You have misunderstood. The effect occurs with extension cables, usually
fitted with four sockets in a line. It does not occur with wall sockets,
even surface-mounted, because the sockets are large enough to prevent it.
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-07-17 18:53, Ted Eckert wrote:
I would go one step further than Mr. Woodgate.
Inserting a BS 1363 plug into an outlet backwards is a challenge. The
ground pin is longer than the line and neutral pins, but not that much
longer. You cannot fully insert the ground pin into the outlet
“backwards” because the line and neutral pins will hold the plug away
from the face of the outlet. If you can get the plug to stay in that
position, it would be held in lightly at best. In many case, the
weight of the plug and cord would likely pull it out of the outlet due
to the limited engagement of the ground pin. Further, whatever device
was plugged in won’t turn on because it won’t have power. It seems to
me that it would be extremely unlikely that somebody would
“accidentally” put the plug in backwards and leave it there for an
extended period of time.
I agree that the shutter mechanism can be defeated. However, I see it
as being very unlikely to happen accidentally. The standards
committees are trying to prevent foreseeable misuse, but there is only
so much you can do to prevent people who want to intentionally defeat
a safeguard.
Ted Eckert
Microsoft
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those
of my employer or the Society of People Who Like to Put Metal Objects
in Outlets (SPWLPMOO).
*From:*John Woodgate <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 17, 2018 4:11 AM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Safety design of shutter opening
Well, strictly, an electric shock incident would be a 'two-fault'
situation - plug reversed AND conducting object inserted into the live
socket. In general, two-fault situations are almost impossible to
avoid but luckily also occur very rarely.
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woodjohn.uk&data=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C80438b42dacb42da1c4f08d5ebd62014%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636674227263173356&sdata=Zxj4HPmpUMZQunCdde7BzuHeZyj%2BhVO%2BGAv4c1p7PIU%3D&reserved=0>
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-07-17 10:58, Scott Xe wrote:
Hi Pete,
Thanks for your view! Firstly I dare to say it is not a new issue
since I have read some reviews with this concern in the past plus
a quick search of products available on the market showing some
models in exist. I do believe the standard committee and
manufacturers are well aware of it. It must have a reason to be
tolerated or in a lower priority. This forum has lots of expert
and senior and looking for their enlightenment or common alignment.
Regards,
Scott
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 at 01:26, Pete Perkins <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Scott,
In watching this thread it is clear that the technical
assessment and the regulatory certification are two separate
issues but linked by local law so we need to be cognizant of
the regulatory environment.
The technical assessment (per the standard) is organized by an
ongoing group of (fallible) folks who work very hard to cover
all of the risks (usually) from the product manufacturers
point of view (since they seem to dominate the technical
committees). Since the requirements are usually written in
retrospect from experience and, usually, not organized in a
top down approach (using the usual risk assessment tools –
FMEA, etc) it is incomplete is some (usually) unexpected ways
– as you have discovered. When exposed, the standards
committee then scrambles to fill the hole identified. This is
a never ending process, approaching perfection asymptotically.
All this ignores the clever manufacturer who seeks out these
holes and makes use of them to gain advantage in some way.
The regulatory certification reflects the level of development
of the National bureaucracy responsible for setting
requirements. Additionally, the lobbying of legislators and
bureaucrats by special interest groups affects the final rules
applied. So it ends up being a patchwork of requirements that
need to be applied by the manufacturer.
John Woodgate assures us that the world is happy with the UK
approvals; check it out carefully. Oh yes, a question – does
Hong Kong or Singapore still use the British plug design?
What residual of this usage is still left in the world?
All of this is the reason that you and I (and most of the
others on this net) have a meaningful job – once we get a
little experience and are willing to put up with the
uncertainty regarding the roles of requirements along with the
varied level of enforcement by the legal jurisdictions.
You are uncomfortable with this hole in the requirements.
When we feel that the requirements or the application of
requirements is either too strict or too slack our only
recourse is to get (directly or indirectly) involved in fixing
things (in which managers and technical folks excel) by
joining a technical committee or lobbying the political
process that needs fixing.
My advice is: pick your fights carefully and pursue them with
all you have – personal and corporate. You may even be
successful in some of the efforts.
So much philosophizing; good luck in fixing the world.
:>) br, Pete
Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
PO Box 23427
Tigard, ORe 97281-3427
503/452-1201
IEEE Life Fellow
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*From:* Scott Xe <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 9:48 AM
*To:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Safety design of shutter opening
Dear Johns,
Thanks for advice abt other countries using 13A plugs &
sockets! Do they require specific approved bodies for issuing
certification like UK?
Regards,
Scott
*From: *John Allen <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Reply-To: *John Allen <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Date: *Monday, 16 July 2018 at 3:45 PM
*To: *<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject: *Re: [PSES] Safety design of shutter opening
Also used in Malta and Cyprus (even in “Turkish” Northern
Cyprus IIRC!) – and then there is Gibraltar.
John E Allen
W. London, UK
*From:*John Mcauley [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* 16 July 2018 01:03
*To:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Safety design of shutter opening
Hi Scott
Ireland uses the same plug as the UK as per I.S. 401:1997 -
Safety Requirements For Rewireable And Non-rewireable 13A
Fused Plugs.
IS 401 is the equivalent of BS 1363.
Interesting issue about plugs being able to be inserted upside
down in some extension sockets.
John McAuley
*From:*Scott Xe <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Sent:* 15 July 2018 23:32
*To:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Safety design of shutter opening
Thank you for the clarification.
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
David Heald <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <[email protected]>
David Heald: <[email protected]>
