Talk:BS 1363/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Compatibility

Is there any good reason why a fused version of the Continental European 16 amp standard (with a flat earth pin rather than the German side-earth or French female earth connection) was not adopted ? This would have had several advantages over the 13 amp system

• 1) Identical live/neutral pin diameters/spacing would have offered some compatability with European plugs leading in time to a greater possibility of the system being adopted throughout Europe and perhaps eventually the 200-250v world
• 2) 16 amp capacity suitable for 3Kw loads even in 200-230 volt countries and providing more of a safety margin for 240-250 volt countries
• 3) Immediate compatability with 2 pin plugs
• 4) In the long term more safety for international travellers as people wouldnt be using (badly designed) adaptors or even attempting to force incompatable plugs into sockets (by breaking off earth pins etc)
• 5) Economies of mass production (appliances wouldnt need to be manufactured with diffrent plugs fitted for different markets)

The BS1363 plug was deliberately designed to be incompatible with anything else that was in use in the uk at the time. Unshuttered sockets did end up compatible with europlugs but this was almost certainly by accident rather than design (and the shuttering mechanisms chosen as shuttering came in reduced this problem).

The reason for the deliberate incompatibility was to enforce use of fused plugs with the newly introduced 30A ring circuits. Plugwash 19:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Unshuttered sockets did end up compatible with europlugs Technically theyre NOT compatible. A Europlug can be FORCED into a BS1362 socket but the incorrect pin spacing means the pins get slightly bent. Incidently many of the adaptors on the market are indeed unsafe. Often they lack an earth connection and/or are only rated for say 7.5 amps. 80.229.222.48 (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Only disadvantage I can see regarding the arrangment advocated above is that travellers to Britain would be plugging their (unfused) Schuko plugs (or worse still their 2.5 amp Europlugs) into 32 amp ring circuits. Grounding would also be an issue (although conciveably a "dual standard" socket with earth clips AND an earth pin could have been developed) but it wouldnt be any worse than the current situation where both the "side earth" and "Female earth" plugs can be inserted into sockets without either earth clips or an earth pin. A fused version of an unpolorised plug isint really an option since the fuse could end up on the neutral side of the supply. 86.112.254.104 (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I just spotted the reference above to "unshuttered sockets" when referring to incompatibility with europlugs. There never was such a thing as an unshuttered BS 1363 socket, the original version is "British Standard 1363 : 1947 FUSED PLUGS AND SHUTTERED SOCKET OUTLETS." (See "Origins" in main article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deucharman (talk • contribs) 08:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Embassies

Is it true that Britsh plugs/sockets are used in all British embassies?--Oxonian2006 02:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure but given that legally embassies are regarded as soverign extraterrotorial microenclaves (Im open to correction on the exact legal terminoligy) maybe a particularly pendantic legal interpretation decided that UK wiring regulations/standards should apply as well ???

It's an odd one, because if they use the British standard plug/socket system surely they would also require 230v @ 50Hz? And a collection of replacement fuses? In a country with 115v @ 60Hz and no British plugs on anything this could be a problem. Ziltro 17:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no special insight on this matter, but anyway, here are my 2 eurocents:

I think it's fair to assume that practical reasons will play the biggest role here. If British embassy staff move abroad, or if embassies seek to buy UK appliances, then it might be helpful to have British sockets available. On the other hand, in countries with a 110 Volt system, that may require expensive power converters, which is not very practical. And where countries that have the same 230 Volt electricity it's usually trivial to either make or buy adapters that will accept UK plugs or provide UK sockets. Speaking from personal experience, I've lived in Germany (which has the Schuko system) and in the UK and Ireland (which use the same BS 1363 system). When I moved from Germany to the UK, I cut the Schuko plugs off of all mains leads of all my appliances and fitted BS 1363 plugs on them. When I moved back to Germany, instead of doing the reverse, I bought a couple of BS 1363 extension cords and power strips, replaced their BS 1363 plugs with Schuko plugs and left my appliances' plugs as they were (BS 1363). So I'm now in Germany, and because of these adapters I made, I have a lot of BS 1363 sockets in my flat, and the majority of my appliances have BS 1363 plugs. I also have a few Schuko plugs and power strips however. The electricity is the same across Europe, so it's not an issue. It's more difficult to get bayonet cap light bulbs for my Irish desk lamp that I brought over here, because the UK/Eire use mostly use bayonet cap bulbs and Germany mostly use screw-in bulbs (screw cap bulbs are becoming more common in Eire/the UK, though, prolly b/c of cheap wholesale imported screw fitting lamps). I'm not affiliated with any embassy, but I imagine they might do things similarly. Of course the easiest solution is not to bring any appliances when you're moving, but it's not always nice to leave stuff you like behind. 86.56.48.12 20:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In many 110-120 volt countries the mains supply is actually split with larger appliances running on 220-240 volts. So in theory it would be possible to wire the embassy for BS1363 sockets outputting 220-240 volts. There would be two potential flaws in such an arrangment though. Firstly most 110-120 volt countries also use a 60Hz mains frequency. Secondly In a "Split phase" mains supply both legs of the supply are live to the tune of half the total supply voltage. Thus both "live" and "neutral" pins would actually be "live" @ 110-120 volts 80.229.222.48 (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Reason for Insulation on pins

I have recently heard, allegedly from a former designer at MK, that the reason that insulation was added to the phase (live) and Neutral pins was not to prevent children touching live pins when plugging / unplugging but as a result of a schoolboy prank. The story is that after decimalisation schoolboys discovered that a new penny exactly fitted between all three pins of a 13A plug. Try it, you will find that a penny is a snug fit when pressed between the pins thus shorting across all three. The boys would then plug in the plug with penny in place and blow the fuse in the main fusebox. This became such a problem that MK were asked to design a modification to prevent this. The length of the insulation is calculated such that if the said boys fitted a stack of pennies until it again shorted the pins the pins would not reach the live parts before the stack of pennies prevented further insertion. I do not know if this just an urban myth so any comments would be appreciated.Electronpusher 20:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an urban myth, especially given the mention of an IEC standard in the above section on pin insulation and the fact that virtually every other country using similar voltages has also introduced a system to prevent pins being touched (either the pin insulation system or the cavity system). Plugwash 21:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that, rather than being an urban myth, the anecdote could be true as an example and used as proof of concept. However, the concept of preventing a slim conductor (maybe a paperclip/coin/wire that became lodged between the prongs) from shorting by using a 'snug fit' as a safety measure would mean that the everyday limits between no-contact and contact would be so close as to make the plug termperamental when inserting and hyper-sensitive to breaking contact if even marginally loosened. I have found that 1363 plugs tend to continue operating when sitting up to a third of the way out of the socket.--Loogie 12:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Humour section

I've never seen any notable comedy act or other humour involving the risk of stepping on a plug. Drawing pins (thumbtacks) and banana skins, yes, but not plugs. I suggest removing the section, or moving it into "design criticism", unless someone can find a citation. Mtford 02:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. --RFBailey 20:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Blue 2 A and 3 A fuses

Although BS 1362 requires that 2 A fuses are marked in black and 3 A fuses are marked in red, it was quite possible at one time to find fuses of either of these ratings marked in blue. Was this ever actually permitted within the standard or would these fuses have been so old as to not be marked with it? I have seen some very old 1 A fuses marked in black without the BS number, and even one old 13 A fuse marked in brown in a similar way.EmleyMoor 23:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad Wording

"Because typical British circuits (especially ring circuits) can deliver much more power than an appliance flex (power cord) can safely handle, these plugs are required to carry a cartridge fuse. "

I think this is quite badly worded because pretty much any circuit in any country in the world can deliver far more power than a flex (or pretty much any domestic cable) can handle. The issue is rather that a ring mains will be typically have an overcurrent device rated at 32 amps where as a flex may be rated for say 5 amps, hence the possibility of a 20 amp fault on a 5 amp flex without tripping the MCB. Any objections / recommendations as far as changing the wording goes? --Pypex (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's actually a pretty accurate statement. Taking the U.S. as an example, our typical branch circuits are rated at 15 amps and our lightest-weight flex is SPT-1 (18 gauge); this will carry seven or eight amps routinely. The current minimum for extension cords is SPT-2 16 gauge wire and that will take ten to thirteen amps continuously. In other words, the ampacity of the lightest flex is at least somewhat-closely matched to the over-current rating of the branch circuit; you'd have a hard time melting the flex before tripping the branch circuit breaker.

By comparison, the British circuit can deliver much more current and the flexes can be much lighter gauge, hence the fuses at the plugs.

Atlant (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My original generalised statement was intended as being more along the lines of 110/230v and a short circuit impedance of say 0.5 ohms, hence pretty much any circuit will nuke a flex and that is why I took issue with British circuits being portrayed somehow special. It doesn't really make sense that I then went on to extol the virtues of fuses. I think considering your point about US circuits being rated reasonably closely to there flex then it would only really need changing if say European circuits are also rated at 32 amps, and then they continue to use there silly 2 pin unfused plugs with lightweight flex. I know 32 amps is a harmonised overcurrent value, but as to the in's and outs of pan-european mains circuits I have no idea. --Pypex (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nowadays it's not such an issue because modern breakers clean faults so fast. Indeed under short circuit conditions a B32 MCB will often go before a 13A plug fuse will! However back when rings were designed we were dealing with rewirable fuses which had much much worse tripping caracteristics. There are large numbers of fuse boxes with rewirable fuses still in service in the UK.

While the sizes of breakers that are availible is indeed harmonised afaict what breakers are acceptable under what conditions is not. I belive some european countries allow 32A socket circuits with thier own plug types but i'm not sure of the details and i'm pretty sure they didn't allow it in the days of fuses. Plugwash (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ring Circuit / Ring Main

The article uses both these terms. The correct one is Ring Circuit. (A Ring Main is a street mains supply to homes and other buildings which is connected in a ring, and these way-predate Ring Circuits.) 81.187.162.109 (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the correct term as used in BS7671 is "Ring Final Circuit"... but I'll give you Ring Circuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Colours

The article does not mention the (by design) fact that the BLue wire is located bottom left, whilst the BRown is located bottom right. 92.10.5.202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

Citation needed. Also remember that the neutral wire used to be black and the live wire used to be red. Was it an English speaker who chose the new colours (as I remember, they were a European standard)?—Dah31 (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it clearly can't be true, which would be one reason it's not mentioned. 81.187.162.109 (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The "new colours", as they are often referred to in the UK, were chosen to avoid dangerous miswiring wherever possible throughout the EU. Black was live in Germany, so couldn't be used for neutral as it may have caused confusion there (but it can still be used for phase in 3-phase systems). Additionally, blue and brown have a high-contrast between the two so are less likely to be miswired in low-light situations than black and brown, for instance. Blue and Brown were seen as the safest combination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In the US Black is live and White is neutral. When Red/Black was the UK standard it sometimes lead to (potentially dangerous) misunderstandings on (dual voltage) equipment which had crossed the Atlantic. 86.112.96.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC).

FatallyFlawed

The amount of column space given to the FatallyFlawed lobby group is inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry. A single sentence and a reference to their website would be fine, but not the extent of coverage and photos which are currently included. This seriously detracts from the article as a whole. 81.187.162.109 (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely (I came here to post pretty much exactly that). I'll go through and seriously trim it in a couple of days if nobody objects (or does it sooner) in the meanwhile. Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem with the content but could the photos be made a little smaller ? They take up too much space in the article ? Linked thumbnails would be better. 86.112.96.168 (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The content is inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry. A sentence or two referencing their website would be fine though, but the rest needs removing — this is not a lobby site. 81.187.162.109 (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I've tagged the section in question. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Better photo of socket?

Does anyone have a photo of a socket with a switch? In particular neither the main image used here nor in the AC power plugs and sockets article have switches (well in this article it could just be overcropped). I'm not sure how things are in the UK but in Malaysia I don't know if I've ever seen a socket without a switch be it a wall switch or a multisocket box or heck even an extension cord. The only example which appears to have a switch is File:Socket danger detail.jpg. The only socket with a switch in AC power plugs and sockets is ironically the NZ/Australian one and while wall sockets here do, I don't think I've ever seen a multisocket box with switches (which I find rather annoying) Nil Einne (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The socket pictured in the article looks like a power strip socket to me. In my experiance most power strips in the UK aren't switched (you CAN get switched ones if you want them but they are more expensive). On the positive side the fact the shuttering mecahnism is red (power strip sockets often seem to have red shutters for some reason) makes the shuttering far easier to see. Plugwash (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced that picture with one of a standard switched socket. I have also added (under shuttering) a detail of the MK socket which requires all three pins to be inserted simultaneously. As a matter of interest, the original BS 1363 version (1947) was specifically for unswitched sockets. Switched sockets were allowed by a later version. Unswitched sockets are commonly available in the UK, but rarely fitted in new builds. Deucharman (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, a difference then. As I mentioned in Malaysia most power strips are switched. Perhaps this is because unsafe practices like forcing a Europlug into a socket is common :-P Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Variants - Folding Plugs

I have undone the revision by Qwyrxian (→Variants: Removing OR, POV, and Youtube links) as it removed the YouTube links which are cited to verify the information. I do not understand why Qwyrxian has interpreted factual comment as POV. Deucharman (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Deucharman, I have reverted your additions again. Please read the guidelines on WP:OR and WP:NPOV to get a general understanding of these key policies. Also, take a look at WP:RS as to why a self-published source, such as Youtube, is not considered a reliable source.

In general - the text added by you makes a number of assertions. For example, you state The award ignored the fact that the design contravenes at least two of BS 136s's requirements. This is considered to be opinion - (and it doesn't matter if it is right or wrong) - and unless you can produce a reliable reference from a third party, will be flagged as WP:OR and deleted. Statements such as which is claimed to be simpler and strong is not a neutral POV and is similarly unreferenced. Please address these concerns before re-adding this subject matter. --HighKing (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Having carefully considered HighKing's points it became apparent that it was not appropriate to mention any design whose status was unestablished. The fact that an award (actually several awards) was given to Min Kyu Choi for a design which does not meet the requirements of BS 1363 does not entitle it to be referred to as BS 1363 variant, it is not. The other variants discussed are all real designs which are available and in use. On this basis it is clear that the only folding plug which it is appropriate to mention in the context of BS 1363 is the SlimPlug, which does have limited approval (as part of a 2.5 amp rated C7 power lead) and is available on the UK market. Deucharman (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. To be clear, there is no problem mentioning an award-winning design for a folding plug in the right context, since it is referenced in a reliable source. It might be a good idea. Equally, there's a case to be made that Three pin plug might be a more appropriate article for much of the information about plugs (especially designs and awards), and the BS 1363 could be a smaller and cleaner article dealing with the standard. --HighKing (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree, if it is not permissable to draw attention to the fact that the award was given without reference to the illegality of the design then, as the design can not qualify as being BS 1363, the reference has no place in this article. To do otherwise implies that the award confers some sort of legitamcy, which it does not. I note that the original reference to the award was included in a new article called "Folding Plug" which initially made no reference to the fact that there were other competing designs, one of which was approved for use. The separate article was then merged with BS 1363 in early June 2010. Deucharman (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My objection was, in fact, to what Highking mentioned--to the sentences like "the award ignored the fact..." etc. It read less like an encyclopedia and more like someone who lost crying about he was chated out of an award. Furthermore, the award itself was verifiable, while the other info was not. As to whether or not the award itself belongs in the article, I defer to the judgment of you all as experts. Oh, one final note--Youtube is never considered a reliable source, as anyone can upload anything, with no reliable source editting/verifying the info. On occasion, Youtube videos are used as external links, but only when we can verify that the uploader holds the copyright for the video uploaded (for example, on "official" channels). Happy Editing! Qwyrxian (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As Thumperward has re-introduced a reference to the non BS 1363 design by Min-Kyu Choi it seems reasonable to add a reference to ThinPlug. Although ThinPlug has not yet achieved BS 1363 approval it is also an award winning design, and the company provides evidence of its progress towards approval, I have provided links to the award and the company website. I have also made it clear that the Min-Kyu Choi design is not compliant and is not approved. In case anyone should wonder I have absolutely no connection to anyone involved in any business which is engaged in, or is attempting to engage in, BS 1363 products. Deucharman (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're getting rather too attached to the "British standard" part of the article. This article is, for better or worse, about not just the standard in question but also compatible designs (and indeed incompatible things like plastic socket covers). Whether or not that's appropriate in the long run remains to be seen, but there's no point denying it right now. Anyway, this article is really quite low quality at present and large parts of it need completely reworked; I'm going to try to do that myself, but I can't guarantee when I'll get around to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Shuttering

Is MK mentioned in the section Shuttering the MK Electric? Regards Draco flavus (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed this section as it was incredibly unbalanced and had been tagged as such since December. It was also significantly the same, and had all the same problems, as was discussed in the #FatallyFlawed section above from February 2010.

Please do not add this section again without consensus here. Thryduulf (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC) You are clearly commenting, and acting, on a subject which you do not understand.

Shuttering is at the core of what makes BS 1363 special and has ensured that the UK has the safest plugs/sockets in the world. The original title of BS 1363 was "British Standard 1363 : 1947 FUSED PLUGS AND SHUTTERED SOCKET OUTLETS" There is no evidence to suggest that socket covers are necessary in the UK, and much evidence as to why they are undesirable and place children at unnecesary risk, hence the importance of the additional information in the section.

To simply remove the entire section is vandalism and unbalances the the entire BS 1363 entry, thus I have once again undone the edit.

Perhaps it would be more helpful if those who object to anything specific in the section would say what that is, rather than just throwing their rattle out of the pram. --Deucharman (talk) 09:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for assuming good faith!

You swiftly undid my cleanup with "No valid reason provided for edit"; if you're not sure why others feel it's in appropriate to have a huge section about a single sub-issue which is effectively a podium for a small activist group, feel free to discuss it here... bobrayner (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Also: Please don't accuse people of vandalism just because they remove flawed content. That is unlikely to make people well-disposed to your changes. bobrayner (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

But you have removed an entire section about the most distinctive feature of BS 1363 sockets! Would it not be more appropriate to query anything which worries you or others? Are you querying the facts? The references? If either, then which ones? Meanwhile, lets keep the article useful and not hack-out major parts with a loose assertion of "unbalanced"! --Deucharman (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Blanket accusations of vandalism and stupidity are quite harmful. Please stop that.

I removed a large unbalanced rant about an issue which is not specific to BS1363 and which is not the most distinctive feature of BS1363, and which is totally dependent on content from one fringe group of activists (I'm giving fatallyflawed the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they're actually a group, and not just one internet ranter).

That it's technically possible for somebody to bodge a non-BS1363 socket cover until it's no longer an effective socket cover, when such socket covers aren't even part of the BS1363 standard, is not something which should take up half the BS1363 article - especially when we consider that the risk of misuse considerably less trivial with certain other standards which lack the protections of BS1363. If you want to put it in an article about socket covers, I could live with that - although the text would still need some cleanup. bobrayner (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

But you have removed the entire section on shuttering! All of it, the lot! If you knew anything of the subject you would not possibly claim that shuttering was the not the most distinctive feature of BS 1363. See the latter part of the "Origins" section: "A number of technical details were required of the new standard, first of which was that “To ensure the safety of young children it is of considerable importance that the contacts of the socket-outlet should be protected by shutters or other like means, or by the inherent design of the socket outlet.”[3] This requirement for a new system of plugs and sockets led to the publishing in 1947 of "British Standard 1363 : 1947 Fused-Plugs and Shuttered Socket-Outlets".[4] Your reference to bodging a socket cover is very misleading, the section includes information on why available socket covers reduce safety, that their manufacturers bodged them is true, but all the innocent user has to do is insert one in a socket.

But again, that is just a part of what the section is about. It deals with the general issue of shuttering, and the loophole in BS 1363 which makes most extension sockets dangerous. You really cannot just wipe all of this out because you appear to not like someone drawing attention to the very real issues. Do you represent a socket company supplier by any chance?--Deucharman (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your reinsertion of the disputed material yet again, your actions are called edit warring and are strictly against the rules of Wikipedia. Please discuss this issue here and do not revert the article again.

Neither bobrayner nor I are against having any mention of shuttering on the article. A short, neutral mention is all that is required however. The removed section is disproportionately long and far from being netrual. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think the shuttering section is fine as it was. I support reinserting it. Orpheus (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, on further reflection I see the point that Thryduulf and bobrayner are making, but I think taking the entire section out is too much. I've made some edits to get it to focus less on FatallyFlawed, but I think future work should concentrate on fixing the section rather than removing it. Orpheus (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Specifically please, what is it you do not like?--Deucharman (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy with a reduced section which had more neutral coverage on shuttering rather than concentrating on fatallyflawed's crusade against covers. However, I've already made some reverts so today is not a day for boldness... bobrayner (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I note that Bobrayner continues to vandalize the section on shuttering, despite one other editor and two (albeit anonymous) contributors apart from myself reverting his nonsense. He shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject, especially when he claims that socket covers made specifically for BS 1363 sockets are nothing to do with BS 1363. I quote him "Why should a tiny group's crusade against X be added to an article on subject Y?" the answer is simple, the two are inescapably linked because the main point of BS 1363 is to ensure that British citizens, especially small children, are protected from dangerous sockets. As mentioned above, the first requirement for the new socket, as defined in the 1944 Government report which called for a new design, was “To ensure the safety of young children it is of considerable importance that the contacts of the socket-outlet should be protected by shutters or other like means, or by the inherent design of the socket outlet.” That remains one of the main achievements of BS 1363, and it is worth noting that in the US, where there is a history of around 7 children per day requiring hospital treatment for socket related injury, shuttered sockets are in the process of being introduced, 60 years after their adoption in the UK. The use of socket covers with BS 1363 sockets invariable compromises their safety, and it is ridiculous to pretend otherwise. One must assume that Bobrayner is connected in some way with those who wish to continue endangering British children by selling unnecessary and dangerous socket covers (and make no mistake, there are none which conform to the dimensional requirements of BS 1363). It is notable that someone using the name bobrayner has been one of the ringleaders of a cyberbullying operation elswhere on the web against someone from FatallyFlawed. If for no other reason than that, he is unfit to contribute to this subject.Deucharman (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attacks now. At best, you will merely discredit yourself further; at worst, you may be prevented from editing further (whilst also being discredited).

• It's a pretty big coincidence that two IP addresses appeared to make exactly the same kind of edit that you want to make, and saved you the trouble of editwarring on your account, but they left no hint as to their identity and, like you, didn't seem very keen on edit summaries.

There are many people concerned about issues affecting socket safety. Some of them belong to FatallyFlawed, many more are quite independent but tend to use FatallyFlawed as a reference point. This is particularly true of electricians who have been warning against the use of socket covers since their introduction (way before FatallyFlawed was formed). It is not uncommon to find links to FatallyFlawed on Electricians websites, as well as many others. It is hardly surprising that others would wish to revert the vandalising of this article.Deucharman (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is an article about BS1363. If you want to contribute to an article about socket covers, feel free, but an extended diatribe against socket covers should not dominate this article.

The point was made (by Thumperward earlier on this page) that this article encompasses a number of related issues, socket covers made specifically for use with BS 1363 sockets are somewhat more germane than some other subjects mentioned. I note that the only positive contribution which you have made to this article was last year when you added a reference to the "Soviet" equivalent of BS 546, and that is definitely not something directly related to this article! There is no way that the facts included in the article can be described as an "extended diatribe". Apart from three photos which pretty much speak for themselves the text includes references to the views of the UK government, the safety organisations RoSPA, CAPT and the ESC, the only official study on the proposed European regulation of socket covers etc, and the report by the Consumers Association, Which? There is one short sentence on FatallyFlawed, that cannot possibly be described as unbalanced.

I have looked at the entire shuttering section, and realised that since you messed around with the pictures last year it has been somewhat disorganised, so I have taken the opportunity to reorganise it, and the socket cover issues and extension lead issues have each been grouped as subsidiaries of "Shuttering". Deucharman (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• You're really not helping by repeatedly accusing others of vandalism when they're actually making good-faith changes to improve an article.

Repeatedly removing the entire section on shuttering whilst falsely describing it as "deeply unbalanced" cannot really be described as good-faith! Deucharman (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• If I took you seriously, I would be quite offended by the claim that I'm part of some cabal to electrocute children. That is malicious fiction.

Your repeated desire to censor any references to the shortcomings of socket covers in relation to BS 1363 must raise questions about your allegiances, but if you assure me that you have no such connections and simply do not understand the issues then I will accept that. Deucharman (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Similarly, I'm not a ringleader of any "cyberbullying operation" to make FatallyFlawed look silly (you have built your reputation singlehanded). That, too, is malicious fiction.

I am delighted to accept that you are not the person (of a similar user name) who is engaging in the cyberbullying of one of my colleagues elsewhere on the web. Deucharman (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please try to get along better with other people. If you want to say whatever you like and frame it however you like, you already have the fatallyflawed website for that purpose. Wikipedia, however, involves collaborative editing and neutrality. bobrayner (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed (in italics) your points above. Deucharman (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

There's this highly dubious statement under BS_1363#Folding_Plugs:

An international patent application [International Patent Application PCT/EP2010/051387] for the Folding Plug describes various alternative configurations, but inspection of the application shows that an actual plug incorporating the safety requirements of BS 1363 would differ significantly from the design which won the award.

I have looked at the documents on the WIPO site and I cannot see how whoever wrote that sentence came to this conclusion. The statement may be just FUD -- and unsourced/original research to boot. 31.16.117.157 (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Counterfeit Plugs and Fuses

The subject of counterfeit plugs and fuses is a well established issue affecting BS 1363 and BS 1362 products.

The seriousness of the problem can be gauged from the references supplied in the counterfeiting section of the main article, as the British Electrotechnical and Allied Manufacturers Association says "Counterfeit electrical products can cause injury, fire and KILL!"

Would Bobrayner and Wtshymanski please refrain from removing this section without discussion and with no supporting arguments. Deucharman (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Would the trademark holders please refrain from pumping up an issue to an undue level of coverage in a general purpose encyclopedia. There's no evidence cited that counterfeit plugs are any more of a threat to the lives of UK residents than, oh, say, counterfeit drugs, counterfeit structural bolts, or counterfeit medical degrees. None of those articles waste 2 kb on straw man arguments about counterfeit goods. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wtshymanski, first I would like to make it clear that I am an electrical engineer ( a Fellow of the IET) with absolutely no commercial interest in this subject. Judging from your contributions to Wikepedia you may reside in North America, possibly Canada, wherever you are you appear to not understand the legislative position regarding plugs and sockets in the UK. You may wish to consider "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". You may now wish to read the first reference in the section which you have just removed: (The Plugs and Sockets, etc. (Safety) Regulations 1994 were introduced to provide a regulatory regime to address issues regarding consumer safety.) which states (on page 3): "BACKGROUND The Plugs and Sockets, etc. (Safety) Regulations 1994 (the “Regulations”) were introduced to provide a regulatory regime to address issues regarding consumer safety. There were concerns that consumer safety was compromised by the substantial quantity of counterfeit and unsafe electrical plugs and sockets being placed on the UK market and also by the provision of electrical equipment without an appropriate means to connect it to the mains supply in the consumer’s home." I trust that you would agree that a reference from the UK government constitutes a reliable source?

BS 1363 is not just a UK technical standard, these regulations give it the force of law in the UK. As the exert above makes clear, concern about countefeit plugs and sockets lay behind that legislation. If this article is about BS 1363 then the specific issue of counterfeiting cannot be ignored. The issue has very little to do with the counterfeiting of what you refer to as "trademarks", it is about the counterfeiting of the marks which must be affixed to both plugs and fuses indicating that the devices have been approved in accordance with UK law. Deucharman (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wtshymanski, I completely concur with the comments made by Deucharman. I suggest that you view this video made by ERA Technology, one of the most respected consulting firms in the UK. They tested one of the commonest types of counterfeit plug, fitted with a counterfeit fuse, under short circuit conditions. As you will see, the result was dramatic. Please stop engaging in edit wars on a subject of which you are clearly very ignorant. Mautby (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Similarly the section on outlet covers. Outlet covers! Many parts of this article are far too detailed, including far too much minutiae and natter, for a general-interest encyclopedia. Jeh (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeh, your user information indicates that you are American, your comment indicates that, like Wtshymanski, you have no understanding of the issues affecting BS 1363 in the UK. If you do not wish to learn about UK plugs and sockets that would be completely understandable, but it would be polite not to seek to deny knowledge to others. Deucharman (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"Denying knowledge" is a strawman argument. Knowledge is one thing, an excess of trivia and natter is another. The section on counterfeiting could be reduced to approximately four sentences and a number of references and "further reading" links and still be completely effective. As could the section on outlet covers. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) to contain all human knowledge, nor to replace, or eliminate the need to read, the specialty publications, specifications, and standards that are relevant to the topic of an article. That's what references and external links are for. As for my living in the United States, perhaps you should consider that sometimes an outside observer has a more neutral perspective? Jeh (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Besides, it appears to me that the latter two paragraphs in the "counterfeiting" section, along with the accompanying photograph, are entirely original research. Jeh (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, may I propose the following as a compromise:

The Plugs and Sockets, etc. (Safety) Regulations 1994 were introduced to provide a regulatory regime to address issues regarding consumer safety. There were concerns that consumer safety was compromised by the substantial quantity of counterfeit and unsafe electrical plugs and sockets being placed on the UK market. Despite this, counterfeit plugs, usually moulded on to leads, are available from various sources.

Move the PDF link to the External Links section of the article, and replace this paragraph with something along the lines of: Concerns have been raised over the sale of counterfeit plugs in the UK, which do not conform to BS 1363 with appropriate citation (I'm sure we can find one).

Between April and August 2006, anti counterfeiting raids supported by BEAMA Installation (representing the manufacturers whose products are targeted) and electrical safety experts ASTA BEAB (who provide testing and assessment of suspect goods) seized over 210,000 electrical wiring accessories all purporting to be products from a dozen electrical wiring accessory brand leaders. (Voltimum - Wiring Accessories & Counterfeiting)

Change the Voltimum link to an inline citation, provided that it supports the statement (I can't view it from this PC).

Counterfeit plug and fuse, compared with, on right, a real BS 1363 plug

The picture shows a plug that was part of a laptop lead purchased on ebay. The most obvious difference is that the earth pin is partially insulated by means of sleeve, BS 1363 12.16 specifically forbids sleeved earth pins. In the plug shown the earth pin is 13% shorter than the minimum permitted, 1.2% thicker and 1.4% wider. The power pins are 1.1% longer, 3.7% thicker and 1.7% narrower.

The plug shown was fitted with a fuse marked 13A and BS1362, but it is clearly not a genuine BS1362 fuse. The end caps of the fuse are not bonded or crimped to the body or the fuse wire, they were simply pushed over the bent ends of the fuse wire. The contacts of the fuse holder were so widely splayed (as seen in the picture) that the fuse rattled when in place. As the lead was equipped with a socket rated at 2.5A then a 13A fuse should not have been fitted.

Lose this whole section - it's unsourced and too close to original research, plus it's a little bit NOTMANUAL.

Further resources on counterfeiting issues are available from Counterfeit Kills and BS 1363 Counterfeits

Move these to the External Links section.

What do people think? Yunshui (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

These two sentences from the original text:

The Plugs and Sockets, etc. (Safety) Regulations 1994 were introduced to provide a regulatory regime to address issues regarding consumer safety. There were concerns that consumer safety was compromised by the substantial quantity of counterfeit and unsafe electrical plugs and sockets being placed on the UK market.

...appear to be copied directly from the PDF cited. The document also states

Please note that Crown Copyright applies, so copies may only be made in accordance with the restrictions laid down by HMSO.

Jeh (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE, the above mention of copywrite is quoted out of context, that refers to the actual regulations (please read the page again, it is quite clear). The PDF cited is not an HMSO (government publishers) document, it is a BIS (responsible department) document, the BIS website clearly states: "You may use and re-use the information featured on this website (not including BIS logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. We encourage users to establish hypertext links to this website." So, all that is required is for the quote to be clearly identified as being from that document, and the following attribution made: "Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v1.0" Deucharman (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And this:

Between April and August 2006, anti counterfeiting raids supported by BEAMA Installation (representing the manufacturers whose products are targeted) and electrical safety experts ASTA BEAB (who provide testing and assessment of suspect goods) seized over 220, 000 items of fake switchgear and over 210,000 electrical wiring accessories all purporting to be products from a dozen electrical wiring accessory brand leaders.

...similarly is directly copied from the Voltimum document. These therefore must be substantially rephrased, or else simply appear as quotations in references to the referenced documents. Accordingly, given the WP:OR concerns of the rest of the section, I feel the whole thing should be deleted until a non-WP:COPYVIO rewrite is completed. Preferably one that's much shorter. Jeh (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems rather odd to suggest that a short quote from the News section of the Voltium website would be a copywrite issue, but I am investigating appropriate attribution. Deucharman (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well-spotted. I hadn't realised there was a copyvio involved - we definitely can't have these lines in their current form, then. How about:

Concerns have been raised over the availability of counterfeit plugs and fuses in the UK (with citation (I'm hunting...)). In 2006, anti-counterfeiting raids confiscated over 430,000 counterfeit items, which did not conform to BS 1363 (citing the Voltimum document). Better? Yunshui (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Struggling to find refs for the first sentence, mostly forums and the like, nothing reliable. There's this: [1], from the BBC, which sort of fits... Yunshui (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comments above. Deucharman (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

So, in an average week in the UK, and rounding to the nearest 100, how many people are killed or hospitalized as a result of counterfeit plugs? Zero, you say? Sounds like undue emphasis to me. Everything can be counterfeited, even - gasp- currency. Unless this problem is somehow notable in the real world, and not in the teakettle environment of electrical trade rags, it's not worth more than a passing reference here. It would be interesting to contrast the Canadian and UK approaches to certification of products; the number of seizures of counterfeit CSA logo plugs at dollar stores in Canada is probably only one or two per year, and I've yet to read anything claiming anyone has been injured (aside from CSA not getting its fee for using its logo). --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Wtshymanski's recent rewrite is an excellent solution, and support its retention in the article. Yunshui (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I venture to speculate (without the slightest citable reference) that more people are killed or hospitalized each year by (mis?)use of legimate, trademark-blessed,licenced, standards-compliant products than by failure of counterfeits. There's only about, what, 30 electrocutions in the UK per year? Surely they aren't all due to fakes. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Deucharman: Please review the talk page guidelines (WP:TALK). It is not generally done to insert comments into the middle of an existing "post." (For example, you should not insert any comment immediately after this paragraph.) That comes close to editing someone else's talk page text, which is forbidden except in very rare circumstances. An exception is given at WP:TALK under the heading "Interruptions", but the post in question here hardly counts as "long." Aside from that exception all comments on existing comments on a talk page should go at the end of the section in which they appear, so that the timestamps go in chronological order from top to bottom, and a new talk page reader can come up to date by reading the section from top to bottom. If you absolutely insist on inserting comments within an existing "post", at least have the courtesy to copy the attribution from the end of the post you're breaking up, to the point just above where your comment begins (as I've done above), so that attribution is maintained. (To repeat: you should, for example, not insert any comment immediately after this paragraph.)

Please also respect talk page formatting conventions in the use of indentation, by using an appropriate number of colons before the first word of each paragraph.

Now to your accusation of quoting out of context: I see what you are saying. The copyright notice I cited appears in two places, each time adjacent to the URL for the actual regulations. Nevertheless there is no other statement regarding copyright within the document, and that copyright notice is in the very same PDF as the text that appeared in the article. And there is nothing in that PDF that says that the Crown Copyright notice applies only to the "actual regulations." Perhaps there is a conflicting notice on a page from which the PDF can be found, but that is iffy at best. WP is extremely cautious about copyright issues.

So, all that is required is for the quote to be clearly identified as being from that document, and the following attribution made: "Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v1.0" Deucharman (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If indeed that is all that is required, then that would be sufficient; but that wasn't done, was it? WP is really very rigid about this.

It seems rather odd to suggest that a short quote from the News section of the Voltium website would be a copywrite issue, but I am investigating appropriate attribution. Deucharman (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You really need to get clear on this: Any direct quote from non-free content that is made without adherence to WP:NFC is a copyright issue! Somebody copied that text verbatim and then posted it on WP without attribution. That amounts to a claim by that person that "I wrote that text." That's an ethical problem even if it isn't a legal one. Proper quotation marks (or other similar designations) and attributions should be made for any quoted text, even from material that is in the public domain. From WP:PD: "Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism." I hope that is sufficiently unambiguous.

Just by the way it is "copyright" (as in the right to copy something), not "copywrite". "Copywriters" are people who write "copy"; the term is most often used for people who write text for print ads. Jeh (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What's an ISOD? Why a plastic pin?

It would be interesting to contrast the new North American tamper-resistant receptacles with the BS 1363; the NEMA devices don't need a plastic pin on a plug, because they only require two blades (line and neutral) to be inserted concurently. Was there a reason to require the shutter on the ground earth pin? That would pre-empt at least one of the deathtrap scenarios for plug covers, which I'm sure are laying waste to a generation. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

ISOD looks like it really is used, not just a WIkipedia-ism. Isn't "shuttering" the UK-ism for what I would call "concrete form work" ? Rephrased. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The BS1363 socket was deliberately designed to be incompatible with everything else to prevent the use of unfused plugs in a circuit designed arround fused plugs. The earth pin operated shutter among other things prevents the insertion of various two pin plugs (such as the europlugs and the 5A BS546 variants). Also I suspect an "equal pressure on two pins" mechanism is more complex than earth pin operated shutters. Plugwash (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Pure speculation, but - I think the "inserting the ground prong moves the shutters aside" design was just a lot simpler to make using the materials and techniques of the time. It's quite possible that the US "insert both prongs at once" design just couldn't have been made then, or at least not at reasonable cost. Remember that a whole lot of today's very useful plastics didn't exist in 1944 or 1947, and I'll bet a couple of them are used in the current US safety receptacles. Jeh (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Where were the heirs to Henry Bessemer when you needed them? Somehow I doubt two-blades vs. 3-blades is a materials question. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Then you clearly are not familiar with how sockets were constructed in the 1940s! As far as I know all of the early shutter systems were dependent on the earth pin, it is very much a question of suitable insulating materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deucharman (talk • contribs) 17:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Deucharman, your continued statements along the lines of "if you disagree, you clearly are ignorant and therefore incompetent to edit this article" are not in keeping with WP:CIVIL. Jeh (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Presumably even in 1947 the enclosure of a BS1363 socket wasn't made of whalebone, teak, or ivory; Bakelite was well established by then, among any number of useful plastics. "I don't know either" is an acceptable response on Wikipedia, though as rare as featured articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The earth pin operated shutter is basically a piece of tough sheet insulating material, no complex moulding required. The shutters now used in the sytems requiring equal pressure insetion of line and neutral pins (both UK and NA) are small mouldings of quite complex shape, they have to perform the mechanical barrier and insulating functions while at the same time having low friction bearing surfaces to achieve the required function. I believe that the plastics of the 1940s did not have those qualities. Deucharman (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is what I'm thinking. The earth pin shutter is essentially just pushed aside by the pin. The equal-pressure system requires implementing a mechanical AND gate, with considerably more, more complex, and higher-precision moving parts. And those parts have to maintain that precision and keep working after... how many thousands of insertions? Yes, a lot of plastics existed in 1947 but a lot of much better ones exist now, along with far better molding and other fabrication techniques. And for a design motivated partly by post-war rebuilding, you don't necessarily want the most complex thing you can imagine. Just btw, I've encountered a few of the new equal-pressure receptacles during travels in the UK and they are nothing but a PITA, even with modern materials... Jeh (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Shortening

I think W's recent edits have done much to improve the article. Note that it was previously around 30K bytes, which is recommended as an upper limit for articles. Now there is ample allowance to add details of the alloys used in the plug prongs, or the precise radii of their edges, or the finishing and polishing methods used.... Seriously, always remember that a WP article is supposed to provide a summary and introduction to a topic, it isn't supposed to replace a whole textbook! Nor is it supposed to be written as if the authors are being paid by the word.

By the way, the excised material on counterfeiting, raids, etc., could possibly go in an article about product counterfeiting—after, of course, either providing proper attribution or rewording it to make it the editor's own work. And the stuff on outlet covers, possibly in an article on safety practices of electrical line (mains) power. (The latter article does not seem to exist; maybe one needs to be created? We do have articles, for example, on RCD (GFCI) and AFCIs, but I find nothing that ties all of these concepts together in a summary article.) Both such articles could then be linked from here in the "See also" section. Jeh (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, 32K was a limit in the days of old browsers, now it's more of a guideline. More importantly, the article now isn't so repetitive and wordy, and we actually mention the distinctive features in the lead instead of prattling on about Singapore technical standards. (Amusingly, you have to read quite a lot of the article to discover what the plug is actually rated to carry. I was loathe to say "230" or "240" or "250" or "264" volts without a citation.) We've got Counterfeit consumer goods which has no electrical goods section; a well-researched, non-hysterical section outlining the possibility that some fakes are actually unsafe, as well as being trademark infringement, would be a worthwhile addition -- to that article. Someone with access to BS1362 could make an authoritative table out of the fuse colo(u)r codes. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that that rating is merely 240 or 264 volts or so. In the US a great many cord assemblies intended for use with 120V sockets are actually rated for 600 volts breakdown - look at the molded-in "fine print." That doesn't mean "intended for use with 600 volts," it's "in case something goes wrong at the pole transformer, this thing won't breakdown until at least 600 volts." I believe the minimum such rating for US cordsets is 400 volts. There must be an equivalent breakdown rating for BS1363. Jeh (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case. Looking at Table 11 in my "Canadian Electrical Code" I find that aside from Christmas-tree cord type PXT, most flexible cords are rated 300 volts - type S, SO, SOO, etc. are rated 600 V; there's also weird mine power cables rated to 25000 volts but you won't find those on a block heater cord or string trimmer. YOu would routinely find type S cable used on 600 volt cord-connected devices, so this is a working voltage not an ultimate breakdown voltage. I needed to say what the nominal UK system voltage is, not what dielectric withstand voltage a socket is tested at. And can anyone look up BS 1362 and confirm the interrupting rating is 6 kA (as suggested by some Web catalog pages for "plug top fuses")? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(better) Picture needed

I liked the picture with the red shutters because I could actually SEE the shutters and the little ground earth pin tab that operated them. Could we please get a high-resolution picture looking down into the shutters with a strong light? Better yet, *two* sockets, one with shtters closed and the same model with the shutters open? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree, the shutters are not clearly distinguishable in the current picture; one might as well be looking into unlit holes. And ideally the "shutters open" pic would show the contacts, even if only as glints of light off of metal. Jeh (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

But I suppose to get the latter picture one would have to use one of the dreaded receptacle covers! Jeh (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Technical power

"Daddy, what's technical power? " "I don't know, son, let's click on the blue link and find out." Discuss. Was the BBC using a balanced power system or not? The sentence is unreferenced, let's take it out if we can't find a cite. (If we took out all the unreferenced parts the article would be even shorter). --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

We are authorities on the history of material science since 1947, and yet we are unaware of the world-wide use of blaanced power supplies for radio studios and similar places concerned with hum; even though we are electrical engineers who instruct other, lesser, editors. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh oh. Could be trouble. One of these guys [2] remembers that BBC used a Dorman-Smith plug for technical power. BBC defintely calls it "technical power" and even puts it in vans for mobile units - but not clear that it's balanced power, and no mention so far of what plugs they use. A bulletin for FIFA coverage complains about kettles and vacuum cleaners plugged into technical power plugs, so it may vary from time to time. Could be lots of plugs used by BBC technical power, so it's coming out. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Far too much sarcasm Mr Wtshymanski, Deucharman was clearly correct that there was no basis for that citation, your assumptions were inexcusable. However, you are right that there is currently insufficient evidence on the use of Walsall Gauge at the BBC. We need to know more about that, and about what the BBC defines as technical power, I hope some ex-BBC folk will contribute. Mautby (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not how WP works. It wouldn't matter if the current head of engineering for BBC showed up, because WP does not recognize subject matter experts... Unless of course they come bearing reliable sources. Now the term "technical power" in audio and radio production context does almost always mean "balanced power", and the term is all over a lot of BBC documents and documents that describe BBC practice, but so far I haven't found one that puts it together with both "balanced" and any particular type of outlet. Personally I find nothing strange about the claim that the BBC uses balanced power in its studios and calls it "technical power" as that is common worldwide. Jeh (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Fuses in replacement plugs

Things have maybe changed since I last bought plugs (early 1980s). At that time, it was impossible to buy a plug that did not have a 13A fuse. If you wanted a lower amperage fuse, you had to buy it separately. At the time, there were still a lot of older sockets around in houses as the conversion to ring main in existing installations was slow. People didn’t inspect fuses. I know, from inspection (a lot of plugs have a hole in the pin side that allows a user to see the fuse colour), that a lot of lamps were using plugs with 13A fuses. I telephoned MK_electric to see why this was, and was told that plugs had to be sold with 13A fuses. And, no, I couldn’t exchange the pile of 13A fuses I had for 3A ones!

Jhlister (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You can definitely choose 3, 5 or 13 now... and even in 1970, a reputable retailer would supply you a 2, 3, 5, 7 or 10 A fuse if requested. (1 A fuses were rare at that time.) I do not think it was ever law that a 13 A fuse had to be fitted, but for convenience, it seems that some manufacturers stuck to 13 A. EmleyMoor (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Plugs with 3 or 5 amp fuses are on sale but the majority are indeed only sold with 13A fuses. Prior to mandatory prefitting of plugs on new appliances it was very common for 13A fuses to be used on devices which really ought to have had lower rated fuses. 192.65.220.74 (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Switched plugs

Why use a different socket for a switched outlet? It's quite frequent North American practice to have an outlet (often but not always one half of a duplex NEMA outlet) controlled by a wall switch, for use in places like bedrooms or living rooms. True, if you plug in your clock radio into the switched outlet, it won't keep time any more, but that's a mistake you make only once. It would seem to be terribly inconvenient to move a lamp from one room to the next and have to rewire it from one giant plug to another. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What is important is how it is in the UK! (I am also very familiar with the North American system you describe; I have it in my US home.) Let me try to explain, most people in UK use table lamps and standard lamps which simply plug in to the regular sockets, but these can only be controlled using the switch on the socket or on the lamp. If you want central light switching and/or dimmers on the lamps (and do not mind paying for it) then you need to do something else. Clearly the NA system will not work with a ring main, and our lighting switches are designed to be small and attractive, but not be capable of switching 13A. So, we use a separate lighting circuit with a different type socket to ensure that regular appliances are not mistakenly plugged in. Of course, you can now do central light control using electronics and wireless control, but that is relatively recent. I have again reverted the change, portable is not a suitable description as the larger BS 546 series plugs are also commonly used for stage lighting, non-fixed but usually not reasonable to describe as portable. It avoids both the danger of inadvertently plugging a regular appliance into a dimmed circuit at floor level, and the inconvenience of a fused plug running close to its rating in lights which are flown at high level. Deucharman (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm missing something; why does it make a difference if a wall switch switches an overhead bulb or a socket? Do you not have spurs off rings? Could not a spur have a switch for an outlet? I don't know if it's actually prohbited but you would not expect to find a dimmer on an outlet in North American (residential) practice, only on permanently-wired lamps. (A quick look at the Canadian code shows only discussion of theatrical dimmers.) NOrth American wall switches must handle 15 amps at 120 V and I'm thinking 15 amp 240-volt switches aren't exactly exotic hardware. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Deucharman, "portable" is a completely suitable word there and "non-fixed" means, to many people not familiar with the terminology, "broken." Your insistence on sticking to your exact wording smacks of article ownership. Please allow others' opinions to be taken into account. Jeh (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

We should avoid standards jargon and write in English wherever possible. Surely if it takes more then three stout men and a boy to move a lamp, it would be permanently wired, or wired with a much larger plug than a BS1363. That makes it a "portable" lamp. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

On this, and in some other areas, you are in danger of exercising a form of "Cultural Imperialism", you really do have to allow that an article about an essentially British subject should not try to impose North American terminology!

Because most lighting in domestic premises is fixed, the term "non-fixed" rather than "movable" is the accepted usage in this context. Portable appliances are generally accepted to be less than 18Kg, so not a sufficiently general term to cover larger stage lighting. Deucharman (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as the merits of wall switches controlling spurs, this article is about plugs and sockets and not allowable wiring practice, so it seems rather pointless to get hypothetical. Deucharman (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You are adamantly insisting on what you admit is a peculiarly British term and you are accusing others of "cultural imperialism"?!? A Wikipedia article, even one on a technical topic, should be written for the general audience, using the terminology most accessible to the widest audience. Sometimes the most accurate technical term does not meet that goal. Please see WP:TECHNICAL... Remember, WP is not written for electricians alone, nor for Brits alone, and certainly not for British electricians alone. That "non-fixed" is a peculiarly British technical term for this concept is exactly why it should not be used, not at least without clarification for a wider audience. Heck, I'll bet if I asked 10 randomly-selected Brits on the street what "non-fixed" meant in an electrical wiring context at least three of them would say "broken, hasn't been repaired yet" or similar. Jeh (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded that bit, avoiding the use of either "not-fixed" or "portable" completely... if you're plugging in a lamp I think you'll be aware that it is not wired directly into the structure! Also answering W's "why?" question. I'm still going to take that little survey the next time I'm in the UK. Jeh (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not try to twist my words. I did not say that non-fixed is a "peculiarly British term" The problem is that you are fixated on the idea that "fixed" means repaired, but although that is a common informal usage in North America it is NOT the definition of the adjective, it is at best an informal usage of the verb. See Merriam-Webster. Deucharman (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahem.

"What is important is how it is in the UK!" - Deucharman

Um, no, WP is supposed to be written for the widest audience possible. Just because BS 1363 is a British Standard doesn't mean we can ignore the rest of the English-speaking world.

"not-fixed... is the accepted usage in this context." - Deucharman

"This context" meaning British electricians. No argument there, but WP articles on technical subjects are not written for people already familiar with the subject!

"Portable appliances are generally accepted to be less than 18Kg, " - Deucharman

"Generally accepted" by whom? If you're assuming the general reader would be aware of this (wherever it came from), you're quite mistaken.

"an article about an essentially British subject " - Deucharman

You say "essentially", I say "peculiarly"... You object when I point out that you are promoting, nay, insisting on, a "peculiarly British" usage... after you've insisted repeatedly that this is all about the UK. Don't pick on that word as if it completely negates what I'm saying.

A subject that is "essentially British" means it is all the more desirable to eliminate terminology that might be confusing to a wider-than-British audience. Believe it or not, people outside the UK will have occasion to read this.

Re. fixation: It's not that I think the average reader would read "not-fixed" as "broken" here. After all, "broken" would make no sense in this context, and I think the average reader is probably able to intuit the correct meaning. But that should not be necessary! A word whose intended meaning might plausibly be unfamiliar to the reader, even if technically correct, is not necessarily the best word to include in an article aimed at a general audience... not if it requires readers to stop and think about what it means. That process impedes the smooth flow of information to the brain.

You said yourself that "fixed" meaning "repaired" is a common usage in some parts of the English-speaking world (dare I say among a majority of English-language readers?). So I do not understand why you do not see that that is reason to avoid its use, at least without clarification.

The argument that "this is an essentially British subject" holds no water. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to provide an introduction to topics for readers not already familiar with them. That includes non-Brits.

Just to put even finer points on this, I will further maintain that "fixed" meaning "wired so as to require tools for disconnection," as opposed to "attached to a structure," is not a familiar usage to a majority of English-speaking Wikipedia readers. Even those in the UK. And that while American readers might stumble momentarily over "non-fixed," British readers wouldn't have anywhere near that much of a problem with "portable."

I will again suggest that you read WP:TECHNICAL. Also WP:OWN.

Whether you agree with the above or not, I believe the current wording both sidesteps this issue and also better describes the use and purpose of the non-BS1363 connectors. Jeh (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that Deucharman has proved his point. I do not believe that the majority of WP users, wherever they happen to live, are too ignorant to understand the use of the term “non-fixed”, although some commenters here do seem to have a problem with it.

It is quite ridiculous to suggest that “non-fixed” is jargon, or a “peculiarly British technical term”, it is NOT a term peculiar to electricians, nor Brits, it is simply correct English. Try googling “non-fixed” and you get 842,000 results, less than 10% of which are UK sites! Some examples: “non-fixed expenses”, “non-fixed interest rates”, “non-fixed contamination”, “non-fixed assets”, “non-fixed networks”, the list goes on and on.

I note that Deucharman accepts that the verb “fixed” can mean repaired, but we are talking about its use as an adjective, so the verb usage is actually irrelevant to the argument.

“I will further maintain that "fixed" meaning "wired so as to require tools for disconnection," as opposed to "attached to a structure," is not a familiar usage to a majority of English-speaking Wikipedia readers.” (Jeh). I am not aware that anyone is trying to define the negative of the former interpretation as “non-fixed”, the term is used here to mean “not attached to the structure”, exactly the familiar usage you appear to accept.

Portable is hardly an appropriate word to describe a 40Kg follow spot, but it is non-fixed (it is also movable, but in a quite different sense). It seems to me to be highly improbable that anyone asked to move something weighing more than 40 pounds (18kg) would agree with the concept that it was still “portable”, most people would think that a portable device weighed far less than that!

The wording originally used by TimSmall when he edited the page 5 years ago is far more appropriate than the current version which has become next to meaningless. The version as it was on 31st August is more meaningful: “Most non-fixed domestic equipment is connected using the BS 1363 plugs, the main exceptions being equipment requiring more than 13 amps (e.g. larger electric cookers, which are hard-wired); remotely switched, non-fixed lighting (which use proprietary or BS 546 plugs); and low-power portable equipment, such as shavers, which may be used in several countries. Many bathrooms, particularly in hotels, have 2-pin standard "shaver sockets", which usually accommodate both European and US 2-pin plugs.” But the following important lines have also been deleted, and the sense of these also needs to be restored: “Other plug types used in the same area include IEC 60309, only used in industrial and some outdoor applications, and BS 546, limited to old installations and specialised applications where either the BS 1363 plug is unsuitable or where mateability with the standard variety is not desired (for example, where lamps are controlled by a switch or dimmer).” It is all very well conducting a crusade to improve, but this should not be done at the expense of the accuracy of the article! Mautby (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

"Next to meaningless"?? Here's the text from the previous version you quoted. I have used strikeout for the points not covered by the current text and used bold where new points have been added. I have not decorated text where changes have occurred but the meaning is still there under different wording.

Most non-fixed domestic equipment is appliances are connected using the BS 1363 plugs, the main exceptions being equipment requiring more than 13 amps (e.g. larger electric cookers, which are hard-wired); remotely switched, non-fixed lighting (which use proprietary or BS 546 plugs); and low-power portable equipment, such as shavers, which may be used in several countries. Many bathrooms, particularly in hotels, have 2-pin standard "shaver sockets", which usually accommodate both European and US 2-pin plugs.

Other plug types used in the same areathe UK and some other countries include IEC 60309, only used in industrial and some outdoor applications, and BS 546, limited to old installations and specialised applications where either the BS 1363 plug is unsuitable or where mateability with the standard variety is not desired (for example, where lamps are controlled by a switch or dimmer). BS 546 is also used in applications where a non-fused plug is wanted.

It just isn't that different. But let's take the differences one by one:

• I would actually argue that this first change need not be highlighted at all, but since "non-fixed" is such an issue here... "non-fixed domestic equipment" is overly formal and wordy and furthermore overly restrictive, in that a heck of a lot of non-domestic equipment (like computers in offices) uses BS 1363 plugs also. I could see changing to "mains-powered electrical devices". But as for insisting on "non-fixed", why would a "fixed" device have a plug at all? They're completely out of scope here as they would be hardwired; therefore there is no need to say "non-fixed" to exclude them. In any case the change to the much more accessible word "appliances" does not make this sentence meaningless. It still says "most electric stuff uses a BS 1363 plug", you're just quibbling over a more suitable word for "stuff."
• The example of hardwired electric cookers is a poor example as no plug and receptacle are used there at all. Removing this example does not make the description of the exception for "high current devices" meaningless.
• Not having the term "non-fixed" before "lighting" does not result in meaninglessness. Again, if it's "fixed", it wouldn't have any sort of plug and therefore is out of scope here. But... if you insist, we could re-insert "non-fixed" before the word "lighting" but I will then insist on adding "(i.e. not permanently installed)" after it.
  • Not a subject of the discussion here but... I'll also note that the bit regarding shavers needs to be recast to eliminate the run-on sentence and possible "associativity" errors.
• Yes, W. changed the wording "The same area". Are IEC 60309 and BS 546 really used in this manner everywhere BS 1363 is, and for the same purposes? That is what the previous introductory clause is claiming. Should this article really be making such a sweeping statement about two standards that are not even its prime topic?
• Re. IEC 60309, mention of this is purely peripheral to the article topic. Once again, this article is not about "all mains connectors used in the UK," it's about BS 1363, and IEC 60309's uses are pretty far removed from most readers' everyday experience. The omission of IEC 60309 here does not render the material on BS 1363 meaningless. I suppose there's no real harm in putting it back, but if so its uses should be described a bit better, but most of its details really belong in a different article. "Topic creep" is to be avoided in WP articles; a WP article is not supposed to cover everything that is remotely related to its primary topic. That's what "See also" and "External links" are for.
• Re. "BS1363 plug is unsuitable", I see no meaninglessness here. All that has really changed is that "BS 1363 plug is unsuitable" has been changed to "non-fused plug is wanted". But "or where the BS 1363 plug is unsuitable for other reasons" could certainly be added at the end.

To wrap up: In characterizing these changes as making this section "next to meaningless" you are vastly overstating your case. And the second set of lines you claimed were deleted are in fact there, with minimal changes, those mostly for brevity and simplicity. (Are you sure you were looking at the current version?)

If you'd like to refute that, perhaps you could describe exactly how you think each change highlighted above contributed to this section's claimed current state of "near-meaninglessness"? Do you think anyone would come away from that section thinking that BS 1363 was not the most common mains connector? If that's not it, then what?

Aside: I wonder - how many people will even find this information on alternate plug standards? If you're looking for info on alternatives to BS 1363, you wouldn't necessarily start with the article on BS 1363. There are also articles on BS 546 and IEC 60309; but is there a more "high level" article on general electrical mains distribution and wiring practice in the UK? I can't find it. Probably there should be. Jeh (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeh, you need to apply logic to this. “Non-fixed” is the opposite of” fixed”, the point being to distinguish succinctly that which is fixed from that which is not. The word “appliances” is clearly not the equivalent of “non-fixed domestic equipment”. You are correct that it is restrictive to include “domestic”, the better phrase would be “non-fixed appliances”. The prefix “non“ has the great advantage of defining an opposite very clearly and simply, often avoiding the use of multiple other words. For instance, we say “Non-European countries” rather than “African, American, Asian and Australasian countries”, and it is very difficult to find a simple alternative to ”non-toxic” and “non-flammable”. There is also no simple alternative to non-fixed, a large heavy item resting on the floor is non-fixed, but certainly not portable, a lamp powered from a socket, and which needs to be hung from a ceiling hook, is non-fixed and easily transportable, but you would not describe it as portable in any meaningful sense.

I propose the following to restore the sense of both of the original passages:

“In the UK most non-fixed domestic appliances are connected using BS 1363 plugs, the main exceptions being equipment requiring more than 13 amps (e.g. larger electric cookers, which are hard-wired); remotely switched, non-fixed lighting (which use proprietary or BS 546 connectors on dedicated circuits, sometimes with dimmers); and low-power portable equipment, such as shavers, which may be used in several countries. Many bathrooms, particularly in hotels, have 2-pin standard "shaver sockets", which usually accommodate both European and US 2-pin plugs.” In addition, IEC 60309 is used in some industrial and outdoor applications, and BS 546 in old installations and specialised applications where either the BS 1363 plug is unsuitable (eg 13A is insufficient or an unfused plug is required) or where mateability with the standard variety is not desired.”

The final paragraph of “Adoption” thus becomes redundant, there is no need to keep the reference to the “Soviet” (sic) standard, it is not relevant in this article. Mautby (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's a permanently wired device, then it doesn't have a plug - so don't list it under "things that use a plug except...". Non-fixed is a stunningly opaque bit of standards-ese and I don't think anyone talks that way ("Hey, Marge...move that non-fixed appliance out of the way so I can see the telly", etc.). What, pray tell, is the different between a "non-fixed" appliance and a portable appliance? What would be a "fixed domestic appliance"? It's still true if you say "most appliances" because you have many more nose-hair dryers and electric hamster wheels than you have pottery kilns, in the average home; the extra qualification is redundant. If you can move it without a crane...it's portable, isn't it? Wayy too long, make it shorter and not so wordy. Here's a stock of periods to you in case you're short (........) - the above suggested rewrite needs some breakup into sentences, not long lists of bullet points. A sentence in Wikipedia must be readable out loud without taking a breath in the middle. Get rid of eg, you know someone is going to change it to ie and this is the English Wikipedia, not the abbrev. Latin Wikipedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Mautby, please try responding to my points instead of throwing rocks ("nyah, you're not using logic and I am"). By failing to successfully defend your charge of "near meaninglessness" you have failed to make a case for changing the current text at all. Jeh (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Mautby, I think you have it just right, but these guys who warn others about "ownership" seem to have decided that this article is theirs to do what they want with, and they appear hell-bent on a dumbing down exercise. It exposes one of the fundamental problems with WP, so I for one will simply let them get on with their juvenile games and withdraw from the excercise. You may not be as familiar with Americans as I am (I live there for half of each year), but believe me, they are not usually this obnoxious, please do not judge them all by this ignorant pair. Deucharman (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Beg pardon? "Obnoxious" means "asking for justification of claims," now? Mautby claimed the current text is "near meaningless", I showed point by point why the differences between it and the version Mautby prefers are minimal and certainly not leading to any sort of meaninglessness. Mautby has not replied on point. Now you introduce the "dumbing down" accusation. Ok, you have the diffs clearly shown above - perhaps you can describe exactly how these changes result in "dumbing down"? (As opposed to "aimed at a general audience"; please do keep in mind WP:TECHNICAL.) Until then, neither of you have any presented any backing for your claims, you just throw around words like "meaningless" and "dumbed down"... First you tried the accusation of "cultural imperialism", and now this. Sorry but I don't think I'm the one being obnoxious. Jeh (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Old wiring method

What the article says now is that in the pre-ring-circuit days, *each* outlet was wired back to the distribution board to its own fuse. That can't be right. Surely there were a bunch of outlets on each branch circuit, all wired back to one 5 amp or 15 amp fuse.

Is there a publication around that does a side-by-side comaprison of the ring final circuit vs. radial wiring, showing the copper saving? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but.... each outlet with its own cable back to the fuse board seems a lot more plausible when you consider the number of outlets commonly installed in the pre-war years. The current rules are for at least one outlet per room wall; back then it was more like an outlet per room, at most. And a ring circuit wouldn't necessarily save copper over a US-style branch circuit, but it definitely would over a number of "home runned" outlets. Jeh (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A cite would be nice, perhaps the Internet Archive has digitized some 1930's UK DIY guide - I must search. (There's at least one pre-1923 guide to wiring a house for lighting off a central battery system and lighting plant...too old, no receptacles in the walls because there weren't any appliances to plug in yet.) Canadian code requires an outlet for every 1.8 metres of clear wall space (less doors, floor-length windows, permanent cupboards, etc..) which generally works out to at least one outlet per wall. The 1.8 metres comes from product standards for cord lengths; no need for extension cords for table lamps up against the wall, etc. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

See Ring circuit, it has some good reference sources. Deucharman (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Looks like the pre-war standard was one plug per branch fuse according to page 8 of an article e[ IEE Wiring Matters | Spring 2006 | www.iee.org] - which explains the big savings with the ring final circuit. Looks like the article is correct to say this now. That Plugs and Sockets Act must keep the legislators busy; it would be interesting to contrast the strategy of putting plugs on the agenda of Commons vs. the alternative of delegating technical details to competent authorities. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not a "Plugs and Sockets Act"! The regulations are classed as a Statutory Instrument which does not get discussed in the house. Deucharman (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh good. I had this nightmare version of trying to explain pin dimensions and current capacity to a room full of lawyers and hereditary peers. This sounds more like the way we do it in Canada, where the legislate says "You shall follow the rules" but the actual technical rules are written by less expensive bodies. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Source information

Here is a reading list to assist those who wish to make an intelligent contribution, but do not actually have the information:

BS 1363-1:1995 £182.00 (Specification for rewirable and non-rewirable 13 A fused plugs.)

BS 1363-2:1995 £182.00 (Specification for 13 A switched and unswitched socket-outlets.)

BS 1363-3:1995 £196.00 (Specification for adaptors.)

BS 1363-4:1995 £150.00 (Specification for 13 A fused connection units switched and unswitched.)

BS 1363-5:2008 £196.00 (Specification for fused conversion plugs.)

BS 1362:1973 £130.00 (Specification for general purpose fuse links for domestic and similar purposes (primarily for use in plugs))

BS 546:1950 £150.00 (Specification. Two-pole and earthing-pin plugs, socket-outlets and socket-outlet adaptors.)

To appreciate the context you will also require the following:

BS 7671:2008+A1:2011 £80.00 (Requirements for electrical installations. IET Wiring Regulations. Seventeenth edition.) Mautby (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. What's 1200 pounds in dollars? More that most would be willing to spend on researching a Wikipedia article, I expect. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

XE.com says GBP 1200 is approximately USD 1930. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

In other words, Mautby appears to be claiming that unless you spend $1930 (or £1200, whichever), you will be unable to make an "intelligent contribution", or indeed, "appreciate the context". Better get your wallets out, Wikipedia... Yunshui (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Using a library works equally well. Mautby (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Touché. Yunshui (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"Flex"

Is this term universally understood enough to be used without explanation? I wouldn't have known what it meant except via context. Remember, WP articles are not supposed to be written with so much region-specific terminology that they're not immediately understandable to others. Jeh (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"Flexible cord" is the appropriate and correct term which should be meaningfull to all, "cord" used alone is an American region-specific term and therfore unsuitable except in a specifically American context, just as "flex" alone is meaningful to Brits but not Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.235.31.243 (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. However you introduced a few spelling errors - corrected. Also I think the revert of the "other safety features" sections makes it too wordy - despite the list format, it once again reads like "natter." In any case, WP:EMBED states that prose is preferred over embedded lists in prose articles. I also wonder about the use of the word "cable". Jeh (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd recognize both terms, but then I'm addicted to British cop shows in which one bobby says to another things like "Bring your torch over here...I think this tart in the boot has a flex round her neck." --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Heater: resistive or inductive loads?

Is an electric heater really a purely resistive load ? Would there not be an inductive component as well due to the elements being (usually) coiled conductors ?

Maybe we should be saying impedance then, but at a fixed frequency it doesn't really matter, and all loads have an inductive component so it also depends on how pedantic people want to be. Heater coil impedance has as much to do with ΔT between coil and air as anything else.

I'm still of the opinion that people need to go and re-evaluate there understanding of ohms law on this whole issue but frankly I can't be bothered to push the point anymore.--Pypex 00:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, somebody throw an impedance bridge on a Calrod heater and see if it has inductance. It probably does, but I can't believe that the inductive reactance matters very much. And for other heater designs (for example, nichrome strip heaters), I think you'd be hard pressed to find any measurable inductance at all!

At 50 (and even 60!) Hz, I think you're safe analyzing resistance heaters as purely resistive loads ([[Fan (implement)|fan motors aside, of course).

Atlant 14:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)