Would the standards committee come up with different shutter requirements for extension cables? Is placing the plug in the outlet upside down common on extension cables? I still content that this connection method is unlikely to happen as “accidental”. My contention is that standards committees do try to reduce the risk of hazards from misuse, but there are limits to what is practical.
I guess some of Rich Nute’s comments from years ago have stuck in my head. Where is the line between a fault condition and intentional misuse? Show me evidence that placing the plug in the outlet upside down happens accidentally and I may consider it a condition where additional safeguards might be warranted. Ted Eckert Microsoft The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. From: John Woodgate <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:31 PM To: Ted Eckert <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety design of shutter opening 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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woodjohn.uk&data=02%7C01%7CTed.Eckert%40MICROSOFT.COM%7C3a87d68523484a53947908d5ec1bd3de%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636674526626698531&sdata=KmKQVRNJ%2F95BRbunvrmk30SEOVJA3C9h3J%2FsAvvJ4GQ%3D&reserved=0> 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 Associates www.woodjohn.uk<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woodjohn.uk&data=02%7C01%7CTed.Eckert%40MICROSOFT.COM%7C3a87d68523484a53947908d5ec1bd3de%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636674526626698531&sdata=dMPefVH2%2FAXT6%2FBt2uTk%2BFUKx%2FUwa%2ByBOQnxyZGXaGE%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]> 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]>
