That (or, indeed, a non-curly cable if that's what is preferred) does, indeed, seem to be the simplest, most obvious and (for me) probably aesthetically best solution - but it appears to have been 'rejected' for some reason.
Kind Regards, John
providing power to a moving kitchen island
- Thread starter opps
- Start date
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
Good grief - if they are talking about a significant risk (rather than just 'backside covering') I would say that it is ample evidence that they are entirely unsuitable for use in any environment. If they really believe that there is a significant risk of what they describe happening with their product, they surely should re-design (or abandon) it - not put a big red warning on it?
However, you do keep coming up with different reasons for these products being 'unsuitable'. each time someone responds to your previous reason - but I do have to wonder why you have saved this one until last (have you perhaps only just discovered it yourself?)!
Kind Regards, John
correct that is what they are specified as, but they don't last long if you do and the plastic wears quickly with repeated matingand eventually can be plugged in upside down.
My experience: Powercon are a much better product than Powercon True1
It's a shame because they are a very nice connector on paper, small, IP rated, rated for disconnect under power, no need for blocks to join cables.
Sounds like the real world didn't match up to the testing under lab conditions
Sounds like the real world didn't match up to the testing under lab conditions
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 42,753
- Reaction score
- 2,636
- Country
Testing should always exceed real world conditions.
FWIW, I would not treat the portable trolley as part of the fixed installation.
I would treat it more like an appliance and PAT test it. It is after all portable, unlike the fixed wiring.
FWIW, I would not treat the portable trolley as part of the fixed installation.
I would treat it more like an appliance and PAT test it. It is after all portable, unlike the fixed wiring.
IMO the whole 'con system has flaws of some sort.It's a shame because they are a very nice connector on paper, small, IP rated, rated for disconnect under power, no need for blocks to join cables.
Sounds like the real world didn't match up to the testing under lab conditions
It's a shame because they are a very nice connector on paper, small, IP rated, rated for disconnect under power, no need for blocks to join cables. Sounds like the real world didn't match up to the testing under lab conditions
It does all sound a bit ridiculous, and somewhat worse that either of you imply. As said, testing should normally exceed real world-conditions (even though the testing requirements of some Standards don't always seem to achieve that - as in the infamous BS1363 temperature rise test). However, if that testing has revealed that, with a credible amount of misuse/force, it is possible to mate these things incorrectly then, as I said before, the product should either have been redesigned or withdrawn - continuing to sell the product with such a deficiency, and simply adding a 'warning' in a big red box, is surely not an appropriate or responsible (or necessarily even legal) way to behave?
'Ridiculous' degrees of misuse/abuse/force of any electreicalproduct can obviously result in dangerous things happening, but one would not really expect testing to go that far, or for the manufacturer to issue a 'big red warning' in relation to something which which could only happen as the result of "ridiculous' degrees of misuse/abuse/force".
Does not the relevant product specification (BS EN 60320 ?) include requirements in relation to the ability to mis-insert/mis-mate the connectors and, if so, does this product meet those requirements, I wonder? IF there are such requirements and IF these products do satisfy them, then maybe the manufacturers have gone OTT with their testing and/or 'warning'? In fact, as I sort-of hinted before, I wonder if it is possible that the warning might be the work of a lawyer, rather than someone with knowledge or any common sense?
As I said before, that would certainly be my view, but flameport appears to believe otherwise.
Kind Regards, John
I suspect the underlying issue is that the people who wrote the relevant standards either never considered the effect of wear/damage to parts used for polarization as a failure mode or they considered them but were unable to distill them down into a standardised test. So the connectors passed the relevant testing (by multiple different test labs in different countries) but then presumably one or more connectors came back from the field with reports of a mis-mating.
At that point the manufacturer has to decide what to do, do they try and change the design to reduce the chances (may not be feasible to do without breaking compatibility)? do they abandon the product line completely? do they do nothing? or do they put out a warning?
At that point the manufacturer has to decide what to do, do they try and change the design to reduce the chances (may not be feasible to do without breaking compatibility)? do they abandon the product line completely? do they do nothing? or do they put out a warning?
Last edited:
Maybe, but the ability of a polarised connection to resist attempts to mate it incorrectly is so fundamental that I would be surprised if tests are not there, The difficulty of predicting what stresses a product might be subjected to does not usually prevent Standards (e.g. BS1363) including all sorts of tests of 'mechanical strength' in the face of potential mis-use/abuse.
As I've said, I would have thought that IF they believe there is a significant risk with anything approaching 'reasonable use' that they would be irresponsible (and maybe not even within the law) to continue selling the product, even with a 'big red warning'. My suspicion remains that the warning represents 'over-caution' and that, in reality, it is probably next-to-impossible to mis-mate the connectors without essentially totally destroying them.
I'm also rather surprised that the problem (if it exists) was allowed to arise, since I would have thought that it would be fairly easy to design a connector which could not be mis-mated without more-or-less totally destroying it.
Kind Regards, John
Valid point, but for that to be the case the unattended urchin would have had to have unplugged the PowerCon connector and then found errant bits of metal sitting around the house.
The same child could equally suck on a kettle lead.
I respect your opinion (I really do) and advice but I am not sure that the possibility of a child uplugging a twist and lock connection, and then inserting a thin metal object is any more of a risk than a child sucking on a laptop figure of 8 cable.
As you will know from what I've written, I essentially agree with you, given that, as I've said, the average household has, and uses (without any great concern being expressed). any number of leads with an unshuttered female connector on the 'downstream' end.
However, as you may or may not know, bernard is extremely 'risk-averse' (which is his prerogative) and so might point out that the child may find the lead with the female end not plugged in (so wouldn't have to remove the 'twist and lock connector), but plugged in at the other end - or might even find the lead with neither end plugged in - but know (or discover) how to plug in the BS1363 end! However, not being bernard, I'm not going to loose any sleep over that 'vanishingly improbable' scenario.
However, having initially tried to make the issue that of the unshuttered connector (which, as above, does not concern me personally), flameport has now obviously brought to our attention another, potentially much more worrying, reason for having doubts about using this connector (for anything!). I still suspect that the 'big red warning' may be an example of 'over-cautiousness' (otherwise a product which, in my opinion, is not "fit for (any) purpose"!) - but who knows?
Kind Regards, John
more accurate would be "risk aware"
"Risk-aware" and "Risk-averse" are two totally different concepts. The former means what it says, and the latter relates to the preparedness of an individual to expose themselves to ('accept') a risk of a perceived magnitude of which they are 'aware'.
One sees the considerable variation in risk-averseness (the corollary of which is 'risk-taking') at both ends of the spectrum. Nearly everyone who climbs mountains, jumps off cliffs or voluntarily (e.g. as a journalist) goes into a war zone are very 'risk-aware' but, nevertheless, if they are pretty 'risk-taking' (i.e. not risk-averse) they still do those things. At the other end, everyone knows that airliners do occasionally crash (and has some notion of how rare that is) and that doesn't stop most people travelling in them, but there are nevertheless a very small number who are so risk-averse that they won't.
Topically, this is seen fairly dramatically with Covid-19. Everyone is 'aware' of there being a risk, and most have at least a rough idea of the level of that risk. However, the degree of 'averseness' to the perceived level of risk varies dramatically - and I see that even within my own circle of 'family and friends', as you probably do as well.
Over the years and decades, there has been a lot of work done in relation to "risk-averseness", with many attempts to estimate/measure it in individuals - perhaps surprisingly, quite a lot of it in relation to the financial industry (concerning attitudes to 'investment risks'). However, everything to do with "risk-averseness" (or the opposite) pre-supposes that the individuals concerned are "risk-aware".
That there is considerable variation between individuals as regards risk is, I suppose, a case of "Viva la difference" - at least, until it becomes very extreme (e.g. the person happy to play 'Russian roulette' or the one unprepared to cross any road).
Kind Regards, John
Sorry flamepoint, I get the impression that that they are suggesting that the plugs have a definitive orientation. Isn't that true of standard 3 pin uk plugs? Can you plug a 3 pin plug upside down? I assume that the plugs have indicators to make it clear which way they should be applied.
That said I have never used them and will accept your advice and delve deeper. Thanks
I think he has rejected it because he doesn't want to leave a cupboard door open to enable the lead/flex to peak out.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
