Talk:BS 1363

message: What's a "plug top power supply unit"?  A power strip?  The WL to the "Power supply" article is unhelpful. Jeh (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm have a lot of trouble with the phrase "plug top".  If these things are usually installed in walls, and "top" is taken as meaning "Away from the center of the Earth", then the fuse is not on the top of the plug at all. Maybe this means "wall wart", that is, a plug-in power supply?  But these would have fuses, almost certainly (anything aproved by CSA or UL would at least have a thermal cutout in the primary, not usually a user-replaceable fuse). Let's take it out. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A 'plug top' is just another name for the plug, i.e. the bit you pull out of the wall. I presume that a 'plug-top psu' refers to the mobile phone type charger that is built into the plug with only a low voltage lead coming out of it as opposed to an 'in-line psu' that has a normal mains lead feeding it. Paypwip (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's confusing; if "plug top" = "plug", why have two words for the same thing? I take it the original sentence meant that some "wall warts" or AC adapters are unfused; if so, these devices are outside the scope of BS 1363 anyway, and their fused-ness should be discussed in their own article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

text: 'Plug-top' is frequently used colloquially in Britain for a plug.  This seems to have originated as a regional thing (but I could well be wrong).  Folks who call a plug a 'plug-top' sometimes call the socket itself, a 'plug'.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Some plug top power supply units are unfused."  

message: I wonder why Australia didn't adopt either BS 546 or BS 1363 plugs, instead coming up with their own.  --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Australian standard C112 (now AS 3112), introduced in 1938, predates BS 1363. Before this, both BS 546 and an old US plug were used. When they standardised, it was decided that the US plug, with its flat blades, were easier to manufacture than the round pin British plugs, so they went with that. The UK and US subsequently came up with new designs, BS 1363 and NEMA 5-15. 101.169.11.154 (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  We don't have an article on the Post war building studies series.  This would be very interesting to trace the development of modern building codes. Here was a rare chance to redesign a considerable amount of the old housing stock which had been destroyed, and to try to implement modernization of what must have been a lot of very old buildings. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  My understanding is that at least in the UK there were substantial building materials shortages immediately after the war. So the focus was on repairing the war damage and building up the housing stock as economically as possible not on "modernisation". Plugwash (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

text: The conversion plug addresses the problems faced by manufacturers rather than consumers.  Domestic electrical equipment must be supplied with a BS 1363 plug, this is easy to do for appliances which use separate power cords with a C3, C5 or C13 connector, the manufacturer simply drops the appropriate cord into the box before shipping, but not so easy for appliances with fixed leads.  Conversion plugs provide an easy solution for manufacturers, especially small appliances such as radios with no earth connection, the conversion plug can be added to the box prior to shipping avoiding the need to have alternate versions of the actual appliance. Deucharman (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  So conversion plugs aren't routinely purchased and added by the consumer, but are more a dodge for manufacturers. Correct? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep Plugwash (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

text:  227g for each contact.  Deucharman (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Force?  In grams? We have 20,000 bytes of discussion on what "non-fixed" could possibly mean and the standard itself doesn't distinguish between force and mass? Wikipedia must try not to be more Catholic than the Pope. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Wondering....

message: It would help if whoever is reverting the edits of “It therefore follows that the performance of the socket is unpredictable if anything other than a BS 1363 compliant device is inserted into the socket” would identify themselves.  However, that does not alter the fact that this is a very important concept, and unless it is properly understood then the subject cannot be understood.  We appear to be plagued by editors who have not actually studied the standard, and that cannot make for a good WP article, so unless you actually KNOW and understand something, then please do not tinker with the work of those who do. Mautby (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We appear to be plagued by editors who do not understand the difference between properly sourced material and original research or original synthesis. "It therefore follows that..." reads exactly as if it is a conclusion of the WP editor, rather than something sourced from the standard or other WP:RS. It may very well be sourced from the standard—but if so, the statement here needs to be phrased to say that. If a concept isn't properly sourced, it doesn't matter how important it is, we can't include it in a WP article. btw, experience here tells me that the more important an editor thinks a "concept" is, the more likely the editor (edit - added: not excepting myself) is to stray into original research or synthesis. Jeh (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also: Labelling legitimate disagreement as vandalism is a Bad Thing. Deucharman has been warned before about this. It should stop now. bobrayner (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socket standard is dependent on the plug standard 

message: Note that while the standards use the term "line" the term "live" is still in very common usage and it would not at all surprise me if it is still more common than the term "line". Afaict the articles current implication that live is an americanism is completely wrong (the americans call it "hot") Plugwash (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Different connotation. "Line" is the name of the wire, connection, or pin, while "live" is the characteristic of being energized. Note that a "line" wire is not necessarily "live" (if the breaker on the circuit is open, for example). And yes, we use "live" in the U.S. as well. In any case "line" is the technically correct term to use in an article about British wiring practice. Jeh (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To emphasize the importance of not confusing "Live" with "Line" the following definition of "live parts" should be noted (Clause 3.16 of BS 13631:1995): "current carrying parts and those metal parts in contact with them during normal use (NOTE Metal parts of the earthing circuit are not considered to be current carrying parts."  in other words, both the Line and Neutral pins are considered to be "live" Mautby (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Thanks! In US parlance, neutral is not considered "live". It seems then that the remaining uses of "live" in the article should be changed to some other adjective. Can we say "hot"? Can we use "line" as an adjective? Or will we have to reword so we can use the noun "line" everywhere? Jeh (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be because of the manner in which distribution systems are wired and earthed (grounded).  I believe that in the US, it is normal for the neutral conductor to be earthed at the incoming feeder to the distribution board in every building as well as at the sub station transformer (and I have even seen it on individual appliances).  This is the method used for current installations in Britain, but it is a relatively recent development.  Historically, distribution systems were only earthed at the sub station transformer.  Thus it was perfectly possible for the neutral conductor to be 'live' (i.e. at a potential greater than earth).  This is particularly a problem if there are large triplun currents in the system (third harmonic or multiples thereof - typical of fluorescent lighting). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

text:  ... or not. I searched the article and it appears that all uses of "live" are consistent with the standard's definition (e.g. concerns with touching a "live" contact, meaning either line or neutral). The term should probably be explained, though - maybe in a footnote upon first usage. I'll make an attempt a little later today. Jeh (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  line vs live 

message: The navbox at the top will show a link for Archive 2, which contains threads that haven't been active for several months. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived old discussions

message: The following is clearly unsuitable for the article as it appeared, so it was deleted. I moved a copy here, in case any useful information can be gleaned from it.
BS 1363 plugs and sockets started appearing in 1946 and BS 1363 was first published in 1947. The new system was used extensively from 1947 onwards for re-building following war damage - that being the principal reason for its' design - so as to save on the cost of the copper wiring used, by reducing the length of runs by using 'ring circuits' servicing several rooms or a whole floor as opposed to radial circuitry that serviced each wall-socket separately; the gauge of the wiring was maintained at 15-amp (subsequently revised to 16-amp) because each circuit was fed up to 30/32-amps in total - but from both ends.  It has never replaced the BS 546 system; both exist side by side in some domestic situations where only later extensions used the new system.  Both systems are still legal to install, and 15-amp, 5-amp, and 2-amp plug-tops may still readily be purchased in the larger electrical supplies stores.  Although some poorly installed buildings have now been rewired, and the BS 1363 system used as a replacement, in other instances the original radial circuitry has been retained and the original 15-amp sockets merely replaced by the 13-amp variety, and the fuse boxes updated.  (One of the other major reasons for the redesign, was because the 15-amp sockets loosened-up with age and usage, and became too hot to touch when used for several hours with a 12-amp current).  Adaptors were formerly available, to permit a series of 15-amp plug-top devices to be used in one wall-socket, and such adaptors also permitted the use of 5-amp and 2-amp plug-tops to also be used; building such 'Christmas Trees' as they were jokingly known out of adaptors and plug-tops, was of course somewhat dangerous (they sometimes caught fire!), and probably ceased when more 13-amp face-plates were installed.  Many bedrooms originally had no power sockets, so drew power for low wattage appliances via the light fitting, or had just 2-amp wall-sockets - probably replaced or supplemented by 13-amp wall-sockets complete with individually fitted 5-amp fuses (intended for 'radial' spurs) on what were essentially 5-amp 'lighting' circuits (i.e. not intended for 'power' fittings) in such original wiring that may have existed.  'New' 5-amp and 2-amp fittings are frequently found in University Halls of Residence, guest houses, and hotels where the proprietors are attempting to disuade the guests from connecting to power sources.  The 10-amp wall-sockets and plug-tops that were also part of the series, fell out of common use before WWII, and most of the two-pin variations on all these systems have generally disappeared from usage, except for the 5-amp fitting that's become a World-wide standard of sorts for electric razors when used with an isolating transformer in a 'wet' room, and the two-amp fitting that's proliferated for 'table' lighting in restaurants, due to its' very small size.  All 3-pin wall-sockets in the series have switches on the live pole (not so the two-pin versions); the purpose of these were sadly misunderstood, as they were merely a safety-feature to assist with insertion and removal of plug-tops - since the better pin-shielding technique hadn't been developed then due to the unavailability of suitable plastics (the 'Schuko' attempt at this was nonsense, due to networking issues on the exposed earthing in sockets, and earthing contacts in the plug-tops being exposed when mis-used with an un-earthed socket). This mis-understanding gave rise to the peculiarly British bed-time ritual of switching-off all electrical appliances at the wall-socket (despite the appliances already being switched-off in themselves) - as opposed to the removal of the plug-top from the wall-socket.  Prior to WWII, the 'Schuko' fittings were used extensively in both Great Britain and Eire; many in Eire may still be found, but those in Britain were probably replaced with BS 1363 wall-sockets.  However, the 'Schuko' system has returned in the form of powered garden tools purchased from Deutchland, that have to be used with an adaptor, and the 'Commando' system is extensively used Domestically for special purposes, such as:- the 'Blue' 240-volt fittings for general garden and exterior use, camping and caravaning, and for sales podia both within & without shopping malls on a World-wide basis; the 'Yellow' 110-volt fittings are used with a transformer for running heavy-duty power tools, on the London Underground Railway Network for powering heavy-duty fans, and in Airport Terminals to disuade travellers from using sockets located in waiting areas; the 'Red' 415-volt variety are used with three-phase power supplies on domestic appliances such as a wine press.
Those with more direct experience than I will have to judge the accuracy and usefulness of the info for improving the article.  It may be too detailed for AC power plugs and sockets, but more suitable for the BS 1363 article, possibly  in a section on the history of the standard and its predecessors. -- Reify-tech (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of rumors and folklore...if it could be *referenced* it would be great stuff to add to the BS1363 article, not here.  If only someone could explain why the BS1363 standard is actually dated earlier than the BS546 standard. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The original version of BS 1363 was dated 1947.  The current version of BS 546 is dated 1950 and incorporates 8 ammendments (No. 8 being dated 15th May 1999), it was last confirmed on 1st November 2007.  The forward of BS 546:1950 refers to it as a revision of the standard.  I can find no pre-1950 publishing history in the current version, but both BS 545 and BS 549 were originally published in 1934, so a reasonable assumption would be that BS 546 also dates to that time.  Mautby (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that just a few lines above someone says the Australian 1938 standard predates the UK standards. This is all very murky, but a pre-1950 date for BS546 would explain a lot. Every NFPA, NEC CSA and IEEE standard I've opened has a short history of previous editions, even if only a list of copyright dates...it is too bad that the British standards don't have space for this history. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reference to Australian standard C112 (now AS 3112) actually says it was: "... introduced in 1938, predates BS 1363. Before this, both BS 546 and an old US plug were used.", so nothing inconsistent there.  As far as revision histories go, it seems that it was not part of the BS format in 1950, but it certainly is now.  I imagine that if BS 546 were ever to be revised (as opposed to ammended) they would include the revision history, just as BS 545:1982 and BS 549:1970 have revision histories. Mautby (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

text: The comments above perpetuate the myth that "saving on copper" was the principle reason for the introduction of BS 1363.  In fact the existing system of multiple 2 and 3 pin versions of BS 546 was deemed "wholly unsatisfactory" and required replacement.  An improvement in safety was also a major factor.  Malcolm Mullins' article in the Spring 2006 edition of IEE Wiring Matters provides a much more balanced account of the reasons for the introduction of BS 1363.  Mautby (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from [[Talk:AC power plugs and sockets]], see there for contributions history 

message: Socket covers aside, are there any statistics at all concerning the safety of BS 1363 and electrical outlets in general? Are there stats on socket-related deaths per year? Simple "deaths by electrocution" won't cut it as those would include a lot of things other than e.g. kids sticking pins in receptacles. It would be interesting to compare these between countries using different standards. Jeh (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is at the heart of the problem.  The Office for National Statistics records death due to exposure to electric current.  That is why the FAQ at FatallyFlawed says "The UK government does not collect detailed statistics on the causes of death by electric shock in the home".  Your current edit: "The UK government does not collect statistics of injury or accidents related to use of socket covers." really does miss the point!  FF-UK (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Misses what point? This sentence currently appears at the end of the paragraph in which reference is made to a UK government publication stating that socket covers are unnecessary. If the UK government does not collect ANY statistics on specific causes of injury due to electric shock, then "The UK government does not collect statistics of injury or accidents related to use of socket covers" is most certainly a true statement, and is appropriate phraseology given its position in the article. Jeh (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  A statement can be true and still mislead.  If you want to mention statistics in this context then the only honest statement is to the effect that "The UK government does not collect detailed statistics on the causes of death by electric shock in the home".   In the absence of statistics then statistical judgements cannot be made, but engineering judgements still can, and that is the basis of FatallyFlawed's position. We understand that the UK Government also regards the fact that it requires sockets to be inherently child safe to be sufficient reason to declare socket covers unnecessary.   FF-UK (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly what is the incorrect conclusion to which the existing phraseology might lead a reader? The subject here is socket covers. No, they don't collect stats on kids burned by bare wires that were exposed by animals chewing on them, but why is that relevant here?  Jeh (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  FF-UK's point is completely valid.  Jeh, rather than arguing in favour of a misleading statement limited to socket covers it would be better to simply not mention the non-existent statistics, it adds absolutely nothing to the article. Mautby (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

text:  Still waiting for an explanation of how and in what direction it's misleading. If anything it could be supportive of FF by pointing out that UK government has no statistical evidence to back up their claim that socket covers are unneeded! Jeh (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...and I'm still waiting. Jeh (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  More statistics 

message: The article claims that the plug should be designed such that if the cable is pulled out of the plug, the earth wire should disconnect last.  An illustration also claimed that the line wire should disconnect first.  While it may be that BS1363 imposes such a requirement, it would be next to impossible to design this requirement into a real plug.  The channel lengths to the three terminals may well be different in many plug designs, but the the wire lengths will be more or less equal to the respective channel length.  Thus pulling out all three wires, it is the operation of chance (and possibly friction) that determines which wire breaks connection first.
I have just examined an MK plug that I have to hand (MK are regarded as the market leading brand as well as being the originator of the plug design).  Their plugs are designed such that all three channel lengths are the same and thus the wire lengths are the same.  The neutral wire almost doubles back on itself around an obstruction; the line wire has a right angled bend in it around another obstruction and the earth wire has only a slightly curved path suggesting that this wire has the least resistance to pulling out.  Indeed removing the cord grip and pulling on the cable, the earth wire indeed gave way first followed by the line (I repeated this a few times and sometimes the line gave way first and sometimes the earth).  The neutral was always last, probably because of that 180 degree turn in the wire.
A second design of plug (no idea who made it) reveals that the line wire has the straightest path and that the neutral once again doubles back on itself (this design has differing channel lengths).  Once again sometimes the line wire gives way first, sometimes the earth.  The neutral was always last, again probably due to that 180 degree bend in it.
The unrepeatability of the first disconnecting wire might well be explained by the terminals being tightened by differing amounts as I do not have a torque driver to hand (and would therefore fairly represent a real world plug fitted by a real world fitter).  86.159.159.194 (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your original research is precluded from being the basis of a contribution to Wikipedia by WP's policy on WP:OR. Perhaps you could publish a paper somewhere. Jeh (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily.  The section removed is also unsourced and unreferenced.  Whilst it could be argued that the IP's investigation is (as you point out) original research, it's also an editors inalienable right to remove unsourced information when found - so the removal is justified.  As the editor has made no effort to replace the information with their own findings, I don't see a problem or issue with the edits.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant clause in BS1363-1 (which IS referenced) is:  "11.8 Rewirable plugs shall be designed so that they can be wired in a manner which prevents strain to the earth connection before the line and/or neutral connection when the cord anchorage is rendered inoperative."  It may be debated as to whether the editor who added the wording in question has done the best job possible, but it is certainly unacceptable for 86.159.159.194 to claim that a referenced statement is an urban myth, and equally unacceptable for Chaheel Riens to make the false claim that the information was unsourced, it is yet another example of his/her inability to actually read what the article says before leaping into the fray. Mautby (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point that it is sourced elsewhere, but the claim was not sourced in the image heading, which would have been helpful.  More importantly, such a claim in the image is unnecessary, because as the image even pointed out itself, the channels were not shown, so there is little point in mentioning such a feature. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  What Wikipedia is not  Wikipedia is not a manual - perhaps even more importantly WP should not link to pages which provide erroneous advice such as that which an anonymous editor, 79.135.117.34, referenced in connection with how to wire a plug under the heading "Replacement", the advice provided would result in a the plug being not in accordance with BS 1363-1 cl 11.8.How to wire a plug on "Plug wiring" UK website  The same editor also referenced a page on the same website which provides advice on fuse rating which is not in accordance with BS 1363-1 Table 2.</ref>Choosing the correct rating on "Plug wiring" UK website  I have reverted these edits.Deucharman (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety features 

message: I have reverted the following edit under Shutters as it is in conflict with reference provided.
An alternative view is that socket covers can prevent children plugging in faulty or dangerous appliances, as in the case of a child electorcuted (sic) when he plugged in a cable with a plug at one end and bare wires at the other. (The reference provides was: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011FAI17.html)  The sheriff in the case concerned rejected the argument made because there was no supporting evidence, as is made clear in the document referenced.  See www.shocked.org.uk for further information.  SSHamilton (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shutters - Use of Socket Covers 

message: I have seen many sockets in the UK that do not have shutters and dont appear as if they have been altered. Has there been a time when shutters were recommended but not compulsory? Section "Chonology" mentions that the 1947 edition already included shutters but in 1989 it is mentioned that from then "All sockets, including those to other standards, must be shuttered."--89.204.137.51 (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to clarify that.  The general position in the UK is that the first shuttered socket appeared in 1893.  There were many British patents for various shutter operating mechanisms from 1928 onwards, but the original BS 1363 standard in 1947 was the first to incorporate shutters as a required part of the standard.  There is no such thing as a BS 1363 socket which does not have shutters, there may be counterfeit 13 A sockets around without shutters, but I have not seen one.  I do not know whether there were any official recommendations as to the use of shutters prior to BS 1363:1947, but many pre-War BS 546 sockets did incorporate shutters.  As far as the chronology in this article goes, the entry for 1989 is not a general comment on sockets but refers specifically to the new standard for adaptors, BS 1363-3:1989 "13A plugs socket-outlets and adaptors - Part 3: Specification for adaptors" and the reference to shutters is that all the sockets on an adaptor conforming to the standard were required to be shuttered, including those adaptor outlets which are for non-BS 1363 type plugs (eg, an adaptor with a BS 1363 plug that has a BS 546 socket(s), or non-UK type socket(s), MUST be shuttered.  The wiring regulations, BS 7671:2008(2011) - (Regulation 553.1.100) states: “Every socket-outlet for household and similar use shall be of the shuttered type and, for an a.c. installation, shall preferably be of a type complying with BS 1363.”  I do not know when that dates from. Deucharman (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shutter not compulsory prior to 1989? 

message: A proposal has been made by Jeh to redefine the present AC power plugs and sockets article, and its related detailed articles, of which this is one.  The proposal can be found at  Move all detail info to group-specific articles? 
In an attempt to move this forward I have prepared a draft of one of the articles suggested in the proposal: "AC power plugs and sockets - British and related types".  This combines the British related elements of the AC power plugs and sockets article with the full BS 1363 and BS 546 articles. The draft can be found in my sandbox: User:Deucharman/sandbox.  Please do not edit my sandbox, but make all comments and suggestions at  Move all detail info to group-specific articles?  I have also placed a request for comments on the BS 546 page. Deucharman (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to create new detailed group articles about AC power plugs and sockets <br/> Request for comments