certain current is as useful, and as true, as a claim that newspaper is water resistant.

I assume that you are not an electrical engineer? Many electrical and electronic components have parameters that are only valid for short periods.

If you cannot see that advising people that they can use their sockets in a way which could bring about their deaths because you think that your totally unsubstantiated opinion of what is required represents the truth then you have no business being a member of this forum.

If you cannot see that condoning the behaviour of manufacturers to choose to sell products that do not meet the requirements of the relevant standard is unethical and could lead to the death of users of those products then you have no business making statements on this or any other forum.

Or they might simply have a different opinion to you on what is meant by "normal use".

Again, why are you so obsessed about the term "normal use"? It is used in several places in the standard, along with other undefined/undefineable terms such as "safe", "reliable".

No - you have said many times what you believe it requires.

Not once have you shown what it actually requires.

Just read the standard. Every sentence that includes the word "shall" is a requirement.

I have all the impartial evidence that is needed to support my opinion that BS 1363 does not define normal use - it's called the official standard published by the British Standards Institute.

With your opinion it does not matter if there are 1, 2, 3, or 3,000,000 people or companies who share it, until it becomes official it is worthless.

It doesn't matter that if there ever was a process wherein all your opinions were taken into account and the weight of them was so overwhelming that the outcome of the process was a foregone conclusion, until that process takes place all your opinions are just that, they are not official, and not one of the people holding that opinion has the right, or the authority, to declare that they are right and that anybody who has a different opinion is wrong.

BAS, please stop obsessing about the term "normal use". Just read the requirements of the standard.

Tell us what the meaning is then.

Just use your dictionary. FYI the 'official' dictionary to be used when interpreting British Standards is the Shorter Oxford.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No, I am not saying that normal use is a 26A load, and neither am I saying that a socket will not overheat (another unquantified term) under a combined load of 26A for an indefinite time.

So if a 26A load is not normal use there is therefore no requirement for a twin socket to be able to cope with it without overheating. Every time you tell someone that a twin socket must be able to handle 26A, you are telling them something which if done might cause a fire and kill people, because you have no idea for how long it could support that load. YOU MUST STOP.

Yet you seem to be saying that they need only to design their product to pass the tests.

No. Where do you think I said that?

So can you identify the words in BS1363 that state that normal use for a 13A socket does not include a current of 13A, or that that current is reduced when two sockets share a common faceplate?

I don't have to - that is not how standards and engineering specifications work. They do not work on the basis that the item has to do everything which the document does not say they don't have to do. They work on the basis that the item has to do what the document says it has to.

When you claim that the standard requires a twin socket to support a load of 26A and I say "the standard does not say that", then you have to show where it does, I do not have to show where it says it does not have to support a load of 26A.

It is at least supported by expert opinion, which cannot be said for your equally unauthoritative non-evidential opinion.

That matters not.

The number of opinions is of no relevance, because until those opinions are ratified by a court case or by being formally incorporated into the standard no manufacturer can be compelled to do what you, or you all, think they should.

That is not a lie.

Of course it is.

If there is no requirement for each and every 13A socket-outlet to carry 13A then it is a lie to say that there is.

There are several requirements that relate to the ability of a 13A socket to carry 13A.

Indeed.

Please show us where the requirement to do so without overheating is.

I am not claiming that normal use is a load of 26A. I am claiming that twin 13A socket-outlets shall be able to carry 13A in each outlet for some unspecified period of time.

So if a 26A load is not normal use there is therefore no requirement for a twin socket to be able to cope with it without overheating. Every time you tell someone that a twin socket must be able to handle 26A, you are telling them something which if done might cause a fire and kill people, because you have no idea for how long it could support that load. YOU MUST STOP.

I assume that you are not an electrical engineer? Many electrical and electronic components have parameters that are only valid for short periods.

Indeed they have. But if the time associated with any parameter is not defined, and not required by any standard to be of any particular length, the value of that parameter is as useful, and as true, as a claim that newspaper is water resistant.

If you cannot see that condoning the behaviour of manufacturers to choose to sell products that do not meet the requirements of the relevant standard is unethical and could lead to the death of users of those products then you have no business making statements on this or any other forum.

Nowhere, not once, have I condoned that.

Trying to get you to see that a maker who does not meet what you only think is a requirement, and in relation to which they think is different to what you think, is not condoning not meeting the requirements of the standard.

Again, why are you so obsessed about the term "normal use"?

Because it is fundamental to all of this. (And that is the reason, BTW, why you are trying to dismiss my repeated focus on it as an "obsession")

If a 26A load is not normal use there is therefore no requirement for a twin socket to be able to cope with it without overheating. Every time you tell someone that a twin socket must be able to handle 26A, you are telling them something which if done might cause a fire and kill people, because you have no idea for how long it could support that load. YOU MUST STOP.

Just read the standard. Every sentence that includes the word "shall" is a requirement.

It says they shall not overheat in normal use.

If a 26A load is not normal use there is therefore no requirement for a twin socket to be able to cope with it without overheating. Every time you tell someone that a twin socket must be able to handle 26A, you are telling them something which if done might cause a fire and kill people, because you have no idea for how long it could support that load. YOU MUST STOP.

BAS, please stop obsessing about the term "normal use".

It is not an obsession, it is fundamental to all of this. (And that is the reason, BTW, why you are trying to dismiss my repeated focus on it as an "obsession")

If a 26A load is not normal use there is therefore no requirement for a twin socket to be able to cope with it without overheating. Every time you tell someone that a twin socket must be able to handle 26A, you are telling them something which if done might cause a fire and kill people, because you have no idea for how long it could support that load. YOU MUST STOP.

Just read the requirements of the standard.

I have. It says they shall not overheat in normal use.

If a 26A load is not normal use there is therefore no requirement for a twin socket to be able to cope with it without overheating. Every time you tell someone that a twin socket must be able to handle 26A, you are telling them something which if done might cause a fire and kill people, because you have no idea for how long it could support that load. YOU MUST STOP.

Just use your dictionary. FYI the 'official' dictionary to be used when interpreting British Standards is the Shorter Oxford.

I do actually have a copy of that.

And whilst I haven't gone and looked, I can be certain that it does not define the parameters for "normal use" in BS 1363.

Therefore, we still have the situation where you could ask two people what they understand "normal use" in BS 1363 to mean wrt to not overheating under load, and get two different answers.

You do not have the right, or the power, to tell B that he is wrong, that A is right, and that B must accept and implement what A believes.

 

[stillp]

Every time you tell someone that a twin socket must be able to handle 26A, you are telling them something which if done might cause a fire and kill people, because you have no idea for how long it could support that load. YOU MUST STOP.

Every time you tell people that twin socket-outlets cannot handle 13A from each outlet, you are condoning the manufacture of sockets that fail to conform to all the requirements of the standard. I would bet that sockets that fail to conform to all the requirements of the standard cause a lot more fires than sockets which do conform and are loaded at 2 x 13A. YOU MUST STOP.

No. Where do you think I said that?

In the line above: "if a 26A load is not normal use there is therefore no requirement for a twin socket to be able to cope with it without overheating"

When you claim that the standard requires a twin socket to support a load of 26A and I say "the standard does not say that", then you have to show where it does, I do not have to show where it says it does not have to support a load of 26A.

Can you not see the numerous places where the standard states the socket outlets shall carry 13A?

That matters not.

The number of opinions is of no relevance, because until those opinions are ratified by a court case or by being formally incorporated into the standard no manufacturer can be compelled to do what you, or you all, think they should.

Quite. If there is a court case though, those expert opinions would probably count for more than yours.

If there is no requirement for each and every 13A socket-outlet to carry 13A then it is a lie to say that there is.

They are 13A sockets, expected to carry 13A. There is no concession for a reduction when two outlets share a common faceplate, except in your imagination.

Nowhere, not once, have I condoned that.

That is what you have done repeatedly. Unless you can show that a 13A socket-outlet need not be able to carry 13A when it shares a faceplate with another, then you are condoning the manufacture of sub-standard products.

Because it is fundamental to all of this.

No it is not. Please stop pretending that it is. The use of a product cannot be controlled by the product standard. 13A socket-outlets are required to carry 13A, and there is no reduction for those that share a common faceplate.

It is not an obsession, it is fundamental to all of this. (And that is the reason, BTW, why you are trying to dismiss my repeated focus on it as an "obsession")

If a 26A load is not normal use there is therefore no requirement for a twin socket to be able to cope with it without overheating. Every time you tell someone that a twin socket must be able to handle 26A, you are telling them something which if done might cause a fire and kill people, because you have no idea for how long it could support that load. YOU MUST STOP.

Please stop repeating yourself. It does not strengthen your argument.

whilst I haven't gone and looked, I can be certain that it does not define the parameters for "normal use" in BS 1363

It does however define 'normal' as "conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected". Personally, in the absence of any information to the contrary, I would expect that a 13A socket-outlet can provide 13A, even when it shares a faceplate with another. I would also consider that usual and it seems typical for the small sample I have asked.

You do not have the right, or the power, to tell B that he is wrong, that A is right, and that B must accept and implement what A believes.

That is of course correct. However I do have the right, and the power, and in fact a duty, to point out that BS1363 does not reduce the requirements for a 13A socket to be able to handle a load of 13A when it shares a faceplate with another.

Ask yourself why, if PEL/23 thought that a twin 13A socket-outlet need not be able to provide 13A from each outlet concurrently, they did not introduce a requirement for overcurrent protection, as they do for those having more than two outlets.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Every time you tell people that twin socket-outlets cannot handle 13A from each outlet, you are condoning the manufacture of sockets that fail to conform to all the requirements of the standard.

There you go again with your untruths, and your refusal to accept that your opinion of what the standard means when it requires sockets to not overheat in normal use is the only one which can possibly be correct.

I am not "condoning the manufacture of sockets that fail to conform to all the requirements of the standard", I am pointing out that if you have a requirement which is not quantified you have a situation where Maker A could form a different opinion of what conformance requires to Maker B. Or to you, or to any of the test houses you have spoken to.

You do not know what "normal use" means - you have said so.

You have formed an opinion of what it means - you have said so. It matters not how many people share that opinion, or how reasonable it might seem given other requirements in the standard, it remains only an opinion.

Until your opinion is tested in court, or is accepted by PEL/23 and explicitly written into BS 1363, it remains only an opinion, and there is nothing that can be done to force all makers to make sockets which conform to it, and there can be no guarantee that all makers share it.

Whatever length of time you decide is required of a twin socket to be able to handle 13A from each outlet without overheating, that is just one opinion. If a maker thinks the time is shorter and/or someone to whom you say a twin socket must be able to handle 26A thinks it is longer, you have created a situation where that someone with that make of socket who acts on your advice might end up with a fire. YOU MUST STOP

In the line above: "if a 26A load is not normal use there is therefore no requirement for a twin socket to be able to cope with it without overheating"

I am not saying that normal use is a 26A load

Normal use is the condition under which a socket must not overheat. You are not saying that normal use is a 26A load. Therefore you are not saying that there is a requirement for the socket to not overheat when loaded to 26A.

So why, when I say "if a 26A load is not normal use there is therefore no requirement for a twin socket to be able to cope with it without overheating" do you decide that I mean that they need only to design their product to pass the tests? They need to design their product to conform with the requirements. One of which is that it shall not overheat in normal use. You are not saying that normal use is a 26A load, so if you are not saying that a socket will not overheat under a 26A load how does my statement "if a 26A load is not normal use there is therefore no requirement for a twin socket to be able to cope with it without overheating" come to mean "they need only to design their product to pass the tests"?

Can you not see the numerous places where the standard states the socket outlets shall carry 13A?

I can.

I cannot see even one place where it states that a twin socket shall carry 26A without overheating.

Can you?

Quite. If there is a court case though, those expert opinions would probably count for more than yours.

I am certain that they would. But until such a court case, they remain only opinions, and opinions, no matter how expert, are not the same as legal directives. It's not unknown for different experts to have different opinions, and it is then up to the court to decide which opinions should be given the most weight when reaching a verdict. Until such a court case there is no definitive way to say that those opinions must be the ones put into practice by manufacturers.

They are 13A sockets, expected to carry 13A. There is no concession for a reduction when two outlets share a common faceplate, except in your imagination.

Is it also my imagination that there is no requirement for both outlets sharing a common faceplate to be able to carry 13A concurrently without overheating?

That is what you have done repeatedly.

No - what I have done repeatedly is to point out that if a maker produces something which does not perform as well as you think it should, wrt performance which is not explicitly defined, they are not making "products that do not meet the requirements of the relevant standard", they are making products that do not meet what you think are the requirements of the relevant standard

Unless you can show that a 13A socket-outlet need not be able to carry 13A when it shares a faceplate with another, then you are condoning the manufacture of sub-standard products.

No I am not.

Unless you can show that the standard requires 13A socket-outlet to be able to carry 13A when it shares a faceplate with another one carrying 13A at the same time, and that both must do so without overheating, then one which does not do that cannot, by definition, be a sub-standard product.

No it is not. Please stop pretending that it is.

Of course it is.

You are the one pretending that is is not, and we all know why.

The use of a product cannot be controlled by the product standard.

No, it can't, but the use cases in which certain performance criteria must be met can be defined.

13A socket-outlets are required to carry 13A, and there is no reduction for those that share a common faceplate.

There is no requirement for them to not overheat when sharing a common faceplate with another one carrying 13A at the same time.

Please stop repeating yourself. It does not strengthen your argument.

Does that apply equally to the number of times that you have asserted that a twin socket must be able to support a load of 26A for an indefinite time?

Personally, in the absence of any information to the contrary, I would expect that a 13A socket-outlet can provide 13A, even when it shares a faceplate with another.

Personally, in the absence of any explicit requirement for it to do so, I would not expect that a twin socket could necessarily provide 26A indefinitely without overheating, and therefore I would not tell people that it would.

I do have the right, and the power, and in fact a duty, to point out that BS1363 does not reduce the requirements for a 13A socket to be able to handle a load of 13A when it shares a faceplate with another.

Reduce them from what requirements?

Where is there a requirement for a 13A socket to be able to handle a 13A load without overheating?

Ask yourself why, if PEL/23 thought that a twin 13A socket-outlet need not be able to provide 13A from each outlet concurrently, they did not introduce a requirement for overcurrent protection, as they do for those having more than two outlets.

IHNI, I'm not a member of PEL/23.


Do you really want to go down the road of trying to divine, or interpret what PEL/23 mean by "normal use" by looking at what the various explicit relevant provisions are?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

neither am I saying that a socket will not overheat (another unquantified term) under a combined load of 26A for an indefinite time.

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

Without any qualification, that is 2 x 13A for an indefinite time.​

it does require each socket0outlet to meet certain performance requirements at a current of 13A, regardless of what is in the vicinity.

Without any qualification, that is meeting certain performance requirements at a current of 13A for an indefinite time.​

2 x 13 = 26.

Without any qualification, that's 2 x 13 = 26 for an indefinite time.​

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.

So if it doesn't specify any length of time, and you don't either when you say Without any qualification, that is 26A for an indefinite time.​

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.

So if it doesn't specify any length of time, and you don't either when you say that one can deliver 26A, you are saying that one can deliver 26A for an indefinite time. That's what "indefinite" means.​

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.

If you claim that that maximum load is 26A, and you do not qualify that with a length of time for which it shall be able to withstand it, then you are claiming that it can withstand 26A for an indefinite time.​

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

Yes they do

Without any qualification, that is an assertion that the requirements include a twin socket being able to sustain a load of 26A for an indefinite time without overheating.​

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

That's a claim that it will carry 13A + 13A for an indefinite time.

I think that a twin 13A socket-outlet should be capable of carrying 13A through each outlet for some undefined period of time

That's a claim that a twin 13A socket-outlet should be capable of carrying 13A through each outlet for an indefinite time.

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 you keep claiming that a twin socket can handle a 26A load. When you do that without knowing for how long it can do so you are claiming it can do it for an indefinite time.​

They must be able to carry 13A concurrently

Without any qualification, that is saying they must be able to carry 13A concurrently for an indefinite time.​

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.

So if you don't know what the duration is, every time you claim that a twin 13A socket-outlet can provide 13 A from each outlet concurrently you are claiming that it can do so indefinitely.

 

[stillp]

It's getting boring responding to your remarks BAS, so let's go off at a tangent. Let's imaging a householder, who is not aware of the test in BS1363 that is considered to verify the requirement that socket-outlets shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use. Suppose that householder assumes that as 13A sockets can provide 13A, a twin is able to provide 2 x 13A. So, (s)he plugs in two 3kW appliances. What would you expect the behaviour of the socket-outlet to be, assuming it's from a respectable manufacturer?
Would you expect a 'phut' and no output? A puff of smoke? A fireball?
Or would the socket-outlet power the two 3kW loads, but get a bit warm?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It's getting boring responding to your remarks BAS

So stop posting nonsense to which I have to make replies which you would rather I did not.

Let's imaging a householder, who is not aware of the test in BS1363 that is considered to verify the requirement that socket-outlets shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use. Suppose that householder assumes that as 13A sockets can provide 13A, a twin is able to provide 2 x 13A. So, (s)he plugs in two 3kW appliances. What would you expect the behaviour of the socket-outlet to be, assuming it's from a respectable manufacturer?

I honestly don't know.

And that is a truthful, genuine answer. You see I don't know what the manufacturer has decided should be the ability of his socket to support a load of 26A. (And neither do you)

I don't know what his take is on "normal use". (And neither do you)

Would you expect a 'phut' and no output? A puff of smoke? A fireball?

No.

Or would the socket-outlet power the two 3kW loads, but get a bit warm?

It might get warm.

It might get very warm.

It might get hot.

If the appliances are left powered for "too long" it might continue getting hotter and hotter, and overheat, if that maker has decided that "normal use" does not mean supporting a 26A load for that length of time.

Might it to catch fire? Probably not. But I don't think it is either safe or responsible to tell the householder that they can plug two 13A appliances in because the socket probably won't catch fire.

Might it be permanently damaged by getting too hot? Quite possibly. Might the plug be permanently damaged by heat transfer? Again, quite possibly.

If the overheating changes the properties of the spring contacts in the plug, might each overtemperature excursion increase the cumulative damage and thus be more likely to occur each time? Quite possibly.

Might that lead to the socket no longer being able to remain at an acceptable temperature in normal use? Quite possibly.

Might something like this eventually happen?

Quite possibly.

You see I don't know what will happen to a socket when stressed beyond what the maker thinks it should be stressed to.

And neither do you.