Ring extension load

[JohnW2]

What I asked for were examples where a minimum requirement meant that exceeding that minimum was prohibited.

Fair enough - and that is obviously not ever going to happen. If it were prohibited to be below the minimum, and also prohibited to be above the minimum, only 'performance' which was exactly equal to that 'minimum' would be acceptable - and, given issues of precision and tolerances etc., that would virtually never be achieved.

In any event, and I'm sure your basic point, "minimum" has a very well accepted meaning which, in the absence of an accompanying "maximum" does not indicate any upper bound.

In the context of this discussion, the real problem is that if a manufacturer did produce a double socket which exceeded the minimum specification required by BS1363, one would essentially have to take the manufacturer's word for the performance of their product, since they would not be able to cite any Standard whose tests (for this 'enhanced performance') had been satisfied by the product!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

In the context of this discussion, the real problem is that if a manufacturer did produce a double socket which exceeded the minimum specification required by BS1363, one would essentially have to take the manufacturer's word for the performance of their product, since they would not be able to cite any Standard whose tests (for this 'enhanced performance') had been satisfied by the product!

The problem is that it is possible to pass the tests without meeting the requirements of the standard.

 

[JohnW2]

The problem is that it is possible to pass the tests without meeting the requirements of the standard.

I think a bit of further explanation might help me to understand that! - or are you perhaps just thinking of requirements other than 'tests' (i.e. relating to materials, dimensions etc.), which have to be satisfied as well as 'passing tests'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Tell you what, I'll take the time to find such if you'll first take the time to provide a legal citation that not providing 30mA RCD protection on a new socket is illegal.

If you claim that a document says something then the idea is that you have to show where it says it, not that those who claim that it does not say it have to show where it does not say it.

Can someone explain the difference to me?

Thank you. Just what I was thinking when I read that second quote.

 

[stillp]

The problem is that it is possible to pass the tests without meeting the requirements of the standard.

I think a bit of further explanation might help me to understand that! - or are you perhaps just thinking of requirements other than 'tests' (i.e. relating to materials, dimensions etc.), which have to be satisfied as well as 'passing tests'?

Kind Regards, John[/QUOTE]
The standard contains a number of provisions for construction and performance. It is possible for a product to pass the tests without meeting all those provisions.

 

[JohnW2]

The standard contains a number of provisions for construction and performance. It is possible for a product to pass the tests without meeting all those provisions.

Fair enough - and I think that's roughly what I suggested ("...are you perhaps thinking of ..."). However, we have been talking essentially about the temperature rise test, the assumption being that the product satisfies all other requirements of the Standard.

My point remains that if a manufacturer produced a double socket which exceeded the minimum performance (in the temperature rise test) required by BS1363, such that, for example, it could 'safely' tolerate 2 x 13A loads indefinitely, one would really have to take the manufacturer's word for that, since they would not be able to cite a test in a Standard that has been 'passed' to support their claim.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

They never have to cite a test. They only claim conformity with the standard. If they made a product that had passed testing at some greater load than the temperature rise test specifies, they could say so, but probably wouldn't want to.

 

[PBC_1966]

If they made a product that had passed testing at some greater load than the temperature rise test specifies, they could say so, but probably wouldn't want to.

I would have thought that being able to claim being better than the BS1363 standard requires would be a selling point they would want to emphasize.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Do you really think that anybody here, at all, agrees with your attitude?

Yes - I think that the rational, the unbiased, the intelligent and the mature do.

I realise that there are people here to whom none of those labels can be applied.

To which group do you wish to claim allegiance?

 

[JohnD]

I belong to the set of people who like to see evidence to support assertions.

Or, as you might put it "If you claim that a document says something then the idea is that you have to show where it says it, not that those who claim that it does not say it have to show where it does not say it."

I am sure that on some occasions you share my view.

 

[stillp]

That would give them a very high share of the market among people who wanted to use continuous high loads. Might not be a good idea - would depend on their confidence that 100% of production could withstand whatever the increased rating was, and their willingness to argue with customers who had experienced failures resulting from exceeding the rating. It's not always good marketing to exceed the norm.

 

[JohnW2]

They never have to cite a test. They only claim conformity with the standard.

You seem to be missing the point. If they were wishing to claim nothing more than conformity with an existing Standard then, as you say, they would not need to mention any specific tests, since compliance with the Standard implies compliance with any/all tests required by that Standard.

However, if they deliberately develop a product which goes beyond the requirements of the existing Standard, and wished to make a claim relating to that ("in excess of required by Standard") performance, then they would need to be able to cite some evidence to support that claim. I suppose that could essentially use the same test as specified in BS1363, but with different test conditions, created by themselves - but there would then be no 'official' specification of what constituted a 'pass' in that modified test.

If they made a product that had passed testing at some greater load than the temperature rise test specifies, they could say so, but probably wouldn't want to.

As PBC has said, I think they would want to shout it from hilltops - but they would need some supportive evidence if they were going to do that. Countless products are marketed on the basis that they are better/safer/purer/more effective/whatever than is required as a minimum by legislation/regulations/Standards/whatever.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What I asked for were examples where a minimum requirement meant that exceeding that minimum was prohibited.

Fair enough - and that is obviously not ever going to happen.

Any chance that you could explain that to Risteard, Mr Rupert and PBC_1966 in a simple enough way for them to be able to understand it?

In any event, and I'm sure your basic point, "minimum" has a very well accepted meaning which, in the absence of an accompanying "maximum" does not indicate any upper bound.

Well I think so.

But there are a number of people here who seem determined to argue against that concept.

Maybe they genuinely do not understand that a standard requiring a minimum does not mean that it is forbidding exceeding that minimum.

Or maybe they do, but they have decided that their images, and the interests of this forum, are best served by them asserting things which they don't actually believe but which allow them to indulge their pathetic and petty urges.

In the context of this discussion, the real problem is that if a manufacturer did produce a double socket which exceeded the minimum specification required by BS1363, one would essentially have to take the manufacturer's word for the performance of their product, since they would not be able to cite any Standard whose tests (for this 'enhanced performance') had been satisfied by the product!

Oh dear.

Where would we be if we had to rely on the word of reputable manufacturers that their products performed as they claimed.

 

[JohnW2]

Might not be a good idea - would depend on their confidence that 100% of production could withstand whatever the increased rating was, and their willingness to argue with customers who had experienced failures resulting from exceeding the rating. It's not always good marketing to exceed the norm.

I essentially agree with you - but that's why I said that the problem would be that there would be no relevant/ 'supportive' Standard with which they could comply, and which compliance they could claim. If there were a Standard for double sockets designed to be able to carry 2 x 13A loads indefinitely, then citing compliance with that Standard (with whatever tests it included) would go a long way to allaying the manufacturer's concerns you mention above.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Where would we be if we had to rely on the word of reputable manufacturers that their products performed as they claimed.

If 'we' were happy to rely on that, we would not need to have Standards with which reputable manufacturers had to comply, and indicate compliance.

A problem is that someone has to decide what results in what tests, performed under what conditions, are adequate to support a particular claim. If that decision is made by some sort of official or quasi-official independent body (e.g. specified in a Standard), then people will be more comfortable than if each manufacturer makes their own (possibly differing) decisions.

Kind Regards, John