Fatally Flawed - an E-Petition

[SimonH2]

Because if it's only the latter then you are indeed saying that Manufacturer B should have his product outlawed because it will damage products made by Manufacturer A because A has chosen to add features to it which he was under no compulsion to add.

WRONG, very, very wrong. Or "arse about tit" as some would say.

It is not a case of B having his product banned because A chose to incorporate additional safety features not mandated - though that is a side effect. It is a case of B having his product banned because it does not meet the standard for "things to be plugged into products of the type made by A and many others". If B makes a product which meets the mandatory requirements of the standard, then no it should not (and would not) be banned, but it will also not damage A's product.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

WRONG, very, very wrong. Or "a**e about tit" as some would say.

I absolutely agree - what FatallyFlawed said he wanted was indeed WRONG, very, very wrong.

It is not a case of B having his product banned because A chose to incorporate additional safety features not mandated

Well - that issue is something that FF is refusing to clarify - he's thanked you for your post but he has not answered this:

So do all compliant sockets fall into one of two classes:

a) those which will be either damaged or put into an unpredictable state by that device

or

b) those which will not

?

And is the only determining factor which of the two methods prescribed by BS 1363 the maker has chosen to implement?

And he has not answered this:

So what about devices which are actually supposed to facilitate access to live parts?

The latter, of course, is quite important if you're looking to extend the standard for plugs to cover socket openers, because they are designed and sold to do something which the standard forbids plugs from doing.

- though that is a side effect. It is a case of B having his product banned because it does not meet the standard for "things to be plugged into products of the type made by A and many others". If B makes a product which meets the mandatory requirements of the standard, then no it should not (and would not) be banned, but it will also not damage A's product.

FF's original comment on this was that the product should be banned because it would damage some sockets.

He's still not clarified whether the only determining factor is which of the two methods prescribed by BS 1363 the maker has chosen to implement.

 

[SimonH2]

BAS, you are being your usual argumentative prat.

No-one is seeking to ban anything because it's designed to damage a specific device. The ban being sought is on devices which do not meet the dimensional requirements of a standard - requirements which are there so that any socket designed to the standard will not be damaged by any other device designed to the standards.

If someone sells a shutter opener that complies with the dimensional requirements, then it won't damage any compliant socket and the question you keep bashing on about is moot. As it is, and bear in mind I'm not familiar with the device so have to go on what others have written, this device appears to ignore those dimensional standards and that alone is the reason it may damage an arbitrary number of sockets. Whether the sockets have gone beyond what the standards require is irrelevant - the only reason these sockets (which you seem to be claiming are the problem) would be damaged is if the device didn't comply with the dimensional requirements of the standard.


You'd be pretty miffed if you car was wrecked because some fuel manufacturer decided not to bother complying with the standard for a road fuel. You'd be even more miffed if they then turned round as claimed it was <car manufacturers fault> for not working properly with vastly out of spec fuel.
AFACT, what you are arguing for is that the car manufacturer should be at fault for not designing their engines to run on any old s**t the user throws in. Of course, if you do want something that runs on almost anything, you could buy one of these

 

[stillp]

The approval houses (BSI, ASTA etc) could be left to determine the dimensional, mechanical strength, creepage and insulation parts of the spec against which they would approve the item. This is not so different from the current practice of the approval houses developing variations of BS 1363 to allow the introduction of the ThinPlug and the SlimPlug.

BS 1363 is developed by a committee at BSI, following a democratic process that includes a public consultation. Test houses cannot "develop variations".

Not so. ASTA are one of the "Notified Bodies" able to approve plugs under the plugs and sockets regulations. They also develop ASTA standards where no appropriate standard exists. ASTA were responsible for the original standard for plastic ISODs, later incorporated into BS 1363, and more recently developed standards (based on BS 1363) which have allowed them to grant approvals to the ThinPlug and the SlimPlug folding plugs, both of which are approved under the plugs and sockets regulations, despite not conforming to the conventional BS 1363-1 standard. See http://www.intertek.com/marks/asta/standards/[/QUOTE]
ASTA/Intertek can develop any test specification they like, although those specifications would not meet the usual definition of a standard. However you were claiming that such ASTA documents are variations to BS 1363, which is not true and was the statement to which I objected. They are simply documents which are different to BS 1363.
ASTA and other Notified Bodies are permitted to approve plugs that do not conform to BS 1363 under regulation 8. 3) of the regulations.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

And he (FatallyFlawed) has not answered this:

So what about devices which are actually supposed to facilitate access to live parts?

I was a bit puzzled when I saw Simon's post above, and then realised that none of ban-all-sheds posts were showing for me, I have now undone the completely unintentional "ignore" that had become set!

Simon has given a very good answer, so I will just add a couple of thoughts.

Firstly, I presume that the socket opener is intended only for the use of qualified people, but in that case it appears to be completely unnecessary. Surely, if you need access for measurement at a socket which has L/N operated shutters, then the Kewtech R2 or the Kewtech KAMP12, Megger SIA10 or Martindale MARTL207 etc are the proper tools? I am presuming that they all comply with BS 1363 dimensions.

If you just want to open earth operated shutters then why would you buy a piece of plastic rather than use an old earth pin from a plug (they are often unfixed)? You could say that the bright orange of the gadget makes it obvious that it is in place, but you could easily fix a nice bright tag to the hole in the earth pin, makes it easy to find in the tool box as well!

 

[stillp]

I'd like to make it clear that I support the aims of Fatally Flawed, although I find some of their arguments unhelpful.
My position is not only that of an egineer, who hates to see 'things' being abused, such as socket-outlets being forced to accept something for which they were not designed, but in addition I have some direct experience of a hazardous situation being created by the use of these socket covers. That came about because as we know, small children are great mimics. Having watched my daughter unplug the vacuum cleaner and fit a socket cover, my grandchild decided it must be adult behaviour and therefore a Good Thing to insert bits of plastic into socket-outlets, and on several occasions removed the socket covers and replaced them with various items out of the toy box. These covers are difficult for an adult to remove, but the toddler's lower centre of gravity means they can remove them without too much difficulty.
Said grandchild was cured of this dangerous habit by a move to Australia, where all the socket-outlets were at a greater height.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

The approval houses (BSI, ASTA etc) could be left to determine the dimensional, mechanical strength, creepage and insulation parts of the spec against which they would approve the item. This is not so different from the current practice of the approval houses developing variations of BS 1363 to allow the introduction of the ThinPlug and the SlimPlug.

ASTA/Intertek can develop any test specification they like, although those specifications would not meet the usual definition of a standard. However you were claiming that such ASTA documents are variations to BS 1363, which is not true and was the statement to which I objected. They are simply documents which are different to BS 1363.
ASTA and other Notified Bodies are permitted to approve plugs that do not conform to BS 1363 under regulation 8. 3) of the regulations.

I do not want to get bogged down in this, it was intended just as an example of what can be done prior to a specific part of BS 1363 being developed. However, I should point out that the two products used in the example are approved to ASTA standards which are BASED on BS 1363, so I do not think use of the word VARIATION is inappropriate. Also, the two products mentioned are marked with the ASTA approval mark and ASTA reference, the ASTA standard number, and BS 1363, so the implied suggestion that they are not approved to BS 1363 is incorrect.

I'd like to make it clear that I support the aims of Fatally Flawed, although I find some of their arguments unhelpful.
My position is not only that of an egineer, who hates to see 'things' being abused, such as socket-outlets being forced to accept something for which they were not designed, but in addition I have some direct experience of a hazardous situation being created by the use of these socket covers. That came about because as we know, small children are great mimics. Having watched my daughter unplug the vacuum cleaner and fit a socket cover, my grandchild decided it must be adult behaviour and therefore a Good Thing to insert bits of plastic into socket-outlets, and on several occasions removed the socket covers and replaced them with various items out of the toy box. These covers are difficult for an adult to remove, but the toddler's lower centre of gravity means they can remove them without too much difficulty.
Said grandchild was cured of this dangerous habit by a move to Australia, where all the socket-outlets were at a greater height.

You make a very good point. It is quite common for parents to report that their small children find socket covers easier to remove than they do themselves. As well as being at a very convenient height for a child to see the best way of getting a purchase (there is often a gap between lower edge of cover and socket faceplate, invisible from an adult's viewpoint), we should remember that many educational toys for small children are based on the idea of fitting various plastic shapes into different holes, sounds familiar?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS, you are being your usual argumentative prat.

I am neither that usually, nor here in this topic.

No-one is seeking to ban anything because it's designed to damage a specific device. The ban being sought is on devices which do not meet the dimensional requirements of a standard - requirements which are there so that any socket designed to the standard will not be damaged by any other device designed to the standards.

IF it is the case that that device will, or is likely to, damage all sockets which use one of the standard methods of shutter control then of course it should be withdrawn from sale.

But we don't need new legislation to cover that. And it is still not clear that it is the case.

IF, on the other hand it only damages, or is likely to damage some sockets, because of the way the manufacturer has chosen to make them, then it would be monstrous to force another manufacturer to stop making a product which is absolutely fine to use on the majority of sockets. It's only supposed to be used by skilled or instructed persons, so a warning about socket incompatibility would suffice.

If someone sells a shutter opener that complies with the dimensional requirements, then it won't damage any compliant socket and the question you keep bashing on about is moot.

No, because that device won't work if it has standard sized pins.

As it is, and bear in mind I'm not familiar with the device so have to go on what others have written, this device appears to ignore those dimensional standards and that alone is the reason it may damage an arbitrary number of sockets.

We don't know whether it will damage an arbitrary number of sockets, or why.

Whether the sockets have gone beyond what the standards require is irrelevant - the only reason these sockets (which you seem to be claiming are the problem) would be damaged is if the device didn't comply with the dimensional requirements of the standard.

WRONG, very, very wrong.

The standard does not apply to that device.

Nobody is doing anything wrong in making, selling, or using that device.

IF it damages sockets which implement a particular BS 1363 provision then that is one thing, but if it only damages some sockets because of something the manufacturer chose to do which he was not obliged to do then, as I said, it would be monstrous to force another product off the market.

The general situation of:

1. Manufacturer A chooses to make a product with proprietary features which were entirely of his choosing, and not required by law or even identified as options in a standard he's obliged to comply.
   
2. Said features mean that his product is damaged by the use of a perfectly lawful product from Manufacturer B, which complies with all of the standard it is required to, and which does not damage other products similar to A's.
   
3. Manufacturer B's product is therefore made illegal.

would be utterly unacceptable. It would mean that at any time any manufacturer could face the prospect of a lawful, standards compliant product of his being banned because another manufacturer decided to make something in a way which made it liable to be damaged by the product.

You'd be pretty miffed if you car was wrecked because some fuel manufacturer decided not to bother complying with the standard for a road fuel. You'd be even more miffed if they then turned round as claimed it was <car manufacturers fault> for not working properly with vastly out of spec fuel.
AFACT, what you are arguing for is that the car manufacturer should be at fault for not designing their engines to run on any old s**t the user throws in. Of course, if you do want something that runs on almost anything, you could buy one of these

WRONG, very, very wrong. Or "a**e about tit" as some would say.

You are still not grasping the point that there are no standards breaches going on here.

The analogy would be a car maker deciding to make an engine which would not run on widely available fuel, fuel which did not damage engines made by other car makers, fuel which did comply with all the applicable standards, and then you, rather than wanting people to be warned not to use that fuel, seeking to have the fuel banned.

FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M60#The_Nikasil_problem

 

[JohnW2]

I do not want to get bogged down in this, it was intended just as an example of what can be done prior to a specific part of BS 1363 being developed. However, I should point out that the two products used in the example are approved to ASTA standards which are BASED on BS 1363, so I do not think use of the word VARIATION is inappropriate. Also, the two products mentioned are marked with the ASTA approval mark and ASTA reference, the ASTA standard number, and BS 1363, so the implied suggestion that they are not approved to BS 1363 is incorrect.

Can you help me understand that? If the products are fuly compliant with BS 1363 (which presumably is {or should be} the case if they bear a BS 1363 marking), why was it necessary for ASTA to develop a 'standard' which was a 'variation based on BS 1363'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

completely unintentional "ignore" that had become set!

Sorry, then, for moaning that you hadn't answered me.

Firstly, I presume that the socket opener is intended only for the use of qualified people, but in that case it appears to be completely unnecessary. Surely, if you need access for measurement at a socket which has L/N operated shutters, then the Kewtech R2 or the Kewtech KAMP12, Megger SIA10 or Martindale MARTL207 etc are the proper tools? I am presuming that they all comply with BS 1363 dimensions.

I'm sure all those tools are better, but being cheaper and inferior to other tools on the market is not a sound reason for banning something.

It boils down, as I said to this: will it damage any socket which implements one of the options required by the standard, or will it only damage sockets where the maker has chosen to do something outside of the standards?

If the latter then no matter how laudable that maker's choice was, no, you must not ban the device.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Can you help me understand that? If the products are fuly compliant with BS 1363 (which presumably is {or should be} the case if they bear a BS 1363 marking), why was it necessary for ASTA to develop a 'standard' which was a 'variation based on BS 1363'?

http://www.intertek.com/marks/asta/diamond/

 

[stillp]

Interesting link BAS, but seems to conflict with the Regulations:
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) above, a type of standard plug may be approved by a notified body where plugs of that type do not conform to BS 1363 if when determining an application for approval the notified body is satisfied–

(a)that– .
(i)the plugs are constructed using an alternative method of construction which provides an equivalent level of safety in respect of any risk of death or personal injury to plugs which conform to BS 1363 and is such that plugs of that type may reasonably be expected to be safe in use; and .
(ii)except in respect of the matter for which alternative provision is made, plugs of that type conform to BS 1363; and .
(iii)by means of inspection or testing of samples of plugs of that type, that the manufacturer of the plug may reasonably be expected to ensure that normal production and design of the plug will result in plugs of that type corresponding with the samples; or .
(b)where sub–paragraph (a) of this paragraph does not apply, following inspection or testing of samples of the plug, that such plugs may reasonably be expected to be safe in use and is further satisfied, by inspection or testing of samples, that the manufacturer of the plug may reasonably be expected to ensure that normal production and design of the plug will result in plugs of that type corresponding with the samples.

 

[SimonH2]

Said grandchild was cured of this dangerous habit by a move to Australia, where all the socket-outlets were at a greater height.

Transportation is a bit drastic isn't it

No, because that device won't work if it has standard sized pins.

Really ? As I say, it's not a device I'm familiar with - but from the picture and comments it would appear to be a device designed to open the shutters and allow probes to be inserted. I see no reason why a device of that type cannot be made to conform to the dimensional requirements of BS1363, other than requiring holes in the sides of the pins to allow access to the contacts. Or put another way, one could be designed such that it would not damage ANY socket correctly designed to take BS1363 plugs.

As long as we're arguing that it's the socket manufacturers fault if something that doesn't even attempt to comply with the dimensional requirements of BS1363, then I'm off to try opening the shutters of a socket with one of these and then see if the socket manufacturer takes any responsibility.

According to you, one of these should be just fine, and if it damages a socket then it's the socket manufacturers fault.

The analogy would be a car maker deciding to make an engine which would not run on widely available fuel, fuel which did not damage engines made by other car makers, fuel which did comply with all the applicable standards, and then you, rather than wanting people to be warned not to use that fuel, seeking to have the fuel banned.

FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M60#The_Nikasil_problem[/QUOTE]
No, in that case, the fuel being used by users IS to standard and the engine was not suitable for use with it - and you'll note that BMW accepted it was their problem. It's a crap analogy because in this case the fuel wasn't something cooked up by some manufacturer and which did not comply with the standard to which the engine was intended to comply. It would be analogous to a socket manufacturer making a socket that could be broken by plugging in a completely BS1363 compliant plug.

In the case of the device you are attempting to defend, it is the equivalent of the fuel being wrong - ie arse about tit again.


There is a saying that when you are in a hole, stop digging. On the other hand, if you keep digging, you'll soon be out of sight and we can ignore you

 

[JohnW2]

Can you help me understand that? If the products are fuly compliant with BS 1363 (which presumably is {or should be} the case if they bear a BS 1363 marking), why was it necessary for ASTA to develop a 'standard' which was a 'variation based on BS 1363'?

http://www.intertek.com/marks/asta/diamond/

I think I still need further help. That link indicates that:

The ASTA Diamond Mark fulfils the mandatory requirements for the approval of 3-pin plugs to BS1363

I read that as meaning that the ASTA marking confirms compliance with BS 1363. However, that is not what we are being told - namely that, for some products, ASTA certifies products per some 'variation based on BS 1363' they have developed, the implication of that surely being that the product would not be fully compliant with BS 1363 itself?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

It boils down, as I said to this: will it damage any socket which implements one of the options required by the standard, or will it only damage sockets where the maker has chosen to do something outside of the standards?

It is very difficult to answer a question which actually does not reflect the real situation. I would refer you back to what I said earlier about how BS 1363 works, by specifying the shape and size of the plug, and requiring the socket to work correctly with a set of guages which ensure that it will work with real plugs.

No assumptions can be made about what will happen when you attempt to insert something which does not conform to the plug standard. This is at the heart of the issue as far as socket covers, chargers, air fresheners etc etc are concerned, you must assume that it is unsafe to insert anything into a socket unless it is right size for which the socket was designed!

How would you stop these being made illegal:

Or would you not want to?

I have now got one of those so that I can give a better opinion.
The dimensions of its plastic "earth pin" are 16.4mm x 7.6mm 3.8mm.
Compare this with the minimum dimensions of a BS 1363 earth pin: 22.23mm x 7.8mm x 3.9mm. The skeletal L/N pins exceed the maximum thickness allowed by the standard, as well as being only a small fraction of the width (for obvious reasons). It is imediately obvious that it is a piece of junk.

It will not open the shutters of a Legrand socket which requires all three pins (at least, not with the force I am prepared to apply). It will partially open the shutters of an MK socket which requires all three pins, which is clearly unsatisfactory. I do not have a Hagar that I can try.

Because of the incorrect dimensions of the "earth pin" you could also not be sure that it would open all earth operated shutters.