2 way wall socket question

[stillp]

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.

Quite. I do know however what the standard requires. It is unfortunate that there are some manufacturers who don't.

 

[stillp]

Might something like this eventually happen?

Maybe. Eventually.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Quite. I do know however what the standard requires.

It requires a socket not to overheat in normal use.

You do not know what normal use means.

You are not claiming that normal use means 26A for a twin socket.

But you are claiming that a twin socket can support a load of 26A, and despite your statement to the contrary, you have on many occasions said that it can support a load of 26A for an indefinite period.

And you really cannot see the inconsistencies there?

It is unfortunate that there are some manufacturers who don't.

If there are then that would be unfortunate.

But since they do not know what normal use means either, then you have to allow for the fact that they might make a different assumption to you about what capabilities a socket should have to comply with the requirement to not overheat in normal use.

Making a different assumption to you does not make their product sub-standard, it makes it one which complies with a different assumption of what "normal use" entails.

Making a different assumption to you does not make them cheats, or shysters, or cowboys. It does not make them someone who is cynically ignoring what the standard requires. It makes them someone who has made a different assumption to you. Not an incorrect assumption - a different one.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Might something like this eventually happen?

Maybe. Eventually.

Well then if using a socket in the way which you think it should be able to be used may end up damaging it like that you must stop telling people that they can use it like that because the standard says it will be OK.

 

[stillp]

But you are claiming that a twin socket can support a load of 26A, and despite your statement to the contrary, you have on many occasions said that it can support a load of 26A for an indefinite period.

Undefined, not indefinite.

But since they do not know what normal use means either, then you have to allow for the fact that they might make a different assumption to you about what capabilities a socket should have to comply with the requirement to not overheat in normal use.

I was referring to the requirements for 13A socket outlets to be capable of carrying 13A.
They might have a different opinion to mine about the requirement to be reliable and without danger too. I don't care.

Making a different assumption to you does not make them cheats, or shysters, or cowboys. It does not make them someone who is cynically ignoring what the standard requires. It makes them someone who has made a different assumption to you. Not an incorrect assumption - a different one.

That might be correct, but I am not making an assumption, I am pointing out that the standard requires 13A sockets to be capable of carrying 13A.

 

[stillp]

Might something like this eventually happen?

Maybe. Eventually.

Well then if using a socket in the way which you think it should be able to be used may end up damaging it like that you must stop telling people that they can use it like that because the standard says it will be OK.

Has the damage in those photos been caused by concurrent loads of 13A on each outlet? If so, for how long?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Undefined, not indefinite.

I was referring to the requirements for 13A socket outlets to be capable of carrying 13A.

Please tell us where it says that they have to be able to carry 13A without overheating.

They might have a different opinion to mine about the requirement to be reliable and without danger too. I don't care.

Oh - it has long been obvious that you do not care about the fact that you are not the supreme arbiter of what makes a socket compliant with BS 1363.

It has long been obvious that you don't care that the reality is that there is nothing wrong with a maker having a different opinion to you about what is required to comply with an undefined requirement.

And it has long been obvious that you don't care if someone dies because they use a socket in a way which you arrogantly insist must be possible but which conforms to a different opinion to yours about what is meant by an undefined requirement.

That might be correct, but I am not making an assumption,

Yes you are - you are assuming that your interpretation of "normal use" must be, and is, shared by everyone else. Not just every manufacturer in the world, but also every hapless member of the public who decides to believe your arrogant and possibly lethally dangerous nonsense.

But you don't care about that, either, do you.

I am pointing out that the standard requires 13A sockets to be capable of carrying 13A.

Please point out what it says about them being capable of carrying 13A without overheating.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Has the damage in those photos been caused by concurrent loads of 13A on each outlet?

Don't know - but they show what can happen to a socket if it overheats.

If so, for how long?

Why should the length of time matter?

 

[stillp]

Please tell us where it says that they have to be able to carry 13A without overheating.

Why? They have to carry 13A. They also have to not overheat in normal use. They also have to be reliable and without danger to the user or the surroundings, etc., etc.

it has long been obvious that you do not care about the fact that you are not the supreme arbiter of what makes a socket compliant with BS 1363.

I haven't claimed that I am the supreme arbiter.

Yes you are - you are assuming that your interpretation of "normal use" must be, and is, shared by everyone else. Not just every manufacturer in the world, but also every hapless member of the public who decides to believe your arrogant and possibly lethally dangerous nonsense.

No I am not. I am stating what is in the product standard. If there is anything arrogant and possibly lethally dangerous in this thread it is your assertion that a twin 13A socket-outlet need not be capable of supplying two 13A loads.

But you don't care about that, either, do you.

Yes, I do care about that, which is why I corrected your arrogant and possibly lethally dangerous that a twin 13A socket-outlet need not be capable of supplying two 13A loads.

Has the damage in those photos been caused by concurrent loads of 13A on each outlet?

Don't know - but they show what can happen to a socket if it overheats.

Do they? At least some look to have been damaged by an overheating plug, but in any case they are not relevant unless you can show that they hare the result of concurrent loads of 13A on each outlet.

Why should the length of time matter?

Because the likelihood of damage from overheating is a function of the time and the temperature.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Please tell us where it says that they have to be able to carry 13A without overheating.

Why?

Why?

WHY???

Because if you cannot, then every assertion you have made to say that they have to is not something which they say, it is something which you have invented.

They have to carry 13A.

Please quote what the standard actually requires, wrt carrying 13A without overheating. Not what you assume/think/believe/wish is required - what it actually requires.

They also have to not overheat in normal use.

Please quote what the standard actually requires, wrt the current it has to carry in normal use. Not what you assume/think/believe/wish is required - what it actually requires.

I haven't claimed that I am the supreme arbiter.

All the way through you have acted as if you believe you are.

All the way through you have acted as if you believe that your interpretation of "normal use" is the only one which can possibly be right.

All the way through you have refused to accept that others may have an equally valid but different interpretation to you.

All the way through your attitude has been that if a socket does not perform in the way which you think it should then it is a sub-standard product, falsely claimed as compliant by a cheating cowboy shyster of a manufacturer.

All the way through you have behaved as if you think that should someone use a socket as you think they should be able to, and it all goes pear shaped, then that is entirely the fault of the maker for not conforming with the standard, and not that it could be that they have a different opinion to you on what is necessary to comply.

No I am not. I am stating what is in the product standard.

Please quote what is actually in the product standard about the amount of current which a socket must be able to carry, and for how long, without overheating. Not what you assume/think/believe/wish were in there - what is actually in there.

If there is anything arrogant and possibly lethally dangerous in this thread it is your assertion that a twin 13A socket-outlet need not be capable of supplying two 13A loads.

Really?

Your ability to reason gets worse with every passing day, doesn't it.

Clearly you and I have a difference of opinion. Clearly one of us is wrong, and the other is right.

If I am right, and you are wrong, it must be pretty obvious that a socket which is overloaded beyond what is allowed for in normal use could overheat, and could become permanently damaged. Possibly to the extent of becoming dangerous.

If you are right, and I am wrong, please put forward a credible mechanism by which people following my advice could end up in a possibly lethally dangerous situation.

Yes, I do care about that, which is why I corrected your arrogant and possibly lethally dangerous that a twin 13A socket-outlet need not be capable of supplying two 13A loads.

Please put forward an intelligent, rational, and credible explanation of how incorrect advice to not load a socket to the limit of its capabilities could be lethally dangerous.

Do they? At least some look to have been damaged by an overheating plug, but in any case they are not relevant unless you can show that they hare the result of concurrent loads of 13A on each outlet.

They show heat damaged sockets - what matters is not so much the source of the heat, but that sockets can be damaged, permanently, and dangerously, by overheating.

And you agreed that something like that could eventually happen.

Because the likelihood of damage from overheating is a function of the time and the temperature.

Please quote how long the standard actually requires a twin socket to carry 26A without overheating. Not how long you assume/think/believe/wish it requires - what it actually requires.

 

[stillp]

every assertion you have made to say that they have to is not something which they say, it is something which you have invented.

Have I invented the requirements that they shall carry 13A?
Have I invented the requirement that they shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use?

Please quote what the standard actually requires, wrt carrying 13A without overheating. Not what you assume/think/believe/wish is required - what it actually requires.

There are requirements that they shall carry 13A. There is a requirement that they shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use.
There is not a relaxation of either requirement for two sockets sharing a common faceplate.

Please quote what is actually in the product standard about the amount of current which a socket must be able to carry, and for how long, without overheating. Not what you assume/think/believe/wish were in there - what is actually in there.

There are requirements that they shall carry 13A. There is a requirement that they shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use.
There is not a relaxation of either requirement for two sockets sharing a common faceplate.

If you are right, and I am wrong, please put forward a credible mechanism by which people following my advice could end up in a possibly lethally dangerous situation.

Can you really not understand why someone might be put at risk by 13A sockets that cannot carry 13A? I did ask you what you would consider acceptable behaviour from a twin socket-outlet that was loaded to 13A from both outlets, but you didn't answer that question. Would you consider it acceptable for the socket to explode? Burst into flames? Vapourise the conductor that connects the two outlets?

Clearly you and I have a difference of opinion. Clearly one of us is wrong, and the other is right.

I'm not actually sure if we have a difference of opinion, or if you are just misunderstanding what I am saying. It's hard to tell.

Please put forward an intelligent, rational, and credible explanation of how incorrect advice to not load a socket to the limit of its capabilities could be lethally dangerous.

But you are not giving that advice. You are stating that twin 13A socket-outlets need not be capable of supplying 13A from each outlet concurrently, therefore implying that is is acceptable for manufacturers to make such products, and for people to install them.

They show heat damaged sockets - what matters is not so much the source of the heat, but that sockets can be damaged, permanently, and dangerously, by overheating.

Of course they can. I could for example take a blowlamp to a socket, and would expect it to be damaged. That does not mean that the requirements in BS1363 for 13A socket-outlets to carry 13A can be reduced when two share a common faceplate.

Please quote how long the standard actually requires a twin socket to carry 26A without overheating. Not how long you assume/think/believe/wish it requires - what it actually requires.

I will be pleased to do so, just after you tell me where the standard actually states that a twin 13A socket-outlet need not be capable of carrying 13A form each outlet concurrently.

 

[securespark]

I think you should use a length of 10 milli SWA just to be on the safe side.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Have I invented the requirements that they shall carry 13A?

• Please quote what the standard actually requires, wrt carrying 13A without overheating. Not what you assume/think/believe/wish/have invented is required - what it actually requires. If you can't then yes, clearly you must have invented it. Were it there, it would not be an invention. If it is not there, and you claim that it is, then you have invented it.

Have I invented the requirement that they shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use?

• Please quote what the standard actually requires, wrt the current it has to carry without overheating in normal use. Not what you assume/think/believe/wish/have invented is required - what it actually requires. If you can't then yes, clearly you must have invented it. Were it there, it would not be an invention. If it is not there, and you claim that it is, then you have invented it.

There are requirements that they shall carry 13A.

• Please quote what those actually are in the standard , wrt carrying 13A without overheating. Not what you assume/think/believe/wish/have invented they are - what they actually are.

There is a requirement that they shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use.

• Please quote what the standard actually requires, wrt the current it has to carry without overheating in normal use. Not what you assume/think/believe/wish/have invented is required - what it actually requires.

There is not a relaxation of either requirement for two sockets sharing a common faceplate.

• Please quote what those actually are in the standard, from which there is no relaxation. Not what you assume/think/believe/wish/have invented they are - what they actually are.

There are requirements that they shall carry 13A. There is a requirement that they shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use.
There is not a relaxation of either requirement for two sockets sharing a common faceplate.

Same questions as immediately above.

If you say that those requirements are there, then quote them. It would not be a difficult task - a screenshot would do if your file is copy protected.

Why won't you just do that?

What has been your purpose behind not doing so and creating 7-8 pages of argument?

Can you really not understand why someone might be put at risk by 13A sockets that cannot carry 13A?

I can. It is you who can't. Or won't. That's why you keep telling people that sockets can carry more current than they might be able to.

But that is irrelevant, and is not an answer to my question.

So I will ask it again, and give you another opportunity to answer it. I'm prepared to keep on offering that opportunity until you take it.

• If you are right, and I am wrong, please put forward a credible mechanism by which people following my advice could end up in a possibly lethally dangerous situation.

I did ask you what you would consider acceptable behaviour from a twin socket-outlet that was loaded to 13A from both outlets, but you didn't answer that question. Would you consider it acceptable for the socket to explode? Burst into flames? Vapourise the conductor that connects the two outlets?

I did answer that here: //www.diynot.com/diy/posts/3664325/

You ought to pay more attention to reading replies you get.

I'm not actually sure if we have a difference of opinion,

I am.

or if you are just misunderstanding what I am saying.

No - I do understand what you are saying.

And I understand that you are wrong.

It's hard to tell.

I'll make it easy for you.

Your opinion is wrong. It is incorrect, mistaken, erroneous, inaccurate, invalid, untrue, false, misleading, illogical, unsound, unfounded, faulty, flawed.

Please put forward an intelligent, rational, and credible explanation of how incorrect advice to not load a socket to the limit of its capabilities could be lethally dangerous.

But you are not giving that advice.

I'm glad you agree that I am not giving incorrect advice to not load a socket to the limit of its capabilities.

But that is not an answer to the question. Whether you, or I, or anybody else agrees about what advice I was or was not giving is irrelevant to this question, so I will give you another opportunity to answer it.

• Please put forward an intelligent, rational, and credible explanation of how incorrect advice to not load a socket to the limit of its capabilities could be lethally dangerous.

You are stating that twin 13A socket-outlets need not be capable of supplying 13A from each outlet concurrently,

I'm saying that they might not be, because that performance is not required by the standard.

therefore implying that is is acceptable for manufacturers to make such products, and for people to install them.

Why is it not acceptable for manufacturers to make products which comply with the requirements of the standard?

That does not mean that the requirements in BS1363 for 13A socket-outlets to carry 13A can be reduced when two share a common faceplate.

• Please quote what the standard actually requires, wrt carrying 13A without overheating. Not what you assume/think/believe/wish/have invented is required - what it actually requires.

• Please quote what the standard actually requires, wrt a twin socket carrying 2 x 13A without overheating. Not what you assume/think/believe/wish/have invented is required - what it actually requires.

I will be pleased to do so, just after you tell me where the standard actually states that a twin 13A socket-outlet need not be capable of carrying 13A form each outlet concurrently.

That is not how standards 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.

I can no more tell you where it says that a twin 13A socket-outlet need not be capable of carrying 13A from each outlet concurrently than I can tell you where it says that they do not have to be packed in boxes lined with silk

That is not the way that standards work.

• So, returning to how they do work, without inventing requirements which you just happen to believe are implied, please quote how long the standard actually requires a twin socket to carry 26A without overheating. Not how long you assume/think/believe/wish it requires - what it actually requires.

 

[stillp]

That is not how standards 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.

I know very well how standards work, thank you BAS. I know for example that when they state a requirement, that requirement applies to all items within the scope of the standard, unless covered by an exception or an exemption. There are requirements for 13A sockets to be able to carry 13A. There are no exceptions or exemptions for twin socket-outlets. Therefore, given that, as you put it, "the item has to do what the document says it has to", the 13A sockets that comprise a twin 13A socket outlet shall be capable of carrying 13A. Neither a duration, nor a maximum temperature are specified, but the general requirements, that they shall be reliable and without danger, and that they shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use, apply. Normal use is not specified, and neither is a temperature limit.
In addition to those requirements, the twin socket-outlets shall not exceed certain specified temperatures during a test, for which the conditions include connection to a single 2,5mm² cable, mounting recessed into a wooden block, the loads connected via plugs fitted with heaters calibrated to achieve a 35K temperature rise, the earth pins of the plugs being unconnected. The permitted temperature rises during the test are 47K for terminals, 52K for accessible external surfaces. The loads for the test are 14A from one outlet, 6A from the other.

Kindly stop accusing me of inventing requirements. I have repeatedly stated what the standard requires. I am not going to list all the things it doesn't require.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You keep asking me to list things it doesn't require.

And you keep on and on and on saying that sockets have to do things which the standard does not say they have to do.

I know very well how standards work, thank you BAS.

On the evidence of this thread, that is simply not true.

I know for example that when they state a requirement, that requirement applies to all items within the scope of the standard, unless covered by an exception or an exemption.

Fair enough. But what about the situation we have here, where you claim that items have to conform to a requirement which is not stated?

There are requirements for 13A sockets to be able to carry 13A.

Fair enough. Please quote what the standard actually requires, wrt carrying 13A without overheating. Not what you assume/think/believe/wish/have invented is required - what it actually requires.

There are no exceptions or exemptions for twin socket-outlets.

Fair enough. Please quote what the standard actually requires, for a single socket wrt carrying 13A without overheating, for which there is no exception or exemption for a twin. Not what you assume/think/believe/wish/have invented is required - what it actually requires.

Therefore, given that, as you put it, "the item has to do what the document says it has to", the 13A sockets that comprise a twin 13A socket outlet shall be capable of carrying 13A.

Fair enough. Please quote what the standard actually says regarding the ability of a single socket wrt carrying 13A, and what actually says for a twin. Not what you assume/think/believe/wish/have invented is stated - what it actually says.

Neither a duration, nor a maximum temperature are specified, but the general requirements, that they shall be reliable and without danger, and that they shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use, apply. Normal use is not specified, and neither is a temperature limit.

If none of those things are specified, how dare you put peoples lives at risk by telling them that of course their twin socket can safely carry 26A?

If the standard does not require that one can do that safely, for any specific length of time then how dare you pretend that that is not the case?

If normal use is not defined, how dare you accuse a manufacturer of being a cheating shyster cowboy just because they make a different assumption to you about what to take it to mean?

When I point out that the lack of definition of these terms, and the lack of precise requirements, could lead to a manufacturer making a socket which performs differently to how you assume it should perform, how dare you accuse me of condoning the manufacture of sub-standard products?

As there are no defined requirements for how long a twin socket must be able to carry 26A, nor for how hot is may get when doing so, nor that 13A from both sides simultaneously is considered to be normal use then there can be no guarantee that whatever you have decided they must be is also what any manufacturer has decided they must be, or that any user of a socket has decided they must be.

Any discrepancy between what the maker of a socket thinks, and what the user thinks, could lead to the socket becoming too hot, and damaged, if the user loads it in excess of what the manufacturer has decided constitutes normal use. In extremis that could lead to a fire. YOU MUST STOP.

In addition to those requirements, the twin socket-outlets shall not exceed certain specified temperatures during a test, for which the conditions include connection to a single 2,5mm² cable, mounting recessed into a wooden block, the loads connected via plugs fitted with heaters calibrated to achieve a 35K temperature rise, the earth pins of the plugs being unconnected. The permitted temperature rises during the test are 47K for terminals, 52K for accessible external surfaces. The loads for the test are 14A from one outlet, 6A from the other.

So what?

Kindly stop accusing me of inventing requirements.

Absolutely. I will gladly cease doing so.

I will stop doing so shortly after you stop inventing requirements.

I have repeatedly stated what the standard requires.

Please state what the standard actually requires, wrt the current a twin socket has to carry without overheating in normal use. Not what you assume/think/believe/wish/have invented is required - what it actually requires. If you can't then clearly you must have invented it. Were it there, it would not be an invention. If it is not there, and you claim that it is, then you have invented it.

I am not going to list all the things it doesn't require.

Do you also think that you are not going to answer these questions

• If you are right about it being safe to load a twin socket to 2 x 13A, and I am wrong about it being potentially dangerous, please put forward a credible mechanism by which people following my advice could end up in a possibly lethally dangerous situation.

• Please put forward an intelligent, rational, and credible explanation of how incorrect advice to not load a socket beyond the limit of its capabilities could be lethally dangerous.