Europlug sockets

[ericmark]

Many many years ago Flounders and Swan summed it all up in their song.

"The English, The English, The English are best, The English are best and to hell with the rest."

Not saying I fully agree as a Welsh man but to try to persuade the British that some other system is better than ours is really going to be hard.

There is room for improvement the sockets could be made so radials in 6mm cable would be possible and still have the odd spur. However since any system we compare to is limited to 16A there is no other system that is better for allowing distribution.

To have FCU which are over 13A would also be handy but even abroad not really seen anything which we don't have.

We were behind the rest of Europe as to fitting of RCD's maybe because our system was safer anyway? And it could be argued that using RCD's means shuttered sockets are not so important. However I have had nasty belts for RCD protected systems and I would consider shutters are a good idea.

The same argument as to isolation transformers and RCD protection in bathrooms I realise the transformer does mean the RCD does not protect and there may be a case for RCD rather than transformer protection but considering the transformer also limits current to 20va I think one would be hard pressed to fight that case.

Yes the 13A plug does sometimes fail to take 13A without over heating but with the selection of near same plugs and sockets in Europe which either strain or do not have good contact they are no better.

The whole idea of having a non earthed socket into which a plug with earth connection can be inserted must be the craziest system ever considered.

So it seems there has been little change since the song was written! Sometimes others do have good ideas like Australian plastic bank notes but lets face it most of them came from here in first place. And the whole idea of having all bank note denominations the same size must be as crazy at doubling the current in the system by using 110 volt?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ok, but A is not in and of itself Un-safe..

I never said it was, just that it was less safe.

unlless you require or want to fit parts to specification A

Then you may have a valid reason, i.e. one based on logic, not a whim. Unlike in this case, if you read back, where you'll see that the OP cannot come up with any reason for installing Euro sockets.

as said.. as long as A is not un-safe, then choosing it over a higher standard is reasonable..

No, not if you do not have a reason to deliberately choose a less safe option. If you do something for no reason it is, by definition, unreasonable.

you yourself are an advocate of arc fault interupters as used in american systems,

No I'm not - I just think that the requirement for them may well be introduced.

it's safer so by your logic they should be installed..

No - because you're forgetting the topic of cost-benefit analysis.

We keep coming back to the same issue, which nobody seems able to get their head around.

In this synthetic A vs B scenario, if A was significantly cheaper than B then that could well be a valid reason for preferring it. But all along I have said, over and over again, that I am dealing with the situation where there is no reason to prefer the less safe option.

 

[BS3036]

If you do something for no reason it is, by definition, unreasonable.

To pick you up on a point. That is NOT the definition of unreasonable.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

unreasonable adj lacking reason or judgement.

 

[BS3036]

unreasonable adj lacking reason.

An archaic use of the word from, I believe, the Collins dictionary. The definitions before that one are what is understood by the normal person who isn't trying to justify an entrenched position.
ie

1. Immoderate, excessive
2. Refusing to listen to reason.

In law the word takes on a particular meaning anyway, such as:

just, rational, appropriate, ordinary or usual in the circumstances

It doesn't, in law, mean 'not having any particular reason'.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well we'll go for rational then.

If you have no rational basis for choosing a less safe option over a safer one your actions are not reasonable.

Or, with specific reference to a domestic electrical installation, not ordinary or usual in the circumstances.

 

[Paul_C]

People have been known to make an incorrect move of knocking out a load-bearing internal wall. Does that mean all internal walls should be non load-bearing to protect against somebody who doesn't know what he's doing and can't be bothered to find out?

No, because that would be an unreasonable requirement.

So why are you treating the electrics differently?

I would argue that installing BS 546 sockets on a whim, in a domestic environment, in contravention of the preference expressed in 553.1.4 and the requirement for the installation to function properly would not meet BS 7671.

How do BS546 sockets affect the installation functioning properly?

But that aside, a preference is just that. "Preferred" does not mean "must." The Regs. say that it's preferable for a conductor to be identified throughout its length (with exceptions) as well as at its terminations. Do you think that installing brown/blue T&E on a switch drop with brown sleeving at the terminations is therefore a non-compliance with BS7671, since you have not followed the stated preference?

But how is anyone but the designer or installer going to know whether the choice to use BS546 sockets, or the choice to adopt some standard other than BS7671, was based upon some logical need or, as you put it, a mere whim? Where is the boundary? Who defines it?

When an LABC building inspector is considering whether something meets the building regulations or not, is he concerned about your reasons for doing something, or merely with whether the end result complies with the regulations?

If you believe that the official interpretation of Part P would mean that a VDE-100, NF C15-100 etc. installation falls foul of the "reasonable provision for safety" requirement, why do you think the official guidelines clearly state that compliance with one of those standards would be considered compliance with Part P?

Because they would provide compliance if it was reasonable to work to them.

And when a building inspector sees wiring to one of those standards, how is he supposed to decide whether it was reasonable to work to them or not, based upon your definition of the word?

Because it's all part of an international socialist conspiracy, enthusiastically supported by both Labour and Conservative governments (as they are both socialist parties), to bring about a European-wide socialist dictatorship.

Well yes...... I don't think anyone reading the Part P Approved Document believes that the references to standards of other EEA countries are there for any other reason that Britain's entanglement with the EU, but nevertheless those references are there, so the official position is that it is reasonable to work to those standards as far as satisfying the legal requirement of Part P is concerned.

I'm not contradicting myself. I have consistently drawn the distinction between doing something for a reason and doing it for no reason.

"Because I felt like it" is a reason. Not a particularly convincing reason, but a reason nevertheless. And there is bound to be some reason, however trivial, for wanting to install BS546 sockets, or to work to NF C15-100 or some other standard.

Scenario #1: I happen to be French, I'm familiar with NF C15-100 but not with BS7671, I have a hundred appliances I've shipped over from France with French plugs, I'm refurbishing the inside of a house to appear as French as possible, so I decide to adopt French standards for all the wiring. Reasonable, by your definition, and thus would satisfy Part P in your mind?

Scenario #2: I just feel like rewiring my house to French standards and conventions. No particular reason - A whim as you would call it. As near as I can follow your argument, you're saying that would be unreasonable and thus would not meet the legal requirements of Part P.

Correct so far?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So why are you treating the electrics differently?

I'm not, I'm being consistent with my opinion of what reasonable means.

How do BS546 sockets affect the installation functioning properly?

How? I can do no better than refer you to your earlier post:

The BS1363 plugs provided on new appliances now won't fit BS546 sockets

But that aside, a preference is just that. "Preferred" does not mean "must."

Indeed not, but going against a preference has to be justified. I know that you will disagree, but I am telling you that you cannot, to any recognised standards of professional responsibility, certify that you have exercised reasonable skill and care and that the work for which you are responsible is to the best of your knowledge and belief in accordance with BS 7671 if you have ignored a preference when you have NO REASON to have ignored it.

The Regs. say that it's preferable for a conductor to be identified throughout its length (with exceptions) as well as at its terminations. Do you think that installing brown/blue T&E on a switch drop with brown sleeving at the terminations is therefore a non-compliance with BS7671, since you have not followed the stated preference?

No, because there is a reason for not doing it.

But how is anyone but the designer or installer going to know whether the choice to use BS546 sockets, or the choice to adopt some standard other than BS7671, was based upon some logical need or, as you put it, a mere whim? Where is the boundary? Who defines it?

The person who defines it is, primarily, the person you describe.

And that person has to be genuinely sure that he has exercised reasonable skill and care when carrying out the design (oh look - there's that word you claim not to understand again), and that to the best of his knowledge and belief filling a house with sockets which he knows are of no use with new appliances (or, in fact, anything sold for decades) makes the installation capable of proper functioning in a house.

Now - if he really is competent to make such a declaration, and he knows that he is, and he really has discharged his professional responsibilities and duties of care and verified that the users of the installation in this house will be properly catered for by BS 546 sockets then no problem.

But if he is not so competent, or has not behaved professionally then his declaration would be false and his EIC would be a fake.

When an LABC building inspector is considering whether something meets the building regulations or not, is he concerned about your reasons for doing something, or merely with whether the end result complies with the regulations?

In reality the BCO probably knows SFA and cares even less.

It comes down to whether you categorise yourself as someone with the same level of ignorance and indifference, or whether you think yourself to be a skilled, knowledgeable and responsible professional.

And when a building inspector sees wiring to one of those standards, how is he supposed to decide whether it was reasonable to work to them or not, based upon your definition of the word?

With extreme difficulty.

It comes down to whether you categorise yourself as someone with the same level of incompetence, or whether you think yourself to be a skilled, knowledgeable and responsible professional.

Well yes...... I don't think anyone reading the Part P Approved Document believes that the references to standards of other EEA countries are there for any other reason that Britain's entanglement with the EU,

Only the EU?

It says the EEA, not the EU.

but nevertheless those references are there, so the official position is that it is reasonable to work to those standards as far as satisfying the legal requirement of Part P is concerned.

So on the one hand you insist that a demonstrably flawed document which itself states has no legal authority and which you personally believe to be an instrument of an international socialist dictatorship conspiracy should be followed, but on the other hand you believe that local government organisations who do not go along with a demonstrably flawed document which itself states has no legal authority and which you personally believe to be an instrument of an international socialist dictatorship conspiracy should be criticised or ignored.

"Because I felt like it" is a reason. Not a particularly convincing reason, but a reason nevertheless. And there is bound to be some reason, however trivial, for wanting to install BS546 sockets, or to work to NF C15-100 or some other standard.

"Reason" means having a logical or rational basis, and it is neither of those to opt for a less safe solution for trivial reasons.

Scenario #1: I happen to be French, I'm familiar with NF C15-100 but not with BS7671, I have a hundred appliances I've shipped over from France with French plugs, I'm refurbishing the inside of a house to appear as French as possible, so I decide to adopt French standards for all the wiring. Reasonable, by your definition, and thus would satisfy Part P in your mind?

Yes, because that would be a decision with a rational and logical basis.

Scenario #2: I just feel like rewiring my house to French standards and conventions. No particular reason - A whim as you would call it. As near as I can follow your argument, you're saying that would be unreasonable and thus would not meet the legal requirements of Part P.

Yes, because as you yourself say, you have no particular reason, therefore your actions would have no rational or logical basis, and therefore they would be unreasonable.

If someone drove their car recklessly I would not agree that they had made reasonable provision for road safety even if no accident occurred. "Made" means deliberately fashioned, not a randomly fortuitous process.

If someone carried out work beyond their level of competence I would not agree that they had made reasonable provision for good work even if their work turned out OK. "Made" means deliberately fashioned, not a randomly fortuitous process.




But this whole discussion is pointless. You and I are never going to agree on what "reasonable" means, or that deciding for trivial reasons to implement a solution which is less safe than the obvious one is unreasonable.

I can't say anything which I have not already said several times in different ways, and neither can you.

Reply if you want, but it'll just be more of the same from you as would anything more from me be more of the same. so I won't be replying any more.

 

[Paul_C]

I'm not, I'm being consistent with my opinion of what reasonable means.

Not as I see it, but we'll let them one go.

How do BS546 sockets affect the installation functioning properly?

How? I can do no better than refer you to your earlier post:

The BS1363 plugs provided on new appliances now won't fit BS546 sockets

I still don't see how that stops the installation from functioning properly. ES base lamps won't fit BC lampholders either. Does that prevent the installation from working properly?

Yes, BS1363 is the norm today, but obviously if you have some reason (however convincing or however trivial) for wanting to use BS546 sockets, then you'll be using BS546 plugs with them and the installation will function perfectly.

The Regs. say that it's preferable for a conductor to be identified throughout its length (with exceptions) as well as at its terminations. Do you think that installing brown/blue T&E on a switch drop with brown sleeving at the terminations is therefore a non-compliance with BS7671, since you have not followed the stated preference?

No, because there is a reason for not doing it.

And, to apply your earlier arguments to this situation, what would that reason be when equivalent T&E with two brown cores is readily available?

Yes, we know there is usually one very simple reason for using brown/blue T&E on switch drops: It's easier to just pull them off the same reel and sleeve the terminations than to keep a separate reel of twin brown specifically for those runs. But when you're arguing that anything which doesn't follow BS7671 precisely is less safe and you need a justifiable reason for doing it, can you argue that "It's easier" is a justifiable reason any more than "Because I felt like it" is?

And when a building inspector sees wiring to one of those standards, how is he supposed to decide whether it was reasonable to work to them or not, based upon your definition of the word?

With extreme difficulty.

Exactly. And to apply the same principle to the switch-drop scenario, according your argument compliance or otherwise with BS7671 is dependent upon whether one had a valid reason for not using conductors identifiable throughout their entire length as expressed by the preference in the Regs.

So when you are carrying out a PIR to BS7671 and you find brown/blue switch drops, how are you supposed to know the installer's reason for using them? According to you, if he had a good reason they are acceptable and meet BS7671, but if he didn't then ignoring the preference would mean non compliance with BS7671, and thus a code 4. Or should you mark them down as code 3 while you try to contact the installer and ascertain why he used brown/blue instead of brown/brown to decide whether the installation meets BS7671 or not?

Only the EU?

It says the EEA, not the EU.

Closely associated. EEA members still have to comply with certain EU regulations.

So on the one hand you insist that a demonstrably flawed document which itself states has no legal authority and which you personally believe to be an instrument of an international socialist dictatorship conspiracy should be followed, but on the other hand you believe that local government organisations who do not go along with a demonstrably flawed document which itself states has no legal authority and which you personally believe to be an instrument of an international socialist dictatorship conspiracy should be criticised or ignored.

No, I'm pointing out that while the Approved Documents are not law, they are issued officially, and while local authorities try to apply the guidelines in many of them as if they are absolute legal requirements, it's illogical and inconsistent if they then totally ignore the guidelines for Part P.

Scenario #1: I happen to be French, I'm familiar with NF C15-100 but not with BS7671, I have a hundred appliances I've shipped over from France with French plugs, I'm refurbishing the inside of a house to appear as French as possible, so I decide to adopt French standards for all the wiring. Reasonable, by your definition, and thus would satisfy Part P in your mind?

Yes, because that would be a decision with a rational and logical basis.

Scenario #2: I just feel like rewiring my house to French standards and conventions. No particular reason - A whim as you would call it. As near as I can follow your argument, you're saying that would be unreasonable and thus would not meet the legal requirements of Part P.

Yes, because as you yourself say, you have no particular reason, therefore your actions would have no rational or logical basis, and therefore they would be unreasonable.

O.K., I just wanted to confirm that was your position.

So you are saying that the installation in scenario #1 would comply with the legal requirements of the building regulations, but the installation in scenario #2 would not, even though they could be the exact same installation.

To say that installation A complies with the "reasonable provision" requirement of Part P but that installation B does not, even though it's identical, is absurd.

One could even say that such an argument is completely unreasonable - By the definition that BS3036 and I are using, of course.

 

[PaulWales]

Forgive me if I've missed this answer in the previous posts, but isnt the 'problem' with much of the EU that most circuits are double pole fused (linked) and switched. So if it was appropriate to use continental sockets then an RCBO fused circuit (of suitable capacity) with double pole switches would met the requirements of regulation and safety

 

[Paul_C]

Forgive me if I've missed this answer in the previous posts, but isnt the 'problem' with much of the EU that most circuits are double pole fused (linked) and switched.

Welcome to the forum.

It seems to be the norm in France now to use MCB's which open the neutral, but I don't think that's done throughout the Continent, and certainly not in older installations. Single-pole light switches are the norm anyway, and sockets are normally not switched at all.