Fatally Flawed - an E-Petition

[ban-all-sheds]

I understand fully the question you are asking, and it's been answered several times.

No it hasn't.

It's been replied to, but never answered.


Here is where I first asked the question:

Will it damage any and all sockets because of its characteristics, i.e. even those which have no shutter features beyond the bare minimum required by BS 1363, or will it only damage sockets which have extra features not mandated by BS 1363?

Here's a response:

The standard requires that when a plug is withdrawn from a socket that the contacts are automatically screened by shutters. The standard permits two methods of achieving this, neither is defined as an "extra feature" or "the bare minimum". Your assumptions are completely unfounded.

It does not say whether or not some manufacturers have got other features in their sockets which are additional to, or over and above, or whatever you want to call it, what the standard requires.


Yes, OK, the standard permits two methods of achieving shuttering.

Let's call them A & B.

Is it the case that "A" type sockets won't be damaged by this device, but "B" type ones will?


I tried again:

The standard requires that when a plug is withdrawn from a socket that the contacts are automatically screened by shutters. The standard permits two methods of achieving this, neither is defined as an "extra feature" or "the bare minimum". Your assumptions are completely unfounded.

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?

When I realised that FF hadn't seen my posts, I tried again:

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?

I got a reply:

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.

It did not answer my question about whether that socket opener will 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.


I then asked you this:

Are you, or anybody, ever going to address the question of does it damage sockets because they have features required by BS 1363, or does it damage them because they have features not required by BS 1363 which the maker just decided to add?

But all I got from you was:

As you are fond of telling others, you've already had an answer to that - but you just don't want to accept it and are frantically running around to find straw men to support your position. You're like the kid running around with his fingers in his ears shouting "la, la, la, I can't hear you".

which as you can see is untrue, nowhere is there an answer to that question.


I tried again with FF, and in passing with you:

I will ask again, and I'll keep on asking it until the penny drops for you and Simon.

Is that because Legrand have chosen to adopt a particular method of shutter protection prescribed by BS 1363, or is it because Legrand have chosen to do something in excess of what the standard specifies?

But all I got from you was a repeat of the false assertion that that question has been answered several times.

Don't blame others because don't like the answer.

I've not had an answer to like or dislike.

The question is a non-sequiteur designed to deflect the discussion in a direction you want to manipulate it - classic technique.

It's not a non-sequitur, it is very important and utterly relevant to whether something should be banned.

And I am not trying to manipulate the discussion or deflect it in any way.

The proposal is to outlaw devices that don't meet certain parts of BS1363 - specifically the dimensional elements. The device you are defending does not meet those standards. Therefore it would be outlawed.

But you can't explain why.

I'm afraid that saying "If it complied it would not damage sockets" is not the same as "If it does not comply it will damage them".

Beware the lure of the false converse.


And also, as I said earlier, and as Bernard said way back on p2, if something is on sale which is unsafe or damaging when used as directed then we already have legislation which can deal with that.

You are quite fond of criticising people who don't have the right tools for the job, and for this device it's been pointed out that it's not the right tool for the job.

Indeed not, but that cannot be used as a justification for banning it.

 

[JohnW2]

Many of you will have heard of the www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/ campaign. We have now taken things a step further with a parliamentary E-petition.Please take the time to read and sign http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/36699[/QUOTE]I think the expected reaction was probably "Yes, of course". Phew!

I'm sure it was ... and had I received an answer to my question back on page one which gave me some confidence that the petition would stand a reasonable chance of achieving what it presumably was intended to achieve then my response/reaction would, indeed, have been something like that.

At least as far as I am concerned, my support does not depend only upon how well-intentioned something is, but also on the means being proposed for achieving that something.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Why has one post been removed and its following reply deleted?

I tried what was suggested in the removed post and it was indeed correct.

I'm still interested. Anyone know the answer?

Can you give a clue as to what either said?

It said that the same undesirable outcome could be achieved with a standard plug, namely opening the live shutter by inserting the earth pin with the plug upside-down.

It is true.

That post completely disappeared and the following reply asking if that was true was deleted, obviously because it then referred to nothing.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

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'? John

I am familiar with both of the folding plugs mentioned, I use both. I will not pretend that I know what is in the two ASTA standards (A.S. 153 and A.S. 158) as I have not seen them. Neither have I attempted to analyse BS 1363-1 to work out what the exceptions are.

For anyone unfamiliar with the products, SlimPlug looks like a conventional plug, except that the pins are all hinged and fold down to lie within the body when the plug is not in use. It is not a moulded plug, but neither is it re-wireable, it uses asymmetric screws to hold the cover and these can not be removed. It is only permitted to be supplied complete with flex and an IEC 60320 C7 2 pole appliance connector. Despite having a brass earth pin ASTA would not permit it to be sold with an IEC 60320 C5 3 pole appliance connector because it would be possible to insert it in certain sockets (those which use L/N only operated shutters). I mention this because it demonstrates that ASTA is very much driven by safety.
See http://www.slimplug.com/FAQs/FAQS.html

ThinPlug looks very unlike a conventional plug. Although folding, it has the advantage that there are no moving parts which carry current. It does not have a brass earth pin and is also only permitted to be supplied complete with flex and an IEC 60320 C7 2 pole appliance connector. The designer took great care to ensure safety and created a product which meets both the essentials and the spirit of BS 1363, within the limited parameters for which it is intended. The limitations of approval ensure that it cannot be sold in a form which would be unsafe.
See: http://www.thinplug.com/

Getting back to the question, stillp has referenced the relevant part of the regulations.

 

[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'? John

I am familiar with both of the folding plugs mentioned, I use both. I will not pretend that I know what is in the two ASTA standards (A.S. 153 and A.S. 158) as I have not seen them. Neither have I attempted to analyse BS 1363-1 to work out what the exceptions are. .... Getting back to the question, stillp has referenced the relevant part of the regulations.

From what I've seen, I'm not at all sure that there are any 'exceptions' involved. The sentence I quoted from the ASTA website seems to indicate that ASTA certification/marking confirms compliance with BS 1363, and the regulations quoted by stillp seem to be consistent with that. You say the items bear BS 1363 markings - which again surely requires that they are compliant with BS 1363 (without modification/ variation). A common sense interpretation of all that is that, by whatever criteria, these items are BS 1363-compliant, in which case all this talk about 'variations based on BS 1363' developed by ASTA could well be a total red herring.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[bernardgreen]

As I recall there was concern about wear in the hinge across which load current had to flow. Wear that would increase contact resistance. Did the manufacturer provide data on how many times the plug could be folded and un-folded before wear became excessive ?

 

[JohnW2]

As I recall there was concern about wear in the hinge across which load current had to flow. Wear that would increase contact resistance. Did the manufacturer provide data on how many times the plug could be folded and un-folded before wear became excessive ?

Although this presumably only applies to the ThinPlug (not SlimPlug) ...

ThinPlug looks very unlike a conventional plug. Although folding, it has the advantage that there are no moving parts which carry current.

Kind Regards, John

 

[FatallyFlawed]

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'? John

I am familiar with both of the folding plugs mentioned, I use both. I will not pretend that I know what is in the two ASTA standards (A.S. 153 and A.S. 158) as I have not seen them. Neither have I attempted to analyse BS 1363-1 to work out what the exceptions are. .... Getting back to the question, stillp has referenced the relevant part of the regulations.

From what I've seen, I'm not at all sure that there are any 'exceptions' involved. The sentence I quoted from the ASTA website seems to indicate that ASTA certification/marking confirms compliance with BS 1363, and the regulations quoted by stillp seem to be consistent with that. You say the items bear BS 1363 markings - which again surely requires that they are compliant with BS 1363 (without modification/ variation). A common sense interpretation of all that is that, by whatever criteria, these items are BS 1363-compliant, in which case all this talk about 'variations based on BS 1363' developed by ASTA could well be a total red herring.

Kind Regards, John.

Wow, what a Doubting Thomas you are! Do you seriously believe that ASTA would have needed to create the two standards referred to (A.S. 153 and A.S. 158) if the plugs conformed to BS 1363-1 as it stands?

Taking ThinPlug as an example, the licence number is 987 and the full licence details can be found at http://www.astabeab.com/buyers-detail.asp?id=44541 where you will see that the relevant standards are "BS 1363-1: 1995 incorporating Amendment Nos. 1, 2 & 3 ASTA Standard 158"

Of course there are differences! Here is a fairly obvious one for you as an example, BS 1363-1 requires that "19.1 The entry of the flexible cord shall be between the current-carrying pins at the side of the plug opposite the earth pin." One look at ThinPlug will show you that it does not, and cannot, conform to that.

In an interview the designer of ThinPlug said: "Indeed there had to be a few modifications made to BS1363 to ensure that the new plug had equivalent safety. This in my view is the project’s main achievement, since British Standards have remained more or less the same for many years and we now have a new supplemental standard published for ThinPlug”
You can read the interview at: http://laskysezine.com/2010/04/thin-plug/

 

[JohnW2]

.... BS 1363-1 requires that "19.1 The entry of the flexible cord shall be between the current-carrying pins at the side of the plug opposite the earth pin." One look at ThinPlug will show you that it does not, and cannot, conform to that.

That's what I thought, so I'm really getting confused. I think I must have misunderstood you, because I thought you said it bore a BS 1363 marking - which surely is not allowed on a product which does not comply with that standard?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

"BS 1363-1: 1995 incorporating Amendment Nos. 1, 2 & 3 ASTA Standard 158"

I'm still very confused - are the BSI party to, and/or happy with, that?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

"BS 1363-1: 1995 incorporating Amendment Nos. 1, 2 & 3 ASTA Standard 158"

I'm still very confused - are the BSI party to, and/or happy with, that?

I have no idea, but as the particular product is certified by ASTA and not BSI, it is actually none of BSI's business.

 

[JohnW2]

"BS 1363-1: 1995 incorporating Amendment Nos. 1, 2 & 3 ASTA Standard 158"

I'm still very confused - are the BSI party to, and/or happy with, that?

I have no idea, but as the particular product is certified by ASTA and not BSI, it is actually none of BSI's business.

I have to say that, if I were the BSI, I would consider it to be a lot of my business. In my apparent innocence, I would have assumed that "BS 1363-1 1995 incorporating Amendment Nos ...." was the doing of the BSI, and I seriously doubt that I am alone in that.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

"BS 1363-1: 1995 incorporating Amendment Nos. 1, 2 & 3 ASTA Standard 158"

I'm still very confused - are the BSI party to, and/or happy with, that?

I have no idea, but as the particular product is certified by ASTA and not BSI, it is actually none of BSI's business.

I have to say that, if I were the BSI, I would consider it to be a lot of my business. In my apparent innocence, I would have assumed that "BS 1363-1 1995 incorporating Amendment Nos ...." was the doing of the BSI, and I seriously doubt that I am alone in that.

Kind Regards, John.

Of course the content of "BS 1363-1 1995 incorporating Amendment Nos ...." is the business of that part of BSI which is responsible for the standards themselves, but they have no responsibility for monitoring conformance. Very few standards have any legal standing at all (unless they are referenced in a contract).

It is the plugs and sockets regulations (which refer to BS 1363) which we are concerned with here. ASTA are one of the bodies with authority to grant approval, and an ASTA approval has nothing to do with BSI, just as an approval from that part of BSI which provides Assessment & Certification services has nothing to do with ASTA. They are competing businesses.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

It did not answer my question about whether that socket opener will 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.

The problem is, that is a really daft question! I have tried several times to explain to you how the standard works, but you simply ignore that and repeat a question which has no relevance and to which there is no meaningful answer.

The reason why compliance with the standard is vital is that it is the only way of ensuring that all plugs work with all sockets. There are many many diferent plug designs, and many many different sockets, compliance is what ensures "interoperability".

What can be said is that something which complies with the dimensional requirements of BS 1363-1 will not damage a socket which complies with BS 1363-2. (Providing, of course, that it also complies with "12.9.1 All exposed surfaces of plug pins shall be smooth and free from burrs or sharp edges and other irregularities which could cause damage or excessive wear to corresponding socket contacts or shutters."

However, it is simply impossible to make any statement about lack of damage when a non-compliant object is inserted into a socket which complies with BS 1363-2. The only way to find out that a dimensionally non-compliant object will not cause damage to any compliant socket is to test the non-compliant object in a sample of every different compliant socket which has ever been made! How many of those are there since 1947? I do not know, but I believe that it is certain that a complete collection available for such testing does not exist.

Also, yet again, let me remind you that none of the methods used for opening shutters are "outside of the standards".

That is why "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?" is a completely meaningless and unhelpful question which has no sensible answer.

 

[JohnW2]

I have no idea, but as the particular product is certified by ASTA and not BSI, it is actually none of BSI's business.

I have to say that, if I were the BSI, I would consider it to be a lot of my business. In my apparent innocence, I would have assumed that "BS 1363-1 1995 incorporating Amendment Nos ...." was the doing of the BSI, and I seriously doubt that I am alone in that.

Of course the content of "BS 1363-1 1995 incorporating Amendment Nos ...." is the business of that part of BSI which is responsible for the standards themselves ....

Exactly my point. Thank you for agreeing.
,

... but they have no responsibility for monitoring conformance.

Agreed - and I never said that they did.

Very few standards have any legal standing at all (unless they are referenced in a contract).

We obviously all know that - since that's the reason why legislation (such as that which the petition wishes to be extended) has to exist - to legally enforce compliance with a Standard.

... but you still have not responded to my other recent comment/question. Was I right in understanding you to say that these ThinPlugs (which, as you say, cannot possibly comply with BS 1363) bear a BS 1363 marking? - or did I dream that, or misunderstand you?

Kind Regards, John