3 double sockets on a three phase circuit

[JohnW2]

"Current rating:
13A per socket outlet
(except 3 gang which is 13 amp in total)"
The only way that makes sense is that a singe is 13A, a twin is 26A (2x13A) but a triple is only 13A, otherwise the note in brackets is not necessary as they would all be 13A.

Triples have 13A fuse in them.

Indeed they do, but what he said is still essentially correct. The "except..." in brackets would be redundant if what they meant was that the maximum total load of a single socket OR a double socket OR a triple socket was 13A. However, we've been over this ground umpteen times in the past!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

... However, if you look back through those threads you will find somewhere that there is MK material out there indicating that continuous loads greater than (IIRC) 22A total can/do lead to damage to the socket.

I've now found the material in question in one of those old threads, although I don't know exacly where it comes from:

The following article is from MK: -
All MK socket-outlets are manufactured to comply with BS1363 part 2: 1995 and are rated at 13A per unit. Double socket-outlets have been manufactured and tested to exceed this rating by margin that allows electrical safety and reduces the risk of heat and mechanical damage to components due to overloading. It should be noted that BS1363 part 2: 1995 does not allow double sockets to operate at twice the permissible maximum loading and it should be remembered that double socket-outlets are not manufactured to be able to withstand a 26A load for sustained periods of time.

Research by ourselves and third party organisations has shown that all MK double sockets can safely withstand a continuous load of 19.5A for an indefinite period. Increasing the load slightly will begin to cause heat and mechanical stresses on the components in a relatively short period. Testing showed that a load of 22.3A was sufficient to cause heat stress that would cause a browning of the faceplates and sufficient heat to cause insulation damage to cable cores. A load of 24A for 43 hours was sufficient to cause significant heat damage to the material in which the socket-outlet was situated and within 75 hours sufficient to cause significant damage that would lead to the very real potential of fire.

MK recommend that users of their sockets consult professional design Engineers when designing installations to avoid the possibility of heat and mechanical stress to components and installations caused by overloading of MK socket-outlets.

The bits I've highlighted are interesting, since it seems to indicate that MK regard "13A per unit" as meaning '13A total for a double socket".

Whatever, the information given, if true, seems to indicate that MK sockets cannot safely carry anything like 26A continuously (suggesting that maximum is somewhere between 19.5A and 22.3A) - and if MK one's cannot, I doubt whether (m)any can.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The following article is from MK: -
.
.
It should be noted that BS1363 part 2: 1995 does not allow double sockets to operate at twice the permissible maximum loading

That's nonsense.

Whoever wrote that MK article was incapable of reading and understanding the standards doc.

 

[JohnW2]

The following article is from MK: - .... It should be noted that BS1363 part 2: 1995 does not allow double sockets to operate at twice the permissible maximum loading

That's nonsense. Whoever wrote that MK article was incapable of reading and understanding the standards doc.

Indeed. It's nonsense to suggest that BS1363 "does not allow" sockets to be manufactured which exceed the minimum specification required by that Standard.

However, assuming that the article does/did represent MK corporate opinion, it is very clear in saying that their double sockets are not suitable (or even safe) for a continuous 26A total load.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I do sympathise with what probably moved BAS to write what he did, even if what he wrote was, IMO, a little OTT.

So somebody provides professional services to you, for a fee, they do them badly, they mislead you and then lie about the standard to which they did them, and you think it's OTT to do something about getting the fee reduced?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However, assuming that the article does/did represent MK corporate opinion, it is very clear in saying that their double sockets are not suitable (or even safe) for a continuous 26A total load.

That could well be the case.

 

[JohnW2]

I do sympathise with what probably moved BAS to write what he did, even if what he wrote was, IMO, a little OTT.

So somebody provides professional services to you, for a fee, they do them badly, they mislead you and then lie about the standard to which they did them, and you think it's OTT to do something about getting the fee reduced?

Nope, I don't regard that as OTT - but I do think that use of the word "fraudulent" probably was (OTT). At least to me, "fraudulent" implies a deliberate premeditated attempt to make financial gain by deception. Incompetence and making mistakes are, IMO, not the same thing as fraud!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

At least to me, "fraudulent" implies a deliberate premeditated attempt to make financial gain by deception. Incompetence and making mistakes are, IMO, not the same thing as fraud!

Correct. Fraud Act 2006, Sec 2 (2) (b) :

A representation is false if—
...
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

 

[scousespark]

What percentage of EICRs carried out do you think the above could apply to...

Probably quite a few.

There are some out there which are only fit for toilet paper

And so it will remain until word gets round that customers are prepared to sue if you say something for which your justification is an incorrect understanding of the regulations.

When I got into the trade, there was a general (unofficial) rule that electricians got a few years experience before going into the PIR territory. This is not the case now and people are issuing EICRS before they are ready.