Socket orientation

[JohnW2]

However these threads stay up for years, and are found with Google searches so it does need a note some where to say it could be deemed as non compliment. Although not the socket, it is the plug, not tried fitting sockets sidewards ...

The important point I forgot to mention was that the regulation we're talking about is in BS7671 and I'm not at all sure that anything downstream of the socket (i.e. a plug) is actually within the scope of that Standard. Maybe BS1363 has something to say about the orientation of sockets/plugs? - stillp?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Maybe BS1363 has something to say about the orientation of sockets/plugs? - stillp?

BS1363 is a standard for the products, not how they are installed.

 

[JohnW2]

BS1363 is a standard for the products, not how they are installed.

Fair enough.

Are there any IP requirements for a plug to BS1363?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Are there any IP requirements for a plug to BS1363?

There are no "IP requirements" that I can find; although BS1363 states that "Live parts shall not be accessible when the plugs are wired as in normal use and in full engagement in a corresponding socket-outlet", verification is not by testing to IEC 60529, but instead 1363 has its own test, using test probes defined in an obsolete BS.

 

[JohnW2]

.... BS1363 states that "Live parts shall not be accessible when the plugs are wired as in normal use and in full engagement in a corresponding socket-outlet", verification is not by testing to IEC 60529, but instead 1363 has its own test, using test probes defined in an obsolete BS.

Thanks. Do you know anything about those probes (diameter and length etc.)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

No, but I would be very surprised if even the 1mm diameter probe would be able to contact current-carrying parts of any usual design of plug, when fitted with a cable. (BS1363 specifies a 2-core 0,5mm² flex).

 

[stillp]

The obsolete BS 3042: 1992 for probes has been replaced by IEC 61032. While I believe that IEC 60529 uses the test probes defined in that standard, it doesn't cross-reference them but instead gives dimensioned drawings, so I can't extrapolate from 60529 to find which is the probe referred to by BS 1363. However it seems a fair bet that it is the 1mm diameter by 100 mm long one.

 

[JohnW2]

No, but I would be very surprised if even the 1mm diameter probe would be able to contact current-carrying parts of any usual design of plug, when fitted with a cable. (BS1363 specifies a 2-core 0,5mm² flex).

Yes, that's what I was thinking. Even if BS7671 did apply to the plug (which I doubt), it would requires a minimum of IPXXD 'at the top', so an inverted plug would comply if a 100mm long 1mm diameter probe (I assume straight and rigid) could not touch live parts.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

This explains something I saw a few years back.
2 gang sockets were mounted upside down directly over wall units and all the permanent plugs had the cable entry holes filled with sealant.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No, but I would be very surprised if even the 1mm diameter probe would be able to contact current-carrying parts of any usual design of plug, when fitted with a cable.

How happy would you be to hold an uninsulated probe, with the rest of the physical environment arranged such that your body had a low impedance path to earth and there was no RCD protection, and stick that probe through the cable entry into the internals of the plug?

 

[JohnW2]

This explains something I saw a few years back. 2 gang sockets were mounted upside down directly over wall units and all the permanent plugs had the cable entry holes filled with sealant.

I suppose that makes some sense, particularly if there is a possibility of water dripping/pouring down onto them.

I thought of suggesting that approach but decided that I would not, given that once sockets have been installed 'upside down', the designer and installer lose all control over what plugs may be inserted in the future.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

How happy would you be to hold an uninsulated probe, with the rest of the physical environment arranged such that your body had a low impedance path to earth and there was no RCD protection, and stick that probe through the cable entry into the internals of the plug?

Quite happy, with all the plugs I've looked at since this subject was raised. (Provided the probe was rigid of course.)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No matter how small the flex?

And the reason you know that you can guarantee (as your life does depend on it), that the plug has not been clumsily wired and there's not a loop of bare L conductor lying inside?

 

[JohnW2]

And the reason you know that you can guarantee (as your life does depend on it), that the plug has not been clumsily wired and there's not a loop of bare L conductor lying inside?

A valid point, but how far can/should one go? It is not impossible that a plug could be sufficiently 'clumsily wired' that there was "a loop of bare conductor lying outside" (or sufficiently close to the outside so as to be touchable by a finger tip).

This discussion has drifted from the specific to the very general. For the OP's sockets/plugs behind kitchen units/appliances, as far as I can see, the only possible issue one could be sensibly concerned about if the socket is installed 'upside down' is that of water ingress (which, as has been said, could be addressed for the plug in current use by the use of some silicone). I really don't think there is any need to be concerned about some crawling around behind the appliances/units and sticking some equivalent of a 1 mm probe into the cable entries of plugs.

Lets's face it, sockets installed at Part M heights are often going to be in an ideal position for toddlers (who 'know no better') to try to poke things into plugs' cable entries, and I've never heard of anyone expressing concerns about that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

No matter how small the flex?

And the reason you know that you can guarantee (as your life does depend on it), that the plug has not been clumsily wired and there's not a loop of bare L conductor lying inside?

I was assuming you meant correctly wired ones, since the discussion was around conformity to the standard. If not correctly wired then all bets are off, as idiocy has no limits.