13 Amp socket tolerances

I was visiting Scotland and Northern Ireland from the USA. I brought a passive power adapter, to allow me to plug my dual voltage devices into 13 Amp sockets. I found that I could plug my adapter into some sockets, but not others (even within the same house). The earth pin wouldn't go in. It wasn't clear whether it was to wide or too tall.
I just restricted myself to using the sockets where it fit, assumed I had an out of tolerance adapter, and decided to buy a better one when I got back to the states.
However, when I measured the earth pin, and compared it with the dimensions given in the Wikipedia article on BS 1363, the pin was well within tolerance.
Any suggestions? Any more appropriate forum to ask this question?
Thanks in advance
Pete
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Shape. Even some real plugs don't insert very well - and it always seems due to the shape of the end of the earth pin not matching well with the earth pin shutter.
A suitable level of slight wiggle and brute force usually works. But I have come across some combinations (possibly always including a poor quality socket) where the effort was not worth it and I used an alternative.
Or should that be 'ground'?
--
Rod

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:27:16 +0100, polygonum wrote:

Aye, the earth pin should be chamfered on all four corners with the faceof the chamfer being about 2 mm wide.
Americans won't be used to shuttered sockets either and ours do sometimes take a little wiggle to get the earth pin opening the shutter.
--
Cheers
Dave.




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Liquorice wrote:

I think that's probably it. I have two different adapters in front of me, and I can't remember which one I took with me. However, one has the ground pin chamfered in only one dimension, and the other has it chamfered in both dimensions. I'll make sure I take the dual chamfer with me next time.
Thanks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I've got one or two wall warts with plastic earth pins which are difficult to insert.
--
*How can I miss you if you won't go away?

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pete Fraser wrote:

It also suggests that the adapter does not comply with British Standards and may not have a fuse.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Don't say that, it means a ring could be put into a dangerous state which is not prevented by the protection circuits built into the ring.
Ah well it may only burn the house down and lets face it anyone that plugs stuff into a ring that puts it into a dangerous state deserves it. But not the people that put 32A breakers into a circuit with 22A cable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30/08/2011 20:58, dennis@home wrote:

Clueless as always dennis...
The circuit will be fine, and adequately protected. Plug fuses are there to protect the appliance flex.
An unfused adaptor could result in a flex not having adequate fault protection.
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So what exactly stops someone plugging more than one appliance into an adapter without fuses and drawing a continuous 40 amps down an unbalanced ring or even a spur? Wishful thinking? A set of rules that the user doesn't know exists? Luck? Or maybe your old fall back.. the adapter catching fire before the cable?
Anyway I am not going to argue with you about it. You can just read my sarcastic comment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:25:04 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Exactly the same situation as someone plugging in three items on the ring, drawing roughly 13 amps each:
a) the protection for the ring (MCB/RCBO); that stops it being continuous b) the ring is tolerant of rather more than its base rating.
--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think that you are picking on dennise. How the hell is she supposed to know what three times thirteen is?
--
Adam



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 21:16:54 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

Have to take steps to find out.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Don't worry, the moron electrician can't work out that you can get 20A through one plug fuse without it blowing and 40A through a 32A breaker without it tripping. So you can overload a ring without even having to use nails or have faulty fuses or illegal adapters without fuses. All it takes is a multi way or two.
Que john to say the multi way will catch fire before the overloaded cable if the user is "lucky"!
Stick a 20A breaker in or use 4 mm2 cable and it can't be overloaded.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 31/08/2011 22:48, dennis@home wrote:

Not entirely sure why dennis is prattling his usual tripe about ring circuits when the question is about travel adaptors - fused or otherwise.

Well lets say the multiway survives the sustained 20A load (the better ones might), and someone fairly clueless manages to cobble together 10kW of load all in one room at one time, and connect it into a pair of 4 way trailing leads. Then they plug them both into a double socket...
(obviously this is only ever likely to happen in dennis's house - but dear reader, for the moment, pretend its somewhere in the real world).
We will skip over the fact that there is not a double socket out there that will take 40A for long before it becomes bleeding obvious to all that something is not happy, and assume perhaps our dimwit has used a pair of sockets on the same circuit, and look at what will happen to the circuit...
The answer?
Bugger all really. If the sockets are right at one end of the ring close to the CU (which obviously they won't be because unlike dennis, competent electricians think about things like this, and use appropriate topologies for the circumstances), one cable may get a tad hotter than it ought. If kept that way[1] it will probably shorten the life of the cable. The more likely outcome is nothing exciting will happen.
Obviously that worries dennis, he would rather it all burst into flames for some reason...
(no doubt the millions of homes that have not spontaneously combusted due to non dennis circuit designs being employed, will in no way dent his belief since these numbers are obviously statistically not relevant)
[1] Obviously keeping that 10kW of load sustained is actually quite a challenge, but I am sure dennis can think of a way.

That would be a woosh...
Still apparently dennis is not going to argue with me any more (unless he was telling porkies yet again!) so we can enjoy the silence...
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snip same old.
Still arguing that the rules keep it safe, even though the users don't even know what the rules are.
Still argues that the iee know best, even though they are constantly changing the rules as they cover up previous mistakes.. like only fitting one socket to a 2.5 mm spur when they used to allow two. Shame about the millions already out there.
Still argues that overload protection can be left to a user supplied device, one the user knows nothing about or what it does or what happens if its done incorrectly.
Still calls anyone with contrary views about safety wrong even when the recommendations are safer and don't rely on the user knowing the rules, or supplying safety devices.
You really don't have an argument, you just be a good boy and do the minimum the "regs" say, I will just exceed them as usual.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/09/2011 08:00, dennis@home wrote:

Ah, apparently he was fibbing again... really dennis!

Where does anything I said require user knowledge of rules?

Know best? possibly. Know better than you, I believe so.

I don't recall multiple sockets ever being allowed on an unfused spur. Perhaps you could say when you believe this was the case?
However as a more general point, I actually find it reassuring that the wiring regs change and evolve. It demonstrates good engineering that research is still being done, empirical data are being collected, and the guidance being revised or improved in the light of this. Patterns of use change, and technology advances. It is right and proper that the guidance moves on to accommodate these changes.

I don't believe I did argue that. In fact I think I explicitly said that the plug fuses were there for fault protection of the appliance flex, not overload protection.

Well if you make clearly erroneous and misleading statements about the absence of a plug fuse resulting in:
"Don't say that, it means a ring could be put into a dangerous state which is not prevented by the protection circuits built into the ring."
That is not a "contrary view", its simply nonsense.

The daft thing is that your idea of "exceeding" the regs comes down to reducing the functionality and flexibility of standard circuits, while increasing their expense and time to install, and yet yielding no demonstrable improvement in safety.
As with most efforts to "over engineer" a solution, it demonstrates a lack of any real engineering finesse.
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Did you mean talent not finesse?
--
Adam



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/09/2011 17:41, ARWadsworth wrote:

Well both really. Any fool can keep nailing 4x2"s on until it stands up. It takes and engineer to do it with the minimum of materials, and cost, and still get it to stand up and meet all the customers requirements.
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Hmm, it was an engineer that made the walls too weak on the Comet. It was an engineer that design Chernobyl It was an engineer that put the cooling plant for Japans reactors too low down.
It an engineer that thinks 32 Amp breakers are OK for 22 Amp cable. To justify this he states:
well the user will never have enough appliances to overload it.. oops wrong. you can stop overloads because there is a 13A fuse in the plug which blows at 20A.. oops you can get faulty and/or fake ones that don't. the user will never do anything stupid to the plug.. well we all know how stupid that idea is. need anyone go on?
Just design the damn circuits so they are properly protected at the consumer unit without the user having to provide additional protection. Anything that requires user cooperation is inherently less safe. Even the IET can manage it as can be seen with the modern radials they want electricians to use. You know the ones that actually specify a breaker that protects the cable even if the user puts a nail in place of the plug fuse.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/09/2011 19:18, dennis@home wrote:

Ah, the days before ring mains when we had 5A 10A and 15A sockets, all radially wired with their own (wire) fuses. What a waste of cable when most folk had only one electric fire of one or possibly two Kw, possibly a 1Kw electric kettle and the rest were standard or table lamps (not many of them either) and a wireless.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.