Furthermore, the unskilled persons operating this system will make assumptions (quite reasonably) that they can plug 2 x 13A appliances into one double socket.
Thus I conclude the Standard is flawed if you cannot.
That is a good point secure - many people would consider it 'normal' to plug say two 3kw heaters into a twin 13A socket-outlet, so it is foreseeable.
I would agree that the Standard is flawed, since either twin 13A socket-outlets shall be able to perform satisfactorily at 13A + 13A for some period of time, in which case that could be clarified, or they need not be able to carry 13A in both outlets concurrently for any period, in which case that too should be a specific statement, perhaps accompanied by a specification of what current/time relationship is mandatory.
Good question. My answer would be that, as two single sockets, they would be expected to meet all the requirements of the standard at 13A each. However I'm not sure how they would be configured for the heat rise test, or for the mechanical strength tests.
Yes, I know that the standard requires them to meet certain performance requirements at 13A. I also know that those requirements are not reduced when two socket-outlets share a common faceplate.
What it says, in the standard, is that if a socket purports to comply, it must be capable of meeting all the relevant requirements and tests specified in the standard.
For example, no tests are specified for measuring the dimensions of things where dimensions are specified.
Since you seem to think that there is a requirement for a socket to be able to carry 13A per outlet, will you please quote the exact wording of that requirement?
There are requirements applicable in normal use. However you are correct to point out that "normal use" is only broadly defined in the standard,
Which is what I've said all along. And I've also said that you know there is no mention of it.
If you know that "normal use" does not necessarily include a load of 26A, why do you insist that it must?
If you know that "normal use" does not necessarily include a load of 26A, why do you insist that every socket on the market must have been made so that it can support a load of 26A?
Again, you have omitted the duration of the test. Please read all of what is in the standard (or in whatever the document is that you have, since it is not the standard) and do not add or omit things that you think should be in there, or that you think are irrelevant. the requirement that a twin 13A socket-outlet shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use is considered to be verified by a test whose specification includes currents of 14A + 6A for a duration of at least 4 hours and a maximum of 8 hours or when thermal stability is achieved, and gives the maximum temperatures that parts of each socket-outlet are permitted to reach after that time.
Will you please, FGS, stop pretending that, given the context of the issue being discussed "requirement to not overheat in normal use shall be verified by passing the test involving a 14A+6A load" is not a pe4rfectly good, perfectly clear, perfectly understandable and perfectly valid reference to "requirement that a twin 13A socket-outlet shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use is considered to be verified by a test whose specification includes currents of 14A + 6A for a duration of at least 4 hours and a maximum of 8 hours or when thermal stability is achieved, and gives the maximum temperatures that parts of each socket-outlet are permitted to reach after that time." It is a stupid, time wasting and utterly unhelpful thing for you to keep on and on and on and on doing.
Like, for example, a requirement for a twin socket to carry 13A through both sides simultaneously, because I think it should be there based on the name of the type of item?
Now, you come along, and say that because the socket has a name containing 13A it must therefore be able to deliver 2x13A. What if I, the maker, say "as far as I am concerned it would not be normal to draw that much current from a twin socket for more than 5 seconds"? What if, after 10 seconds parts of the socket have got to 100°C, and after 1 minute it's on fire? What can be done about me claiming compliance with BS 1363 and saying "well, of course if you go beyond what is normal you must expect abnormal behaviour"?
There are several requirements, not just the name, with which a 13A socket-outlet shall comply.
Indeed there are.
They are defined in the standard.
Will you please quote the words which define the current-handling ability required of a twin socket?
And will you please answer this:
What if I, the maker, say "as far as I am concerned it would not be normal to draw that much current from a twin socket for more than 5 seconds"? What if, after 10 seconds parts of the socket have got to 100°C, and after 1 minute it's on fire? What can be done about me claiming compliance with BS 1363 and saying "well, of course if you go beyond what is normal you must expect abnormal behaviour".
So it doesn't say anywhere that each side of a twin socket has to be able to cope with 13A through both sides at the same time.
Given that it does not, why do you keep insisting that a twin socket must be able to do it?
And nowhere does it state that the requirements relating to the ability of a 13A socket to carry 13A are reduced when that 13A socket shares a faceplate with another.
Standards don't work on the basis of assumptions of behaviour based on a name, which have to be formally countered if they are invalid, they work on the basis of specifying what something has to be, or do.
We will have a good idea of the validity and relevance of that claim once you have quoted the words which specify the requirements relating to the ability of a 13A socket to carry 13A.
Which other requirements are relevant to the ability of a socket to support a load?
In order to claim conformity to a standard is is necessary to conform to all the normative provisions of that standard, i.e. to all the requirements as well as all the tests.
I can't seem to find the exact wording of the requirement for a socket to be able to carry 13A per outlet, nor the wording of the definition of "normal use".
But then it is not I who is claiming that those are there, so as you are, it is down to you tell us what they are, rather than say "I thought you claimed to have a copy of the standard?", which is nether a clever or helpful reply.
OK, so you are using a very old edition of the standard, out of date by two editions and a few amendments. It doesn't really matter, but explains why I couldn't find some text that you had quoted - my archive doesn't include the one that you have.
Will you please, FGS, stop pretending that, given the context of the issue being discussed "requirement to not overheat in normal use shall be verified by passing the test involving a 14A+6A load" is not a pe4rfectly good, perfectly clear, perfectly understandable and perfectly valid reference to "requirement that a twin 13A socket-outlet shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use is considered to be verified by a test whose specification includes currents of 14A + 6A for a duration of at least 4 hours and a maximum of 8 hours or when thermal stability is achieved, and gives the maximum temperatures that parts of each socket-outlet are permitted to reach after that time."
If you can't or won't see the difference between "a test involving a 14A+6A load" and "a test whose specification includes currents of 14A + 6A for a duration of at least 4 hours and a maximum of 8 hours or when thermal stability is achieved, and gives the maximum temperatures that parts of each socket-outlet are permitted to reach after that time" then I despair. You are quick enough to criticise others for lack of precision, please be a little more precise in your own wording.
No, I won't copy out all the words. Look at the Title, the Scope, Clause 17 "Breaking capacity of socket-outlets", Clause 18 "Normal operation of...", and Annex B regarding the calibration of a test plug.
Can you tell me the words that say that a 13A socket-outlet need not be able to carry 13A if it shares a faceplate with another?
Thought not
And will you please answer this:
What if I, the maker, say "as far as I am concerned it would not be normal to draw that much current from a twin socket for more than 5 seconds"? What if, after 10 seconds parts of the socket have got to 100°C, and after 1 minute it's on fire? What can be done about me claiming compliance with BS 1363 and saying "well, of course if you go beyond what is normal you must expect abnormal behaviour".
Given the laws of physics, I doubt very much that such would be possible in a product that would meet the requirements and pass the tests of the standard. I suspect the legal test applied if such a situation were to arise would depend on the "man on the Clapham omnibus", i.e., what would be considered reasonable. Would it be considered reasonable if a 13A socket-outlet was on fire after carrying 13A for a minute? Obviously not, regardless of whether or not it was on the same faceplate as another 13A socket-outlet.
As far as I can tell there have been no material changes to the requirements of the standard wrt the ability of sockets to sustain a particular load, and that most of the changes have been the expansion of the scope of the standard to include new types of accessories, and reformatting it into a number of discrete sections.
That means that the version I have contains the same requirements wrt this issue as the current one. And it means that you can stop being not clever and not helpful by deflecting questions about what the standard actually says with pointless, time- and space-wasting questions about which version I have.
but explains why I couldn't find some text that you had quoted - my archive doesn't include the one that you have.
I have asked you more than once to tell us what the relevant text says in the version you have, but all you can do is to dismiss those requests as "rather silly". Again, you seem utterly determined to behave in as non-clever and non-helpful way as you possibly can.
One might begin to think that you are doing this because you are terrified that even you will no longer be able to sustain your argument about sockets having to comply with requirements which the standard does not say they have to comply with.
And here is another of your pathetic, loser attempts:
If you can't or won't see the difference between "a test involving a 14A+6A load" and "a test whose specification includes currents of 14A + 6A for a duration of at least 4 hours and a maximum of 8 hours or when thermal stability is achieved, and gives the maximum temperatures that parts of each socket-outlet are permitted to reach after that time" then I despair. You are quick enough to criticise others for lack of precision, please be a little more precise in your own wording.
Given that the context of all of this is what load a socket has to be able to cope with, and that there is a test INVOLVING a 14A+6A load, a test which has at least once been fully and properly described here, if you can't or won't see that your repeated insistence that "a test involving a 14A+6A load" is not a perfectly acceptable way to shorten "a test whose specification includes currents of 14A + 6A for a duration of at least 4 hours and a maximum of 8 hours or when thermal stability is achieved, and gives the maximum temperatures that parts of each socket-outlet are permitted to reach after that time" is actually a stupid, stupid, STUPID and incredibly unhelpful and pointless waste of everybody's time, then I despair.
It says nothing about normal use wrt the amount of current which a socket is expected to deliver for what time without overheating.
Or rather, without attaining an excessive temperature in normal use.
Please tell us what the current version of the standard says is the magnitude and duration of the loading to be tolerated in normal use.
If you
a) Could, but refuse to do so, please explain why that is a helpful position to take.
b) Cannot because it doesn't say anything about that, please explain why you think your assumption that it must be 26A is also the assumption made by every single socket manufacturer in the world.
Neither of those have anything to do with a test of a sustained load designed to show whether a socket undergoes excessive heating under a sustained load.
Nor doe they say that the test of breaking capacity or general wear and tear have to be carried out on both sides of a twin socket at the same time.
Will you please quote the words from the current standard which specify the requirements relating to the ability of a 13A socket to carry 13A.
And yes, of course, given the context of this discussion, that means the ability to carry 13A for some usefully sustained period of time without attaining excessive temperatures.
and Annex B regarding the calibration of a test plug.
In my version that talks about the test plug (not plugs) and refers to Figure 17:
which doesn't look like a twin socket to me.
Will you please quote the words from the current standard which specify the requirements relating to the ability of a 13A socket to carry 13A.
And yes, of course, given the context of this discussion, that means the ability to carry 13A for some usefully sustained period of time without attaining excessive temperatures.
Can you tell me the words that say that a 13A socket-outlet need not be able to carry 13A if it shares a faceplate with another?
Thought not
I think you'll find that the way it works is that for a socket to claim compliance with BS 1363 it is not the case that it has to comply with every single thing in existence unless the standard says it doesn't have to, it's that it has to comply with the requirements that the standard says it has to.
Will you please quote the words from the current standard which specify the requirements relating to the ability of a 13A socket to carry 13A.
And yes, of course, given the context of this discussion, that means the ability to carry 13A for some usefully sustained period of time without attaining excessive temperatures.
Given the laws of physics, I doubt very much that such would be possible in a product that would meet the requirements and pass the tests of the standard.
But what if, instead of 5 seconds, 10 seconds and 1 minute it was 5 minutes, 10 minutes and 1 hour?
Can you not see? If there is nothing in the standard about how a socket is to perform under a load of 26A then there can be nothing to hold a manufacturer to account over except a charge that his product did not perform adequately in normal use.
And normal use is undefined, so it comes down to whose interpretations of that are valid. And yours are no more valid than mine, or the chief designer of Acme Accessories.
I suspect the legal test applied if such a situation were to arise would depend on the "man on the Clapham omnibus", i.e., what would be considered reasonable.
Do you know, or even suspect, that that man, when shown that all the standard requires is "Accessories and their surroundings shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use" and that in the same clause as that it says that compliance shall be checked by a test of the heating effects of a 14A+6A load for 4-8 hours,
It would be neither clever nor helpful to say that that summary of the test is in any way inadequate for the purposes of this discussion.
, that he would not think it reasonable to take the test loading to be what is meant by "normal use", and that therefore a heavier loading than that was not normal?
And since you mention a legal test, may I remind you of the concept of "beyond reasonable doubt"?
Lest you be tempted to brush this off with an "I don't know", I'll ask you to hazard your best intelligent guess, given the general knowledge and common sense you have acquired over the years:
Do you really think that any MOTCO, or magistrate, or judge, or jury would say that beyond reasonable doubt the requirement of a compliance test of the heating effects of a 14A+6A load for 4-8 hours in the same clause as a requirement not to overheat in normal use
Just don't
did not in any way mean that the test conditions were regarded as representing "normal use"?
Would it be considered reasonable if a 13A socket-outlet was on fire after carrying 13A for a minute? Obviously not, regardless of whether or not it was on the same faceplate as another 13A socket-outlet.
You can't say "regardless" unless you are disregarding the overall heating effect of the aggregate load on the shared internal components of a twin socket.
Do you want to do that, or think that there is a sound engineering justification for doing so?
Given what our disagreement(s) pivot around, the fact that you think that these questions:
"Since you seem to think that there is a requirement for a socket to be able to carry 13A per outlet, will you please quote the exact wording of that requirement?"
"Will you please quote the exact wording of that broad definition [of 'normal use']?"
were silly sums up just how non-clever and non-helpful your attitude has been all the way through.
so didn't feel the need for my reply to be either clever or helpful.
To sum up: I think that a twin 13A socket-outlet should be capable of carrying 13A through each outlet for some undefined period of time, because BS1363 contains several requirements relating to the ability to carry 13A, which are nor reduced if two outlets share a common faceplate. BAS thinks that they need not be capable of carrying 13A concurrently, because the test in BS1363 for temperature rise uses a test current of 14A in one outlet and 6A in the other, for at least 4 hours.
I've previously posted the view of a major manufacturer, who shares my opinion that a twin 13A socket-outlet should be capable of carrying 13A through each outlet for some undefined period of time.
I have since spoken to a couple of test houses that perform tests to BS1363. Of course their views are only relevant to those particular test houses and the manufacturers of the products they have tested.
One of them stated that it is their policy to only perform the tests that are defined in the standard, and provide a certificate that the product has passed those tests. They do not make a statement that the product conforms to the standard; that is the manufacturer's responsibility.
The other shares my opinion that a 13A socket should continue to be a 13A socket when there are two sharing a common faceplate (and other components). They routlinely perform the tests for normal operation at 13A through both outlets concurrently, inserting and withdrawing the plugs simultaneously. This test includes 15 000 makes (plug inserted) and 15 000 breaks (plug withdrawn).
The gentleman I spoke to at the latter test house had some involvement in a review of the BS1363 temperature rise test. As I suspected, some parameters of the test are designed to ensure that thermal stability is reached before the 8 hour maximum time under test, purely for the convenience of those performing the test - some test houses work only an 8 hour day. As a result, the current in one outlet is limited to 6A, only one cable is connected to avoid heat loss in a second cable, and the plugs used include a heater calibrated to achieve a temperature rise of 35 K in the plug, to counteract loss of heat down the cable to the load. Running one of the outlets at 14A should identify any potential hot spots. They usually perform the test twice, reversing which outlet carries the 14A current.
And not one of them is a requirement which relates to the heating effect of a load sustained for several hours.
Not one.
And you know that.
BAS thinks that they need not be capable of carrying 13A concurrently, because the test in BS1363 for temperature rise uses a test current of 14A in one outlet and 6A in the other, for at least 4 hours.
No, I think they need not be because the standard does not say that they must be. And because what it does say, in this context, is that they must not overheat in normal use (a condition not defined), and that if they don't overheat at 14A+6A for 4-8 hours that is considered proof that they won't overheat in normal use.
Unless you are totally ignorant of what happens when a current flows through which has electrical resistance, you will know that the heating effect of 13A+13A will be greater than that of 14A+6A.
Therefore you know that at 13A+13A a socket which meets the requirement to not overheat at 14A+6A might not meet that requirement when the load is increased by 30%.
And it really doesn't matter how often, or how correctly, you observe that if it's OK at 20A it will probably be OK at 26A, at the end of the day you just do not KNOW.
Since a socket does not have to formally demonstrate how it performs at any load greater than 20A nobody can KNOW how it will perform at a greater load.
I've previously posted the view of a major manufacturer, who shares my opinion that a twin 13A socket-outlet should be capable of carrying 13A through each outlet for some undefined period of time.
An undefined period of time is a useless, pointless, worthless concept.
Leaving aside the reality of how I could do it at the same time as making one which was OK at 20A for 4-8 hours, if I made a socket which could only carry 13A through each outlet for a few seconds before catching fire, I'm sure we would all agree that there would be a good case for saying that it doesn't meet the requirement to not overheat in normal use.
JFD, OK?
And if it managed to sustain that load for several hours I think most reasonable people would say that normal use probably doesn't involve running it flat out for several hours and that therefore it probably does comply.
But what happens between those two bounds? You said it yourself, it is undefined. If, after a period of time, which could be longer or shorter than an undefined period of time, the socket does overheat, what then?
Who would hold the manufacturer to account for the "unacceptable", or "non-compliant" behaviour of his product in that it failed to meet an undefined requirement?
And how would they do that?
And what legal processes would have to run their course before the offending socket was stripped of its claim to comply with BS 1363 and forcibly removed from sale?
Can you really not see?
Unless and until somebody nails their opinion to the mast and goes to court and successfully argues that "normal use" means 13A through both sides for x minutes/hours/days/whatever, so that the "some undefined period of time" becomes defined through the precedent of the decision of a court, nobody can KNOW how long a socket claimed to be compliant with BS 1363 can handle a 26A load.
The other shares my opinion that a 13A socket should continue to be a 13A socket when there are two sharing a common faceplate (and other components).
You and they have an opinion of how a twin socket should perform.
Do you or they KNOW that that opinion is shared, has always been shared, and will always be shared by every single manufacturer on the planet?
Because if you and they do not KNOW then your shared opinion, no matter how reasonable, does not, and cannot, lead to a valid claim that you KNOW that a BS 1363 twin socket must be able to handle 13A through both sides simultaneously.
They routlinely perform the tests for normal operation at 13A through both outlets concurrently, inserting and withdrawing the plugs simultaneously. This test includes 15 000 makes (plug inserted) and 15 000 breaks (plug withdrawn).
But if a socket fails to perform how they think it should, do they refuse to run the tests as specified in BS 1363 and refuse to certify that the socket passes the tests specified in the standard?
Even if they do, do you and they KNOW that every other testing house on the planet does the same?
The gentleman I spoke to at the latter test house had some involvement in a review of the BS1363 temperature rise test. As I suspected, some parameters of the test are designed to ensure that thermal stability is reached before the 8 hour maximum time under test, purely for the convenience of those performing the test
So you are simply discounting the possibility that the defined period was chosen because "normal use" was not considered to mean a substantial load sustained for more than 8 hours?
You are simply discounting the possibility that if between hours 4 and 8 a socket has pretty much stopped getting hotter it can be considered to not be likely to get any hotter from 8 hours onwards?
Maybe so, but if so then they will be test houses which are unable to offer the full range of tests specified in BS 1363, because some of them last more than 8 hours. At least one lasts for 48 hours.
As a result, the current in one outlet is limited to 6A, only one cable is connected to avoid heat loss in a second cable
Let's not forget that BS 1363 actually specifies only one cable. If a second cable were to be connected then they would not be testing in accordance with the standard.
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.
Please select a service and enter a location to continue...
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
