Hi Pete, I'm not an installer so don't have easy access to the OSG, but I have certainly tried and did manage to dig up an "Electricians guide to the IET" (17th ed though), and I really appreciate the effort everyone is making to help. As I understand it, this type of socket is aimed at use where the equipment used on the ring can collectively (if not individually where they would need wiring in) generate a high protective current (mainly office buildings) and the sockets being installed must have 2 earth terminals. These terminals each link to one end of the ring, and to each other and a duplicate earth or metal conduit (to ensure the earth is protected in case of a component/socket failure). As such I guess the verdict is that the sockets are likely to pass BS 1363/Plug and socket regs, and be legal to sell, but the installer will be responsible to ensure safe fitting. That means to bridge the two terminals with a suitable conductor and run duplicate conductor/metal trunking in in the office setting. In the domestic setting an installer would just bridge the two earth terminals (unless the householder was going to have a host of PCs installed and needed duplicate earth wire/trunking) - In the DIY arena the bridging of terminals is unlikely to happen all the time, and would depend on the user's level of ability and desire to read the instructions, but remains legal-but-iffy to use. Does that sound about right?
In general, all PE terminals are interconnected on any device, including electrical accessories, except for deliberately separate clean earth connections. Socket outlets with two PE terminals for the purpose of high integrity earthing always have them internally linked, so that all points remain earthed if any one terminal loses continuity (which would defeat any wire link installed between them.)
What do the manufacturers' instructions say about this product? Do they specifically call attention to the need to earth both terminals? As @netblindpaul points out, there isn't a law about socket-outlet construction (just as there aren't laws about wiring) but if it incorrectly claims compliance with a standard, or fails to meet general provisions for safety, or lacks the necessary instructions to enable it to be used safely, it might be an offence to sell it.
What do the manufacturers' instructions say about this product? Do they specifically call attention to the need to earth both terminals? As @netblindpaul points out, there isn't a law about socket-outlet construction (just as there aren't laws about wiring) but if it incorrectly claims compliance with a standard, or fails to meet general provisions for safety, or lacks the necessary instructions to enable it to be used safely, it might be an offence to sell it.
I rarely post because there are so many adverts on here I can’t be bothered most of the time to have to put up with the barrage, and I don’t like the cookie policy. As I understand it it requires you to allow too much cross site tracking and persistent cookies. I don’t believe that they are essential.
So it means that I have to log in every time and it is just too much hassle for me to bother with.
Plus I have been busy with other things.
Hassle on mobile devices though and I've not been at a computer so much recently.
Plus I have enough in having to know the details of half a dozen pieces of law, keep up with the changes in these and the several hundred standards that are linked to the product safety legislation without getting involved with any legislation and standards outside this, so I don’t like that the forum has ”gone international”, can’t be bothered to find out the location of the poster, and thus the requirements of the law and standards behind the question. Just too much hassle.
One click on the poster's name gives you their location. Just ignore any non UK ones. And the American and Australian ones have their own section anyway.
So it turned up today. As pointed out by the OP there's no continuity across the earth terminations. If this was installed in a ring final the CPC would be discontinuous, two or more would mean sockets with no CPC present. If installed in a radial circuit every single socket afterwards would have no CPC.
Sorry the pictures are on the lash...
The only time you may get CPC continuity is if you installed this accessory in a metal backbox with fixed lugs. But the earth tags are loose and rely on the clamping screw to secure them in place.
The instructions are minimal bordering on dangerous, no mention of earth continuity.
Overall the unit feels cheap and tatty, I also found it difficult to put a BS1363 plug into the socket without excessive force.
Even the fixing screws are sharp, I haven't measured them but they look oversize.
My advice, stay away, if you have one fitted or see it on an installation get rid.
I'll be in touch with electrical safety first shortly.
Sorry the pictures are on the lash...
The only time you may get CPC continuity is if you installed this accessory in a metal backbox with fixed lugs. But the earth tags are loose and rely on the clamping screw to secure them in place.
The instructions are minimal bordering on dangerous, no mention of earth continuity.
Overall the unit feels cheap and tatty, I also found it difficult to put a BS1363 plug into the socket without excessive force.
Even the fixing screws are sharp, I haven't measured them but they look oversize.
My advice, stay away, if you have one fitted or see it on an installation get rid.
I'll be in touch with electrical safety first shortly.
That really is a rubbish design and hopefully trading standards will do something about them. Ideally stop sales and force a product recall.
As you say, it is going to lead to no CPCs in one or more location depending on how it is installed unless someone is very diligent and discovered CPC links are needed at every socket.
Realistically, it is a fatal accident waiting to happen.
As you say, it is going to lead to no CPCs in one or more location depending on how it is installed unless someone is very diligent and discovered CPC links are needed at every socket.
Realistically, it is a fatal accident waiting to happen.
Deeply ambiguous instructions - show two G/Y cables but only refer to one - and patchy construction. Those contacts look pretty awful, they might be tight now (or undersize) but I wouldn't trust them to make good contact in five years time. No matter, the soldering of the line contacts to the PCB will probably have given way with metal fatigue by then if they get much use. Flimsy-looking line input termination that probably won't last at 20A.
OTOH it looks like the PCB itself might be reasonably well designed. There seems to be good creepage distance across the barrier c/w slotting where needed e.g under the relays and at the SMPSU transformer. The critical components such as the Y-cap across the barrier, non-flam / fusible resistors etc seem correctly specified and not skimped, although it's the electrolytics that will surely decide its fate and I can't see their faces. Personally I'd have given the relays a bit more airflow but I've seen worse.
Anyway, will be interesting to hear what if anything you get back. I won't be fitting any.
OTOH it looks like the PCB itself might be reasonably well designed. There seems to be good creepage distance across the barrier c/w slotting where needed e.g under the relays and at the SMPSU transformer. The critical components such as the Y-cap across the barrier, non-flam / fusible resistors etc seem correctly specified and not skimped, although it's the electrolytics that will surely decide its fate and I can't see their faces. Personally I'd have given the relays a bit more airflow but I've seen worse.
Anyway, will be interesting to hear what if anything you get back. I won't be fitting any.
Or me? Launch my channel with it?
Be interesting to see what CEF have to say as well, since it appears they supply them. You expect cheap, non compliant tat on ebay and Amazon, but not from a major trade supplier.
Go on then. I promise not to set it on fire* or subject it to gratuitous violence.
*with petrol, although if it catches fire with electricity, that is its own lookout.
*with petrol, although if it catches fire with electricity, that is its own lookout.
Message me your address and I’ll get it sent tomorrow. Hermes or Post Office?
The law is not as specific as to give the level of detail you seek.
The EHSR’s of the law merely require the product to be safe.
A BS is not law and is not mandatory.
However deviations from a BS would mean that the manufacturers would have to be able to justify the same or greater safety than afforded by following the relevant BS product standards.
(much simplified explanation)
Electrical Safety First.
Please give them as much detail as possible.
That's the trouble I have. It seems to comply with the standard (so long as the instructions are good enough to meet the lab's interpretation of the cl4 requirement "minimizes the risk of danger to the user or the surroundings") but I don't know the law/regulations well enough to say if this would fall illegal under the EHSRs on its own. I can check the LVD, but don't know if there is anything similar in the Part P or or other regs that would forbid this arrangement. [edit: sorry, you do clearly state the EHSRs require the product to be safe - - if there any laws other than the LVD/LV Safety Regs/plug and socket regs, could you point me to them please?)
Last edited:
I'm not sure it complies with the British Standard does it?
Plugs and sockets outlets are excluded from the LVD, because the standards to which they are made are national, not harmonised. I am not sure (but we should probably find out) how the LVD applies to a socket outlet with integral electronics, such that the electronics lie within the scope of the LVD. There is this: Announcement: server inaccessibility - European Commission - http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/20341 but I can't access it at the moment because the Europa site is down. It might only concern plug-in devices, I can't recall.
Part P doesn't care a jot how the terminals on a socket outlet are arranged. It is a building regulation that obliges installers to comply with BS7671 in order to also comply with building regs, and to notify and certify certain works. It does not apply at all in many locations. BS7671 does not itself explicitly require socket outlets to be made to BS1363, however any alternative would be expected to achieve the same level of safety and it would be an uphill struggle to demonstrate how a socket not made in compliance with that standard would do so, in a UK domestic environment.
Who has a copy (or sight of a copy) of BS1363?
Part P doesn't care a jot how the terminals on a socket outlet are arranged. It is a building regulation that obliges installers to comply with BS7671 in order to also comply with building regs, and to notify and certify certain works. It does not apply at all in many locations. BS7671 does not itself explicitly require socket outlets to be made to BS1363, however any alternative would be expected to achieve the same level of safety and it would be an uphill struggle to demonstrate how a socket not made in compliance with that standard would do so, in a UK domestic environment.
Who has a copy (or sight of a copy) of BS1363?
Hopefully someone does. I'd put a fiver on this socket not meeting BS1363 requirements. And I'm tight!
With my regulatory hat on ........
The UK 'law' on plugs and sockets is implemented through Statutory Instrument 1768, "The Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations"
www.legislation.gov.uk
This specifically requires socket outlets to comply with BS1363-2 plus amendments.
The standard defines not only construction requirements but also the plethora of tests that must pass for the design to be approved.
It requires products to be tested and approved (type testing) by an accredited test house, to the standard, before they are put on the market, and requires marking on the product to identify the test house to show compliance.
It is not permitted to CE mark plugs and sockets (now going to be UKCA since Brexit), 'self declaration' is not allowed for plugs and sockets, so the only legitimate route to market is through notified body testing.
The Socket under discussion has a spurious CE mark. I didn't see the mark of an accredited test house anywhere, and as Lucien commented on the 'instructions', I don't think any test house would have passed the instruction leaflet anyway.
I don't believe there is anything specific in BS1363-2 to say that multiple earth terminals must be connected (I could be wrong), so that doesn't help the cause, but it is plain that supplying these things is against regulations, so I believe Trading Standards could take action.
The UK 'law' on plugs and sockets is implemented through Statutory Instrument 1768, "The Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations"
The Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1994
These Regulations re–enact with modifications the provisions of the Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987/603) and make provision for the first time for certain requirements to be satisfied in relation to appliances.
The standard defines not only construction requirements but also the plethora of tests that must pass for the design to be approved.
It requires products to be tested and approved (type testing) by an accredited test house, to the standard, before they are put on the market, and requires marking on the product to identify the test house to show compliance.
It is not permitted to CE mark plugs and sockets (now going to be UKCA since Brexit), 'self declaration' is not allowed for plugs and sockets, so the only legitimate route to market is through notified body testing.
The Socket under discussion has a spurious CE mark. I didn't see the mark of an accredited test house anywhere, and as Lucien commented on the 'instructions', I don't think any test house would have passed the instruction leaflet anyway.
I don't believe there is anything specific in BS1363-2 to say that multiple earth terminals must be connected (I could be wrong), so that doesn't help the cause, but it is plain that supplying these things is against regulations, so I believe Trading Standards could take action.
With my regulatory hat on ........
The UK 'law' on plugs and sockets is implemented through Statutory Instrument 1768, "The Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations"
This specifically requires socket outlets to comply with BS1363-2 plus amendments.The Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1994
These Regulations re–enact with modifications the provisions of the Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987/603) and make provision for the first time for certain requirements to be satisfied in relation to appliances.
The standard defines not only construction requirements but also the plethora of tests that must pass for the design to be approved.
It requires products to be tested and approved (type testing) by an accredited test house, to the standard, before they are put on the market, and requires marking on the product to identify the test house to show compliance.
It is not permitted to CE mark plugs and sockets (now going to be UKCA since Brexit), 'self declaration' is not allowed for plugs and sockets, so the only legitimate route to market is through notified body testing.
The Socket under discussion has a spurious CE mark. I didn't see the mark of an accredited test house anywhere, and as Lucien commented on the 'instructions', I don't think any test house would have passed the instruction leaflet anyway.
I don't believe there is anything specific in BS1363-2 to say that multiple earth terminals must be connected (I could be wrong), so that doesn't help the cause, but it is plain that supplying these things is against regulations, so I believe Trading Standards could take action.
Interesting. I'm surprised there is no requirement in BS1363 for earth terminals to be connected together. Seems to leave things wide open to this sort of socket to be put on the market.
Wonder how many people have fitted them and are now sat in a house where half the socket circuit has no earth?
OK, so the P&S(S)R 1984 invoke BS1363 so we do 100% need to confirm whether anything in that even implicitly requires the terminals to be connected together. That could be a requirement for a test from either contact to either terminal etc.
You say the CE mark is spurious, would it not be a valid indicator of compliance with the EMC directive within the electronic section of the product, even though the socket itself is out of scope?
You say the CE mark is spurious, would it not be a valid indicator of compliance with the EMC directive within the electronic section of the product, even though the socket itself is out of scope?
As I understand it only Standard Plugs need Notified body approval (Regulation 8) but Sockets fall under "Regulation 10 Electrical devices other than standard plugs" which only require testing. Agreed re: BS 1363-2, though, I can't find anything specific in that states that the earths must be linked, but the General requirement in cl.4 states that risks must be minimised so it is down to the lab interpretation of what this means. CE would still be needed if there is a CE Function like WiFi under Radio Equipment Directive/Regulations.With my regulatory hat on ........
The UK 'law' on plugs and sockets is implemented through Statutory Instrument 1768, "The Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations"
This specifically requires socket outlets to comply with BS1363-2 plus amendments.The Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1994
These Regulations re–enact with modifications the provisions of the Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987/603) and make provision for the first time for certain requirements to be satisfied in relation to appliances.
The standard defines not only construction requirements but also the plethora of tests that must pass for the design to be approved.
It requires products to be tested and approved (type testing) by an accredited test house, to the standard, before they are put on the market, and requires marking on the product to identify the test house to show compliance.
It is not permitted to CE mark plugs and sockets (now going to be UKCA since Brexit), 'self declaration' is not allowed for plugs and sockets, so the only legitimate route to market is through notified body testing.
The Socket under discussion has a spurious CE mark. I didn't see the mark of an accredited test house anywhere, and as Lucien commented on the 'instructions', I don't think any test house would have passed the instruction leaflet anyway.
I don't believe there is anything specific in BS1363-2 to say that multiple earth terminals must be connected (I could be wrong), so that doesn't help the cause, but it is plain that supplying these things is against regulations, so I believe Trading Standards could take action.
I believe someone has mentioned "clean earth" sockets where the terminals are not linked, MK produce one but the terminals are marked different as can be seen here. I doubt however the accessory we are discussing has been designed for this purpose.
You are right, and Schedule 1 actually excludes sockets that incorporate another electrical device (eg usb or Wi-Fi). Must learn to read thoroughly!
The issue I have with PSSR is that whilst it states "sockets" and includes sockets in regulation 3 "Interpretation", includes them in reg 4 "Electrical devices to which Part I applies", and goes on in para 6 "Requirements for electrical devices" therein it specified compliance for plugs to contain a BS 1362 fuse (in 6(2)) and in 6(1) requires compliance with reg's 8 or 10, these go on to not specify sockets!With my regulatory hat on ........
The UK 'law' on plugs and sockets is implemented through Statutory Instrument 1768, "The Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations"
This specifically requires socket outlets to comply with BS1363-2 plus amendments.The Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1994
These Regulations re–enact with modifications the provisions of the Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987/603) and make provision for the first time for certain requirements to be satisfied in relation to appliances.
The standard defines not only construction requirements but also the plethora of tests that must pass for the design to be approved.
It requires products to be tested and approved (type testing) by an accredited test house, to the standard, before they are put on the market, and requires marking on the product to identify the test house to show compliance.
It is not permitted to CE mark plugs and sockets (now going to be UKCA since Brexit), 'self declaration' is not allowed for plugs and sockets, so the only legitimate route to market is through notified body testing.
The Socket under discussion has a spurious CE mark. I didn't see the mark of an accredited test house anywhere, and as Lucien commented on the 'instructions', I don't think any test house would have passed the instruction leaflet anyway.
I don't believe there is anything specific in BS1363-2 to say that multiple earth terminals must be connected (I could be wrong), so that doesn't help the cause, but it is plain that supplying these things is against regulations, so I believe Trading Standards could take action.
reg 8 is "Approval of standard plugs", reg 10 is "Electrical devices other than standard plugs", and refers to col 2 of Schedule 2 of the regulations.
This states at item 1
"Standard plugs; sockets with which standard plugs may be engaged"
This is a little ambiguous and suppliers do not interpret this as the legislation applying to BS 1363 socket outlets.
Reg 8 also does not explicitly require socket outlets to undergo notified body I&T for approval.
BS 1363-2:2016+A1:2018 does not explicitly state that two independent protective conductor terminals must be interconnected!
IIRC I know the committee chair, so I will enquire, and if this is not explicit I believe that it will be reviewed soon, perhaps it can be added.
The maximum load from a 2G 13A socket is usually taken as 20A. Where does this figure come from? Written into legislation somewhere, manufacturer's instructions or just a convention?
So we seem to have established that sockets with an additional electrical device (eg wi-fi) are excluded from the PSSR (as per schedule 1), do not require Notified Body approval, and are not required by BS1362-2 to have independent earth terminals linked, there being no specific detail on that point.
So, despite hoping to the contrary, there may be nothing 'illegal' about the wi-fi twin socket in question ?
So, despite hoping to the contrary, there may be nothing 'illegal' about the wi-fi twin socket in question ?
What we might have to rely on is the inadequate instructions. They mention a single earth wire, which cannot reasonably be understood as a wire to one terminal and a link to the other. Nor would a person skilled and qualified in electrical installation work be expected to know that a link is needed. Whilst such a person would test the completed work, which would reveal the issue in many cases, an end-of-radial tested at whichever socket has the CPC connected would show nothing abnormal. Even in RFC or middle of a radial, a fortuitous connection between the two terminals via the screws and back-box could yield satisfactory test results without the connection being adequately reliable.
Hi everyone, I'd just like to say thanks to you all for helping me understand the implications of this. I'd be really interested to hear what Electrical Safety First or the BSI have to say about it if you get feedback from them. Some forums have a "thanks" button for their kudos system but I can't see one here, so thanks to all!
@Pete999 have you not heard of Ductor testing?
High current low resistance testing.
Megger DLRO is a very common unit.
Mine is only 10A, but they are available up to 600A they stress the conductors to a higher level than the low current testing done by a typical MFT, or DMM.
They also offer a resolution much higher than those given by a typical MFT.
The way that EN 60204-1 is worded it is easily interpreted to require high current testing for all protective conductor networks.
A classic use for a Ductor was to test steel conduit when installed and utilised as the circuit cpc.
High current low resistance testing.
Megger DLRO is a very common unit.
Mine is only 10A, but they are available up to 600A they stress the conductors to a higher level than the low current testing done by a typical MFT, or DMM.
They also offer a resolution much higher than those given by a typical MFT.
The way that EN 60204-1 is worded it is easily interpreted to require high current testing for all protective conductor networks.
A classic use for a Ductor was to test steel conduit when installed and utilised as the circuit cpc.
Similar threads
OFFICIAL SPONSORS
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
Advert
Thread starter
- Joined
- Location
- Maidenhead
- If you're a qualified, trainee, or retired electrician - Which country is it that your work will be / is / was aimed at?
- United Kingdom
- What type of forum member are you?
- DIY or Homeowner (Perhaps seeking pro advice, or an electrician)
Thread Information
Advert
Thread statistics
Advert
TrueNAS JBOD Storage Server
-
-
-
Understanding TrueNAS JBOD Servers: A Comprehensive Guide- Started by Dan
- Replies: 8