Talk:AC power plugs and sockets/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Discussion re overuse of "socket-outlet" in the article

I am taking the small liberty of copying DieSwartzPunkt's comment (which, as of this writing, was the last thing in the "general discussion re article title" subsection) to this new subsection, because it provides a jumping-off point for a new discussion branch... as follows: Jeh (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment:Common sense seems to have taken flight here. While I have no particular view either way whether the article is called "AC power plugs and sockets" or "AC power plugs and socket-outlets", all it requires is a note in the opening lede as to the alternative usages. The continuing use of 'socket-outlet' throughout the article is both unnecessary and cumbersome. Pick one term and stick with it. Since the article is written in British English the term 'socket' would be prefereble. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I more or less agree. I do obviously have a particular view re the article title (that's the "less" part), but I'll relent on that... but I think the use of "socket-outlet" throughout the article is hugely cumbersome, smacks of tendentious editing, and is not supported by sources: Even the IEC does not use this term in their usual prose (a point that Mautby has never addressed). Neither did Mautby on WP talk pages before he started promoting this term. What to replace it with? I support the use of "socket" in most places in the article. (That's the "more agree" part.) Heck, even given "British English", "socket" is widely understood in the US. And this seems to me to be a reasonable compromise. Of course there should be text either in the lede or the very first section after that describes the various terms (plug, socket, receptacle, connector, inlet, outlet, etc.). Jeh (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

To reiterate my point above (which has become somewhat lost in the noise), it is hard to argue for one title or the other given that whichever is chosen, references can be produced which support that particular term (and in Wikipedia, references are king). As the article has but one title, this does not pose a problem worth getting excited about. However, I completely agree about avoiding the long winded version throughout the rrrrrest of the article. My vote is "socket" as I believe that it is the word most universally understood. Of course, the alternative uses should be mentioned somewhere (the lead would be best) for completeness. I B Wright (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It should be "Socket". Per WP:ENVAR this is not actually even open to debate. Roger (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I assume that you meant WP:ENGVAR as the relevant policy. 86.166.71.0 (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Socket - mention somewhere early on that in standards-ese, the prolix call them "socket outlets" because they don't speak the same variety of English we do, then get rid of all the wearisome repetiton of the redundant "outlet". --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

In spite of the recent changes (from 'socket-outlet' to 'socket'), the article was still full of a mixture of British English and American English terms often even in the same sentence or paragraph. One paragraph in particular used 'socket', 'outlet' and 'receptacle'. I suppose this is the product of mixed nationality editing. I have now gone through the article and rationalised the terms to the Britsh English terms in accordance with WP:ENGVAR. I don't think I have broken anything, but I don't claim to be perfect. I have had to leave a couple of references to 'receptacle' because "NEMA 1-15 style 5-socket socket" didn't scan right. 86.166.71.0 (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR is part of the MOS, which is a style guide, not absolute. Furthermore it refers more to words in everyday usage like color/colour, trunk/boot, etc., than to technical terms, and notes that articles covering subjects of some definite national association should use the ENGVAR of that nation, regardless of who wrote them. So in article sections pertaining to national standards (which are, after all, this article's main sources) that use a particular term, at least some deference should be paid to the terminology used in those standards; ENGVAR is not an excuse to be exclusionary. I have no objection to defaulting to "socket" but the American term of "receptacle" should not be given such short shrift within the NEMA section. I notice also that "socket-outlet" has been excised completely except in the titles of the standards that use it, and this seems to me to be excessive, particularly within the section covering British standards. Jeh (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeh's point is well made. I too find it very strange to read about American outlets in terms from my native British English rather than American English, inexcusable cultural imperialism! The same applies to the excision of "ground" in favour of "earth". I think that the American terms should be used in the section dealing with NEMA sockets. SSHamilton (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This may be a valid point. The problem that I was attempting to fix was the use of two different terms in the same paragraph, or even many sentences, where two (and occassionally three) differing terms are used giving an appearance to the uninitiated that they are different concepts. 86.166.71.0 (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Jeh and SSHamilton on use of American terminology in NEMA section. Mautby (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: I in no way am objecting to IP 86.166.71.0's fixing the uses of multiple terms for the same thing in close proximity to one another; that effort gets a "thank you" from me. I just think... well, I already said what I think. :) Jeh (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. However, it was observed above that the term 'socket' is understood by our American readers so is it actually worth anyone's time substituting one understood term for another? Having said that, if you want to invest the time, I shall not lodge any objection given that the US standards do not generally use the word 'socket'. I B Wright (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can fix it. I was just asking to see if anyone objected. Jeh (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

New "Concepts and teminology" section

I moved the last three grafs of the lede into this section as they were accumulating a lot of info that isn't really discussed elsewhere in the article - particularly the terminology.

I am thinking that this new section could also contain a paragraph or so briefly describing the terms "line", "neutral", and "earth" ("ground"). These concepts are important in understanding many aspects of the article but they're not explained here at all. Jeh (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Good move - a vast improvement. I have added the requested paragraph. Feel free to maul or improve as appropriate. I B Wright (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

BS546 - how many pins?

According to the extract, BS 546 (1950) covers "Three-pin plugs and sockets of the round-pin type, as used in domestic premises, offices, etc., for standard ratings of 2, 5, 15 and 30 amperes. Interchangeability, safety , materials, construction, dimensions. Supplement No. 2 (AMD 5809) gives additional requirements for switched socket-outlets, for use in a.c. circuits only. " The *title* is "BS 546:1950 : Specification. Two-pole and earthing-pin plugs, socket-outlets and socket-outlet adaptors" which sounds like it defines 2-pole plugs (two pins) and earthing plugs (3 pins), but the abstract says it only talks about 3 pin plugs. This is very confusing to this wild colonial boy, but they invented the language and must know what they are saying.

So, what are the 2-pin plugs talked about in our table? They aren't BS 546 and "Type D" is not very helpful. I'm not about to buy the standard, our office subscription says it costs $241.78 US! Pretty steep for a photocopy of a 60+-year-old document. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think 2 pole refers to the fact the plugs carry AC power through two pins, the third (earth) pin is additional but compulsory. It should be read as "plugs with two-pole connection and an earthing-pin". Not as "two pole plugs and earthing-pin plugs". (Two pole is a dated way of saying AC electricity). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.113.163 (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Physical protection of line and neutral in sockets

It's obvious why the contact that goes to the "hot" supply conductor needs to be shrouded. But why the "neutral" conductor? Since neutral is connected to ground at some point, you can't get shocked by touching neutral and some other grounding point.

I know that in the early days little attention was paid to preserving hot vs. neutral polarity - look at the early two-blade North American standard, they were not polarized. And even today one still sometimes finds sockets where hot and neutral have been reversed inside the walls. My suspicion is that protecting both the hot and neutral contacts is to maintain this safety aspect even if this sort of miswiring has been done. Does anyone have any sources for this, or any other explanation? Jeh (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There are a variety of fault conditions, failures as well as miswiring, which can cause the potential of the neutral contact to rise to a dangerous level. A couple of examples, a high impedance earth connection or a disconnected neutral can both cause the neutral contact on a socket to be at or near line potential. All live parts, whether line or neutral, should be protected Mautby (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks also for the additions to the C&T section. Jeh (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Europlugs and UK shaver sockets

Mautby, it might be of assistance to the article if you ceased editing on areas that you clearly know nothing about. You recently reverted an edit of mine claiming that BS 4573 sockets do not accept Europlugs. A short trawl with Google found no shortage of BS 4573 sockets that do accept Europlugs and in some cases Australian shaver plugs as well. In fact, I failed to find a single example of a BS 4573 socket that did not accept a Europlug (though that does not mean that such does not exist). The claim [Europlugs fit] "most UK shaver supply units meeting BS EN 61558-2-5 or BS 4573." is thus proven. A single example (now cited) is all that is required to prove your claim of, "...but not the older BS 4573 shaver sockets" wrong. It is unnecessary and overkill for me to add references to the other three that I found. 86.166.71.0 (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

IP 86.166.71.0, I see where you are coming from, and what you are trying to say, but that socket-outlet cannot be described as simply a BS 4573 socket as there is nothing in BS 4573 which permits insertion of anything but BS 4573 plugs. The hybrid socket you are referencing clearly accepts plugs to three different standards, and the technical data for it references IEC 83: 1975 Standard C5 and AS C112 as well as BS 4573. However, the question is, how do you word it to make clear that such capability is not a feature of a BS 4573 socket-outlet per se. I suggest that you come up with a form of words which does that, because what you have currently written is not a true statement. Mautby (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

First, you need to provide evidence that a socket conforming to BS 4573 is specifically forbidden from accepting anything other than a BS 4573 plug (the burden of proof for your claim is on you - WP:BURDEN). I have provided evidence to support my claim. Even if such evidence is found (and I don't believe it will be), as noted above, standards are not always rigourously adhered to. The socket cited claims conformance to BS 4573 yet accepts alternate plugs and one example is enough to defeat the claim. 86.166.71.0 (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This anonymous editor is making a completely pointless argument. Mautby has acknowledged the point that there are shaver sockets without transformers, therefore not meeting BS EN 61558-2-5, but which will accept Europlugs. Those sockets are hybrids which may not accurately be described as simply BS 4573 sockets. The solution is simple, so in the absence of action from the complainer I have implemented a change of wording which describes the de facto situation and avoids false descriptions. SSHamilton (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not think he was making a pointles argument and apparently neither do you. Mautby edited in (twice?) that a BS 4573 socket positively did not accept a Europlug. Your edit clearly concedes that they do, so you have agreed with the IP editor's point. Just as well, because I think you will find it very hard to find a socket conforming to BS 4573 that does not accept a Europlug as well. I B Wright (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it not completely reasonable to say that BS 4573 doesn't require or prohibit BS 4573-compliant sockets from accepting other plugs? Jeh (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

BS4573 is entirely silent on the point. The point was, I believe, that Mautby was claiming that BS 4573 sockets explicitly did not accept europlugs which is not true. I B Wright (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I B Wright, you really must stop distorting the words of others! I did not claim that BS 4573 sockets explicitly did not accept europlugs. An earlier version of this section stated that a europlug could be inserted into a variety of sockets "as well as BS 4573 UK shaver sockets", I had changed that (20Feb13) to read "and most UK shaver supply units meeting BS EN 61558-2-5 (but not the older BS 4573 shaver sockets)". The latter is perfectly true, as you rightly say there is no indication of accepting any other plug in BS 4573, and older sockets complying with BS 4573 (unlike modern hybrid shaver sockets) did not have that provision. On 26 February I reverted a change which removed the "older" qualification, which prompted this talk section. If you care to read my post above you will see that I acknowledged the fact that there are some current hybrid sockets which meet both BS 4573 and other standards, and suggested that the anonymous editor re-word the sentence to reflect this but "to make clear that such capability is not a feature of a BS 4573 socket-outlet per se". The other editor chose to continue the argument which SSHamilton describes as pointless. I am content that SSHamilton's subsequent edit provided an appropriate rewording. Mautby (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Which way are you arguing this? Are saying that you did not claim that "BS4573 sockets explicitly did not accept europlugs" are are you claiming that you did state in an edit that shaver sockets accept europlugs "but not the older BS 4573 shaver sockets". One is the logical inverse of the other. You cannot argue the point both ways and hope that no one notices. You are still showing a lack of understanding as to how standards work. If a hybrid socket accepts europlugs and claims compliance with BS4573, it can only do so provided BS4573 does not explicitly forbid the ability to accept connection of europlugs. If BS4573 did forbid such connection then the socket could not officially claim compliance with that standard. Whether the ability to accept europlugs (or any other plug come to that) may not necessarily be a specified feature of a BS4573 socket, it is totally immaterial and irrelevent. If BS4573 does not explicitly forbid the connection of other plugs (which it does not AFAICT), then a socket accepting BS4573 plugs; europlugs, Australian plugs or even plugs as used on the planet Vulcan can still be fully compliant with BS4573 provided all the specific requirements are met. The bottom line is that you cannot claim that BS4573 sockets do not accept europlugs - which you did in this edit. The current article wording is not controversial on the point. I B Wright (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of clarification I will provide some information which is stated in the (BSI prepared) sheet GB 7 of IEC 60083. Sheet GB 7 describes BS EN 50075 - the British National version of the Europlug standard. The notes on that sheet state:

1. Allowed on appliances intended for use through a Shaver Supply Unit complying with BS EN 61558-2-3

2. Forbidden for general use in domestic installations.

Mautby (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of Plugs - OR - Comparison of Sockets - OR - Comparison of Plugs and Sockets?

In December 2012 user WTShymanski changed the table headed Comparison of Sockets to become Comparison of Plugs. An anonymous user has now added a new column to the table Europlug (Type C) Compatible, as it stands this does not make sense as plugs cannot be compatible with other plugs, only with sockets. I am not saying there is anything wrong with the concept of the column, but only if it is part of a table comparing sockets. We need a consensus as to what this table actually is, a Comparison of Plugs OR a Comparison of Sockets OR a Comparison of Plugs and Sockets? Mautby (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think "plugs cannot be compatible with plugs" is a bit pedantic; everyone knows what's meant. But "Comparison of plugs and sockets" works. Heck, just "Comparison" would be adequate, given the article title: every other section isn't titled e.g. "NEMA 5-15 plug and socket", this doesn't need to be either. Or if that seems a little terse, "Comparison of standard types"... particularly given that we seem intent on not permitting mention of actual products' capabilities, only those expressly described in standards. Jeh (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

"Comparison of standard types" sounds good to me, change done. Mautby (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Incompatibility of Europlug with BS 546 and BS 1363

Useer Ant75 is attempting to claim compatibility of the Europlug with BS 546 and BS 1363, but fails to cite any references to support this. These claims are synthesis which is not permitted by WP. In fact the Europlug standard, EN 50075, states in Annex A that: A Europlug can only be supplied when connected to any electrical equipment where the equipment conforms to any standard that provides the use of a Europlug and must under these circumstances be marked with or accompanied by a warning that it is not suitable for use in a GB mains socket. In support of this the standard provides a legal reference: SI 603:1987, this has been superseded by Statutory Instrument 1994 No. 1768, better known as The Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1994 which make it illegal to supply a Europlug in the UK except when connected to an electrical shaver, toothbrush or similar appliance for use with shaver supply unit. Similarly, sheet GB 7 (Europlug) of IEC 60083 states: 1. Allowed on appliances intended for use through a Shaver Supply Unit complying with BS EN 61558-2-3 2. Forbidden for general use in domestic installations. Further, the latest revision of BS 1363, BS 1363-2:1995 +A4:2012, adds a requirement that it shall not be possible to operate a shutter by the insertion of a two-pin Europlug. As can be clearly seen, the use of a Europlug in a BS 546 or BS 1363 socket is not permitted. Further, a BS 546 socket is intended to accept pins of 5.1 mm diameter, the Europlug is designed for sockets accepting pins between 4.0 and 4.8 mm. Mautby (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Europlug is certainly not compatible with BS 546 socket, though it is possible to insert it with moderate force. The integrity of the contact will be somewhat questionable.

It is quite possible to insert a Europlug into a BS 1363 socket though it is necessary to open the shutters manually by inserting a suitable object into the earth hole. A reasonable contact is obtained because the diameter of the Europlug pin is very close to the width of a BS 1363 live pin. A Shuko or French plug can also be inserted in a similar fashion, but the larger pins require considerable force and will almost certainly cause some damage to the socket. The practice is not recommended as the appliance will not have the protection of a fuse and the socket was never intended to accept such plugs and, as noted, may sustain damage. In the 1970's, the UK company MK made a BS 1363 socket with a new type of shutter design. Instead of the earth pin opening the shutters over the live holes, their new socket required the simultaneous insertion of two live pins to open the shutter. If only one pin (or any other object) was inserted, the shutter did not open. It was quickly discovered by users that a Europlug would insert and connect without difficulty and a Shuko or French plug could be forcibly inserted. MK had to quickly modify the design such that these plugs would no longer operate the shutter. Their revised design is such that it is near impossible to insert any round pin plug unlike the traditional BS 1363 socket. I B Wright (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Afiact the BS1363 socket was very deliberately designed to be incompatible with everything else. This is needed because British wiring practices rely on the plug fuse as an important safety element and inserting an unfused plug (europlug or otherwise) made to a different standard defeats this. Plugwash (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to wonder, then, why they made the spacing of the "live" pins (line and neutral) so similar? Jeh (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

We know (thanks to David Latimer's excellent paper History of the 13 amp plug and the ring circuit - http://www.theiet.org/resources/wiring-regulations/ringcir.cfm?type=zip) that a BSI resolution of 20 December 1944 stated: “that an all purpose socket outlet and plug rated at three kilowatts, 13A be standardised, the plug being fused and the socket outlet and plug being non-interchangeable with any existing standard for plugs and sockets or with the existing flat-pin plugs and sockets in use” which supports Plugwash's suggestion. What is not clear is if that referred just to other British standards, or standards in use elsewhere. In any case, I would speculate that, as it would be necessary to tamper with the original shutter opening mechanism to insert a 2 pin plug into the new socket, that the non-interchangeability requirement was met. Perhaps they may be forgiven for not having foreseen that a future alternative method of shutter opening would become acceptable? We should also bear in mind that the Europlug standard was 20 years into the future, and to insert a Schuko plug demands not only tampering with the earth pin operated mechanism, but applying excessive force to the plug. Mautby (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

User Ant75 is again attempting to claim compatibility of the Europlug with BS 546, but still fails to cite any references to support this. Europlug is designed to work with sockets accepting plugs of between 4.0mm and 4.8mm, it has pins which are a maximum of 19.5mm in length. BS 546 5A sockets are designed to accept pins having a diameter of 5.1mm with a maximum length of 15.6mm. A normal BS 546 5A socket will not allow full insertion of a Europlug, and will not provide a reliable and safe connection for that plug. User Ant75 has chosen not to engage with this discussion, but simply imposes his own misunderstanding of the situation on the article. The change has again been reverted. """" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mautby (talk • contribs) 13:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Ant75 needs to understand that this is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for advocating unsafe electrical practices! SSHamilton (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

If I may comment here. Firstly, I'll say that I agree with the above in that the usage of Europlug plugs in either BS546 or BS1363 is not a recommended, safe or reliable method of use.

But - Wikipedia is not about promoting unsafe (or even safe) usage of equipment, it is down to stating facts and details about them. For example, see WP:NOTHOWTO which has a good list of things we should not be doing. We should not suppress the fact that a Europlug can be forced into a BS 1363 socket just because we fear it could result in injury, or because it's not permitted - especially when we know that it happens. What we should be doing is as Mautby indirectly comments, and adding that the Europlug can be inserted into a BS 1363 socket, but that it results in an unreliable and unsecure connection - to such a degree that it has been made illegal (with certain exclusions) to supply such plugs in the UK - or words to that effect.

Here's a quick ref reporting on the actions of such behaviour, which could be used to support a more neutral statement, as opposed to that of Ant75.[1] Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but there would need to be a WP reliable source to back it up, otherwise the use of Europlugs with BS 546 sockets is simply OR and therfore unacceptable. (The ESC reference provided above is a good source for why not, but has nothing to say on the subject of BS 546 and Europlugs.) SSHamilton (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as BS 1363 goes, there is a reliable source as I provided so no problems there, but I also agree that there is nothing so far (in the demesne of RS) that supports the (mis)use of europlugs in BS 546 sockets. A little surprising, but I would conjecture that this is because the sockets themselves are no longer as common as they once were, hence the opportunity to do so is no longer presented as often as it used to be. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference to the Switched On article, I have used it and a reference to BS1363-2:1995+A4:2012, cl. 13.7 It shall not be possible to operate a shutter by inserting a 2-pin plug into a 3-pin socket-outlet. to clarify the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deucharman (talk • contribs) 17:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Outdated information

The Soviet Union is no more than 20 years. The standards of the Soviet Union were canceled for 5 years after its collapse. Soviet standard GOST 7396 C 1 does not exist for many years, it is an outdated and unused for a long time standard. For many years, Russia, Ukraine and other countries of the former Soviet Union is the common standards in CEE 7/4, CEE 7/5, CEE 7/7, CEE 7/16, CEE 7/17. I know it better than others, because I live in these countries. Edit the article is correct!83.143.235.159 (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Old sockets tend to remain in use long after they are no longer used in new construction, especially if they are mechanically compatible with what replaced them. Perhaps the article needs to make clearer that new construction and equipment does not use these standards any longer, but it could also use some documentation of that fact. Carolina wren (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Soviet 3-pin plug

While checking the article to see if I agreed with comment made above about GOST being outdated I noticed that info about an unrelated 3 pin Soviet-era plug that add been added by his past February 20th by DJ ResR, an Estonian editor whose only other edits have been to his user page. It probably is part of the Type I family of 10A 250V plugs, but those aren't in GOST. The only thing even remotely similar is the GOST A 10-20 and GOST A 10-50 plugs that are metricated clones of NEMA 10-20 and 10-50, which have similar shapes, but aren't 10A 250V. (GOST A is US standards, GOST B is UK standards, GOST C is European standards, with GOST C 1 being the only unique portion.) Anyway, I've moved the content from the article to here for the moment.

The 3-pin plug is found in former soviet union countries and maybe in Russia. One in a picture is from a farm in Kehtna, Estonia, but this type is seen in many places with old electrical installation still in use.

• 
  Old soviet 3-pin plug and moisture proof socket with pin configuration of similar to China CPCS-CCC. Rated 10A 250V.

If we ever add this back, it probably belongs in either the Obsolete types section of this article or in the Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets article if it was primarily used in those applications. However, I'd prefer we had more info and some references. Carolina wren (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

BS 4573 Shaver plug and socket

The UK vintage radio forum [2] is a fascinating, though unreliable, source. One fellow there says the 2-pin British razor plug is a direct descendant of an 1893 catalog item. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know the BS 4573 is the only extant UK standard for a two pin mains plug, and I have modified the table to show that. The table describes sockets rather than plugs, so, as the BS 4573 socket is rated at 200 mA, I have reflected that in the rating shown. The BS 4573 plug itself does not have a current rating, but is based on the 5A two-pin plug from the obsolete BS 372:1930 (Part I). BS 372:1930 (Part I) replaced BS 73:1915. I do not find it hard to believe that its history goes back to that 1893 plug mentioned, but somewhere along the line the pins did get shorter (safer). As far as the title of BS 546 goes, "two pole" (= 2 pins) + "earthing pin" (= 1 pin) = three pins total. Mautby (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Might it not make more sense to cover all these British round pin plugs and sockets in a single article, be it the extant BS 546 or a new one to which the various standards, both current and historical, would be redirects to? At the very least I think it would be friendlier to have BS 4573 be a redirect to such an article rather than this one. Carolina wren (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Where does this 200 mA rating come from? Adaptors are freely available to allow BS4573 plugs to be mated with BS1363 sockets. Such adaptors are supplied fitted with a 1 Amp fuse (or at least they should be to be legally sold - I have an example that is completely unfused). The plug fitted to my electric toothbrush is marked as rated at '2.5 A'. I am not convinced that the socket itself is rated at 200 mA, but I accept that any isolating transformer fitted to a bathroom fitted socket may be so rated. I cannot conceive of a razor or toothbrush that will require more than that. I B Wright (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Just looked at this further. Shaver sockets with isolating transformers come in a variety of ratings. In each case the manufacturer's specifications make it clear that the rating is that of the transformer. Most appear to be rated at 20 VA (which works out at 160 mA for a 115 volt razor). The largest that I found was rated at 30 VA (which works out at 260 mA for a 115 volt device). A 200 mA rating would be 23 VA which would be an awkward rating for such a transformer.

Tracking down a non isolated shaver socket (such as for a bedroom) proved more tricky, but when I did find one, it was rated at 5 Amps (which coincides with the original rating of the plug design in BS73). The wiring regs require that these be installed either as a fused spur from a ring circuit (and fused at 3 Amps) or as direct connection to an 'earthed lighting circuit'. The specific requirement for an earthed lighting circuit seems strange at first as there is no earth connection on the socket itself. An earthed circuit would, of course, be required if the shaver socket itself had a metal surround or exposed mounting screws. I B Wright (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The reference above to adaptors and BS 1363 sockets is not relevant as the rating is specifically for the BS 4573 Shaver Socket-Outlet. BS 4573 Section 1.1 "Scope" states: "The shaver socket-outlets have a restricted rating of 200 mA for voltages of 200V to 250V ac only and are shuttered, and are for use in rooms other than bathrooms." Clause 4.7.3 covers the requirements of the 200 mA current limiting device. Shaver sockets which include multiple socket types are actually outside the direct scope of BS 4573, but need to comply with the general requirements of that standard and also, for multiple voltages and use in bath rooms, they must contain an isolation transformer compliant with BS 3535. Mautby (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the edit to BS 4573 description by Wtshymanski to state that "Its dimensions are those of the 5A plug specified in the obsolete standard BS 372:1930", I have reverted this as in the absence of any citation to that effect we do not know this, all we know is that they are based on those dimensions. The BS listing for BS 4573 tells us that it "Replaces the requirements in BS 372:1930 for shavers." Perhaps someone with access to BS 372:1930 can tell us what the dimensions were? It is a safe assumption that it did not specify insulated pins, but that it did specify split pins (as can be seen from the various photographs of British two pin plugs on the web), so there is little doubt that the dimensions were not identical. Mautby (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

How is it now? Even "based" is still arguably a statement that needs a citation ( "how" do we "know" this?), but if I had one, I'd bet a gold sovereign that no-one on the Wikipedia will have eyes on a copy of BS 372 in the next 6 months. I fixed the capitalization and punctuation, and broke a long sentence so that you don't need the lungs of a pearl diver to read it out loud. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The current limit that you quote applies specifically to the transformer in an isolated socket required for wet area use and not to the physical socket itself. Non isolated sockets are rated at 5 Amps which coincides with the protection available if the socket is installed as a spur off a lighting circuit (fused at the distribution board at 5 Amps). Claiming that any BS 4573 socket is rated at 200 mA is synthesis as no standard actually states this. Since the entire design is based on an obsolete 5 Amp 2 pin plug and socket system, why would the current rating of the derived design be any less (although the moulded on plugs are generally marked as 2 1/2 Amps)? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

DieSwartzPunkt, please read BS 4573 before speculating about what you think it says!

BS 4573 1.1 Scope "The shaver sockets have a restricted rating of 200 mA for use on voltages of 200 V to 250 v a.c. only and are shuttered and are for use in rooms other than bathrooms."

BS 4573 4.7.3 Current-limiting device "Shaver socket-outlets shall incorporate a current limiting device, ..." and specifies the 200 mA requirement. Mautby (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No! You have not understood what you have read. You are synthesising a conclusion that is not in the spec - and that is not allowed. The BS that you quote from is secifically for shaver socket assemblies that contain an isolating transformer (and its associated plug). Such sockets, as 1.1 points out, have to be installed in locations other than a bathroom and have a restricted output. An essential point that you managed to miss is that BS 4573 used to apply to bathroom fitted shaver points but that application has been superseeded by BS EN 61558-2-5. The plug itself is still covered by BS 4573, but it does not specify a current rating for the plug of 200 mA nor does it specify a current rating of the socket (i.e. the actual bit you plug the plug into) of 200 mA. You have synthesised the actual current rating of the socket itself from the current limit of the circuitry behind it. You cannot do this. You cannot use BS 4573 as a reference for the current rating of the socket part of the assembly because it does not specify it. Indeed, shaver sockets conforming to BS EN 61558-2-5 can have a much lower limit of just 20 VA (The limit can be between 20 and 50 VA). Are you going to claim that the plug and socket itself on the lower rated assemblies is rated at just 80 mA @ 250 V? It's a pretty chunky plug for a rating of 200 mA let alone 80 mA. In fact, shaver units conforming to BS EN 61558-2-5 would have to have a higher rating for the plug/socket part because 50 VA equates to 400 mA when the unit is switched to 115 volts.

Non isolated sockets are available for shaver plugs, if somewhat hard to find - though I do have one in my bedroom. These are specified in BS 5733 which only covers the socket not the plug (the specification is for a non isolated socket designed to accept BS 4573 plugs). They are specified as rated at 5 Amps and can be connected to a 5 Amp lighting circuit without any further protection (It follows that the plug is similarly rated - which makes sense because it was originally used as a 5 Amp standard mains plug in the 1930's). They can also be connected to a ring main but in this case they must be connected via a fused spur fitted with 3 Amp fuse. The design of the socket itself is, for all practical purposes, identical to those used in BS 4573 and BS EN 61558-2-5 shaver sockets. This probably should be mentioned in the article. The same specification also covers adapters designed to allow BS 4573 plugs to mate with BS 1363 sockets. In this case, the adapter must be fitted with a 1 Amp (not 200 mA) fuse. This specification directly references BS 1363 to which the 13 Amp plug part of the adaptor is required to conform and BS 4573 (among others) for the plugs that mate with the socket. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

BS 4573:1970 is the current version of the standard being discussed here. The standard replaced the shaver requirements of BS 372:1930. The most recent ammendment to BS 4573:1970 is dated 11 August 2004 and the standard was most recently confirmed as current on 1 August 2012.

The abstract reads: "Requirements for rewireable or integrally moulded plugs. Requirements for shuttered socket-outlets having a restricted rating of 200 mA, not necessarily suitable for electric dry shavers containing battery charging units; for use in rooms other than bathrooms." See: http://shop.bsigroup.com/en/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030118182

BS 4573:1970 Contains no mention of isolation transformers, hence the reason it does not apply to sockets for bathrooms. The socket is restricted to 200 mA, there is no other rating in the standard for either socket or plug, so none can be claimed.

BS EN 61558-2-5:2010 is a standard which "deals with the safety of shaver transformers, power supply units incorporating a shaver transformer, and shaver supply units. Shaver transformers incorporating electronic circuits are also covered." There are no dimensional or rating specifications for plugs or sockets in BS EN 61558-2-5.

BS 5733:2010 "General requirements for electrical accessories." is a current standard which includes no dimensional or rating specifications for plugs or sockets.

BS 1363-3:1995+A4:2012 "13 A plugs, socket-outlets, adaptors and connection units. Specification for adaptors" is the current standard pertaining to shaver adaptors intended to be used with BS 1363 sockets. It does require a shaver adaptor to be fitted with a 1 A fuse complying to BS 646:1958, but it does not include any dimensional or rating specifications for the various plugs (BS 4573 plugs, Europlugs and American two-pin plugs) with which it may be used.

In summary, the only place in which the dimensions and rating of BS 4573 plugs and sockets can be found is BS 4573 itself, and the only rating given is 200 mA for the socket. To suggest that I am "synthesising a conclusion that is not in the spec" is nonsense. Mautby (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This whole shaver plug and socket business is rather a mess as things stand. It is correct to observe that the 200 mA rating is an artificial value established by the requirement for the socket assembly to be fitted with a current limit consequent on its specialised function. The BS 4573 plug is not intended for general purpose use but for use with electric shavers only, though its use has spread to a few other appliances. But this is certainly not the rating of the plug and socket itself. Indeed, the plug of my electric razor is marked "BS4573 250V 5A", so someone believes their rating exceeds 200 mA. The requirement for the 200 mA limit is only extant if the socket is made to satisfy the requirements of BS 4573. There are indeed plenty of sockets around that are not manufactured in conformity to BS 4573, but nevertheless accept BS 4573 plugs. These usually quote BS 5733, but it is true that that is not a specification specific to any socket design. These have no artificial current limit, other than the supply fuse or breaker, and are rated by the manufacturers at 5 Amps. Since there are sockets rated at 5 Amps and plugs rated at 5 Amps, this makes any 200 mA claim (for the plug/socket) highly questionable.

Your claimed limit of 200 mA is also further in question because as has been pointed out above: shaver sockets conforming to BS EN 61558-2-5 can have a 50 VA (max) output limit which is ~400 mA at 115 volts. Further, any rating for the plug has to be synthesis because, as you state, the 200 mA limit in BS 4573 is only for the a comforming socket. Since it does not mention the plug in this context any claimed 200 mA rating for the plug is synthesis precisely because BS 4573 does not specify it.

The modern day need for this unique plug is questionable because nearly all, if not all, UK shaver sockets also accept the CEE 7/16 Europlug which can be used more or less throughout Europe where as the reverse is seldom true. I B Wright (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to confine my comments to the article and do not propose to discuss the merits of the BS 4573 plug and socket as such (which would be outside the scope of this page - "WP:FORUM" )

Much has been made of the fact that the presumed antecedent of BS 4573 (requirements in BS 372:1930 for shavers) was rated at 5A. We are still waiting for someone to confirm exactly what those requirements were, but I continue on the assumption that the pins were uninsulated split brass as illustrated here: Digital Museum of Plugs and Sockets. Let us also assume that the diameter and length of the 5A pins in BS 372 is the same as BS 4573. None of that can lead us to a conclusion on what the generalized current capability of a BS 4573 plug is because we know that BS 4573 pins are insulated, and that there is no specification for the conducting element within the pin, neither in terms of cross section, current rating or temperature rise under load.

I B Wright's comment "Your claimed limit of 200 mA is also further in question because as has been pointed out above: shaver sockets conforming to BS EN 61558-2-5 can have a 50 VA (max) output limit which is ~400 mA at 115 volts." has no relevance whatsoever as the BS 4573 plug is intended only for use with sockets operating at 200 to 250 V ac. Shaver supply units which provide 115v outputs do not provide that voltage to a socket accepting BS 4573 plugs.

The marking requirements for a BS 4573 plug are only that it should show "BS 4573" and the manufacturers name or identity mark. There is nothing to preclude the manufacturer claiming a current rating and marking it on the plug, but any such claim, such as that on I B Wright's razor (marked "BS4573 250V 5A") or DieSwartzPunkt's claim that "moulded on plugs are generally marked as 2 1/2 Amps" cannot be used to assume a generalized current rating for the plug, that would be synthesis.

This issue has been complicated by the fact that I removed the non-existent "two-pin BS 546" and added BS 4573 (with a 200 mA current rating) to a table headed "Comparison of sockets". Another editor has since changed that heading to "Comparison of plugs". It would be reasonable to consider if it should in fact be called "Comparison of plugs and sockets".

There are two valid options if the BS 4573 entry in the current table (plugs) is to be changed, one would be to say that the plug has no general rating, the other would be to point out that the plug is designed for use in a socket which is current limited to 200 mA. What is completely unacceptable is an assumption that there is a rating for the BS 4573 plug of anything other than 200 mA. Mautby (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I read into this that you are conceeding that the current rating of the plug/socket cannot be synthesised from the BS 4573 specification (or anywhere else). That being the case, the article should not claim a current rating at all (which I believe is the main thrust of the argument). There is, of course, no problem at all with documenting that a BS 4573 shaver socket limits the output current to 200 mA because BS 4573 says precisely that. But perhaps it also should document that a BS EN 61558-2-5 shaver socket is limited to between 20 and 50 VA for the sake of completeness.

Where did you get the idea from that BS EN 61558-2-5 shaver sockets do not supply 115 volts to a socket accepting BS 4573 plugs? Many of these units are fitted with a two contact socket that accepts BS 4573, CEE 7/16, NEMA 1/15 and a 2 pin Australian plug (can't find its precise type at present) among others AND can be switched between 240 volts and 115 volts. An example of the the type (this one a 20 VA unit) can be found here. I B Wright (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the current rating in the table to "None" with a note regarding the rating of the socket. It is not appropriate to add a mention of BS EN 61558-2-5 to the table as that standard has nothing to say on plugs. The main description of BS 4573 in the article already made it clear that sockets were limited to 200 mA but makes no reference to plug current rating. I have previously (21st December 2012) added a brief description of BS EN 61558-2-5 with its minimum rating of 20 VA and maximum of 50 VA, so no change necessary there.

You have me on that Crabtree switchable shaver supply unit. I will obey the "WP:FORUM" rules and refrain from commenting on what I think of such multi-socket arrangements! Mautby (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I find the change reasonable. I personally might have have listed the current rating as 'unspecified' rather than 'none' but the point is clarified in the footnote so no problem there. I have done a minor reword of the reference to the current limit in the main body of the article to avoid the implication that the socket and particularly the plug are rated at 200 mA. I am not sure what your objection to the 'multi socket' arrangement is, but they have been in use for decades without problems apart from the possibility of running a 115 volt shaver from 240 volts (but you can do that with most of the dual socket ones as well). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

DieSwartzPunkt, I have reverted your change as it the previous wording is in accordance with the standard: 1.1 Scope "The shaver sockets have a restricted rating of 200 mA". You cannot avoid it, the socklet IS rated at 200 mA. Mautby (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I still think that you are pushing the interpretation and are thus technically guilty of synthesis. The 200 mA is a deliberate restriction not a physical rating. There was nothing that was inaccurate in the article before you reverted it. As a parallel: if I mount a 15 Amp socket on my wall and include a 5 Amp fuse on the mounting patress in series with the live wire, then the 'socket assembly' will now have a restricted rating of 5 Amps. But the leading '1' does not mysteriously drop off the embossed '15 Amp' on the socket which remains a 15 Amp socket. As has been conceeded above (and I conceed the point as well), the actual rating of the plug and socket has to be indeterminate, because it cannot be synthesised from the old BS 372 under Wikipedia rules, though it could in electrical practice because it has long been established that the required insulating sleeves do not change the current rating of a plug one jot.

Although this would be original research (but only for Wikipedia purposes), I (and, I am certain, many others) regularly draw up to 5 Amps from a shaver adapter whose 1 Amp fuse has been exchanged for a 5 Amp without any problems. I B Wright (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Using a shaver adaptor (which, as I mentioned earlier, is subject to BS 1363-3, not BS 4573) at currents beyond those at which it is rated has absolutely no relevance to the rating of a BS 4573 socket or the non-rating of a BS 4573 plug. The point is that a BS 4573 socket is rated at 200 mA ("The shaver sockets have a restricted rating of 200 mA",) and it is therefore quite wrong to imply otherwise. As far as the actually capability of the socket goes, I B Wright claims no source for the statement that "it has long been established that the required insulating sleeves do not change the current rating of a plug one jot". That is a perfectly reasonable statement to apply to a BS 1363 or BS 546 plug, because, when the requirement for insulated sleeves was added, the required current rating of the plugs remained unchanged in the standard. However, there is no separate rating specified for a BS 4573 plug, and nothing more than the 200 mA required to operate satisfactorily with the socket may be assumed.

Because the shaver plug has a relatively limited application, there do not appear to be many sources for the plugs alone, here is one I found:

http://www.chaus.com/products_plug.php?top_cat=2&txt_subcat=24

Here are some plugs moulded onto cables:

http://dgyunhao.en.made-in-china.com/product/pMLxbwROAXVY/China-England-AC-Power-Cord-Plug-YH0602-.html

http://www.hoiluen.com/en/plug/overview/England

All of these products are rated at 200 mA.

I do not begin to understand why some editors are so keen to have this article imply that BS 4573 products are rated at anything but 200 mA, but the wording as reverted is correct. Mautby (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I now find that IEC 60083 Sheet GB 6 for the BS 4573 plug and socket-outlet, under "Rated Values for Accessories", clearly states that the rated current is 0.2 A. As it would clearly be unacceptable to not reflect the standard in this article, this must put an end to any dispute as to the rating. I have re-inserted 0.2 A rating in the table in the article. Mautby (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid not. Someone is synthesising a limitation that is not there (and in this case, I do not believe that it is you). IEC 60083, in this case is directly referring to BS4573. BS4573 does not specify any rating for the plug. Indeed IEC 60083 is nothing much more than in index to a whole raft of national standards. The IEC 60083 is therefore wrong to synthesise any such rating for a BS4573 plug. 86.166.71.0 (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The absolute authority on the rating for BS 4573 is the responsible BS committee, which is "PEL/23 Electrical accessories". The way that IEC 60083 is prepared is for each national standards authority to provide the neccessary information to IEC/TC 23B who are responsible for compiling IEC 60083. The rating in IEC 60083, under "Rated Values for Accessories", has been provided by the BS committee using the prescribed document which is contained in Annex A of IEC 60083 and is dated "2002-06-03".

Annexe A states: "The contents of the information forms is the responsibility of the National Committees of the countries in question. The instructions on the following pages should be adhered to. Please note that the information supplied by the National Committees will be directly included in the published document and will not be editorally modified or redrawn. It is therefore important that the submission be prepared to the highest possible standard."

Under "Rated Values for Accessories" the "PEL/23 Electrical accessories" committee has clearly stated that the rated current is 0.2 A. Unless that information is rescinded by the committee then we have to accept it. The statement by IP 86.166.71.0 that The IEC 60083 is therefore wrong to synthesise any such rating for a BS4573 plug is without evidence and completely unfounded. I have reverted the edit by IP 86.166.71.0 Mautby (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This is actually completely irrelevant. The section in the article is entitled "BS 4573 plug" and it is to that standard that any reference must be made. BS 4573 does not specify the rating of the plug, only the socket. If the plug is specified as complying with IEC 60083, things might be different, but it is not. The article therefore has no business quoting a rating not included in the standard relevant to the section title. One observation: rather than "none" (which implies there is no maximum current, which is clearly absurd), I would prefer to see "unspecified". I B Wright (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I will not accept any change to the section title to "IEC 60083 plug" as that is the equivalent of saying "any old plug design" as it is an all encompassing 'standard', in that it is not really a standard at all - it is, effectively, just an index. I B Wright (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have just spent a bit of time looking into this further. All of the electric razor and toothbrushes that I can find that are sold in the UK state that they are fited with a BS 4573 plug. A few Braun razors claim a "BS 4573 style plug" but probably because they do not meet the strict dimensions of the body of the plug because the contain a switch mode power supply to convert the mains down to 12 volts. Any attempt to turn up a razor or toothbrush that claims to be fitted with a plug conforming to IEC 60083 (part anything) has come up blank. Thus for IEC 60083 to claim a 200 mA rating for the BS 4573 plug is nothing short of an academic curiosity wherever they derived the information from. The bottom line is that a plug conforming to BS 4573 does not have a specified current rating. Anything claimed by IEC 60083 is not relevant as there are no plugs made that conform to it that can be found at present. I B Wright (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It is far from irrelevant! I B Wright interprets BS 4573 as having no plug rating, I, and the plug manufacturers who rate their BS 4573 products at 0.2 A, interpret it as having a single current rating of 0.2 A covering both plug and socket. It is not clear either way in BS 4573 itself, but the only interpretation which matters is that of the people responsible for BS 4573, PEL/23. They have interpreted it as stated in their published submission to IEC 60083. None of us can second guess that, we must simply accept it and not attempt to synthesise some different answer! I have made a clear citation in the body of the article.

Should I B Wright, or anyone else, wish to argue further then they must first contact the secretary of the PEL/23 committee at BSI and request that they state that the sheet GB 6 submission to IEC is incorrect, unless that happens then please let us have no further claims that anyone knows better than the relevant authority! Mautby (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It is clear from the above post that you have no idea whatsoever on how the world of standards works. BS4573 does not explicitly state the rating of a plug manufactured to conform to that standard. And that is the end of the matter.

It does not matter what the author(s) intended to put in the standard, or what they subsequently realised was missing or what interpretation they wanted to put on what they actually wrote. The fact remains that it ain't in the standard. They could take out full page advertisements in every newspaper and magazine in the world which says, "Hey, fellas we left out the current rating of the plug and meant to put in 200 mA". It still isn't in the standard. Like nearly everything in life, you cannot change the rules of the game once the ball is in play. Once you publish the standard - you're stuck with it warts and all. You are claiming above that the publishers interpret a current rating for the plug. Well they are fully entitled to do that - but it still is not in the standard. Go ahead, buy a copy, it isn't there. Some plug manufacturers also interpret their own current ratings and so mark the plugs. Ratings of 2.5 or 5 Amp seem popular choices. I have never seen a plug marked '0.2 Amp' or '200 mA'.

Any manufacturer wishing to produce plugs to fit BS4573 sockets is only obliged to consult the relevant standard (in this case BS4573). They are not obliged to trawl through every other standard or publication on the off chance that there is a piece of information that should have been included and is specified elsewhere.

As a parallel example, consider the Orange book CD standard published circa 20 years ago. The particular bit in question is the standards concerning muli-session recording of CD-R and CD-RW media. The standard does not specifically state that it only applies to CD discs written in the Mode 2 Form 1 format. There was a subtle implication in part of the text but it was ambiguous at best. This was in fact an omission that went un-noticed until it was published. Sony-Philips subsequently widely published information throughout the optical storage industry that the standard was only ever intended to be used with the Mode 2 Form 1 format and nearly all CD burning utilities (eventually) only support that format. But regardless of that, the Orange Book standard does not explicitly state that it is only intended to be used with Mode 2 Form 1.

As testament to that, when Microsoft introduced CD writing capability into Windows (XP I believe?), although it supported multi-session recording, Microsoft chose to write discs in the Mode 1 format. As a result there are still plenty of CD drives that cannot read anything other than the first session of Windows burned CD disc (some drive manufacturers interpreted the ambiguity the way it was intended but most did not). Following crtisism, Microsoft were able to point to the Orange book standard and claim that their burning capability complies with the standard. And no one can prove otherwise despite the original intention. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A very good point. You are quite right that whatever is published elsewhere, a manufacturer looking at BS 4573 will not find it (and there can be nothing in BS 4573 that points that manufacturer elsewhere because the 'new' information post dates the publication of the base standard). Article reverted and appropriate note added. I B Wright (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether something is or is not in the official standard, if we can verifiably source that additional specifications to BS 4573 widgets are commonly followed because of some other document, would not including that information in the article be relevant so long as we make it clear that it ain't in the official standard? Carolina wren (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Which is why I included the information in note 7 to the table. I B Wright (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Mautby’s reference to what IEC 60083 includes is accurate. The BSI committee PEL/23 is entirely responsible for preparation of the information contained in the UK section of that document, and sheet GB 6 (dated 2002-06-03) is part of IEC/TR 60083 ed6.0 (2009-02) as well as being in the (as yet) unpublished, but recently approved edition 7. Sheet GB 6 makes it quite clear that BS 4573 plugs are rated at 0.2 A. Had the committee wished to have quoted separate ratings for plug and socket-outlet in sheet GB 6 they could easily have done so. Despite the fact that BS 4573 is a slackly written standard, for others to claim a more accurate reading than PEL/23 smacks of arrogance. I B Wright‘s statement “anything claimed by IEC 60083 is not relevant as there are no plugs made that conform to it that can be found at present” is simply obfuscation, of course products are not made to IEC 60083, and I cannot see anywhere that Mautby has made reference to “conformance” to IEC 60083. Products are rated at either 200 mA, in accordance with the standard, or 2.5A, in excess of the standard. There is nothing to stop a manufacturer rating a product in excess of the standard. The standard does not require any indication of rating on the plug, but neither does it prohibit a manufacturer from doing it. Bear in mind that we are discussing a product which may legally be used only with “any electrical shaver, toothbrush or similar appliance “, so rating the plug above 200 mA has no practical meaning! In reality a BS 4573 plug is moulded on to a 0.5 mm2 cord, I would be very suspicious of any manufacturer who rates their plug at 5 A! Accusations that Mautby does not understand standards, and the implication that he has not read this one, are rich indeed when they come from those who just a few weeks ago were exhibiting complete ignorance of what BS 4573 contained. Claims were made that ratings marked on plugs proved that the socket-outlet was not rated at 200 mA, nonsense! DieSwartzPunkt even asserted that “Non isolated sockets are rated at 5 Amps which coincides with the protection available if the socket is installed as a spur off a lighting circuit (fused at the distribution board at 5 Amps).” This is untrue. And then: “Claiming that any BS 4573 socket is rated at 200 mA is synthesis as no standard actually states this.” Also untrue. And later, referring to Mautby’s post: “BS 4573 1.1 Scope "The shaver sockets have a restricted rating of 200 mA for use on voltages of 200 V to 250 v a.c. only and are shuttered and are for use in rooms other than bathrooms." replied: “The BS that you quote from is secifically (sic) for shaver socket assemblies that contain an isolating transformer”. Again, untrue. Clearly DieSwartzPunkt was claiming knowledge of a specification he had not read. I B Wright claimed “There are indeed plenty of sockets around that are not manufactured in conformity to BS 4573, but nevertheless accept BS 4573 plugs.” and “These have no artificial current limit, other than the supply fuse or breaker, and are rated by the manufacturers at 5 Amps.” When does he think that the use of unearthed socket-outlets in the UK (other than shaver sockets) was last legal? The impression I am left with is that DieSwartzPunkt and I B Wright are still smarting from the fact that Mautby was completely right on the subject of the socket-outlet rating, and they both made themselves look somewhat silly. They are apparently now attempting to get some sort of compensatory satisfaction. Deucharman (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Although not specifically stated, I have more or less conceeded the point on BS4573 sockets that they are rated at 0.2 Amp though I still believe that this is an artificial rating that comes about solely because of the requirement for a current limiting device. I cannot, of course, speak for DieSwartzPunkt but his last post was only discussing the plug. The point in contention are plugs manufactured to BS4573. As stated, that standard does not explicitly contain a current rating for the plug. Anything contained in any other subsequent standard or indeed elsewhere cannot change that fundamental fact. I B Wright (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for not speaking on my behalf, because I most certainly have not conceeded the point. I have just not been arguing it. BS 4573 specifies that a shaver socket has to be current limited to 200 mA. This does not have any bearing on the actual rating of the connector itself. A BS 1363 plug can be current limited to 3 Amp (by virtue of fitting it with a 3 Amp fuse), but it is still rated at 13 Amp and the plug will continue to say so. IEC 60083 may have added a rating for the socket and plug, but as we have both noted, this does not alter the fact that BS 4573 itself does not include a rating for the plug (or for the actual socket assembly - just an artificial current limitter). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

DieSwartzPunkt, what part of the following statement (BS 4573 1.1 Scope) do you not understand? “"The shaver sockets have a restricted rating of 200 mA for use on voltages of 200 V to 250 v a.c. only and are shuttered and are for use in rooms other than bathrooms." The rating is 200 mA! Your claim that there is no rating for the socket is completely unfounded. Similarly your claim about the rating of a BS 1363 plug being always 13 A is not true. The vast majority of BS 1363 plugs being sold are not rewirable, they therefore must conform to the second sentence of clause 7.1 f) which states "All non-rewirable plugs shall be marked with the rated current of the fuse link fitted. which shall not exceed the value given in Table 2 for the appropriate size of flexible cord" Once again you are creating supposed facts without knowledge of what the standard says. And finally your statement "IEC 60083 may have added a rating for the socket and plug" is simply not related to fact, IEC 60083 contains only what is submitted by the national standards bodies. The relevant part of that document has been written by the people responsible for maintaining the BS 4573 standard, if they say that BS 4573 specifies a rating of 0.2 A, then that is the rating, end of story. Mautby (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting claim considering BS1363 never addressed non rewirable plugs. For that you require the supplement BS1363/A. Even then there is a problem in that real world plugs seem to be unaware of your claim. Just a straw poll of all BS 1363/A plugs to hand, but examination shows that they are all marked as 13 Amp even though not one of them was supplied fitted with a 13 Amp fuse. I B Wright (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not really the place to discuss BS 1363, but the above I B Wright comment is a complete fabrication! The /A designation has nothing to do with non-rewirable plugs, it is used to indicate that the plug (or portable socket-outlet) is classified for "rough use" and subject to additional test. The "rough use plug" (originally called the "resilient plug") was introduced in 1960 as supplement no. 2 to BS 1363:1947 and subsequently embodied into BS 1363:1967. Non-rewirable plugs were introduced in BS 1363:1984, and when the standard was divided in 1995 the plug part became titled "Part 1: Specification for rewireable and non-rewireable 13A fused plugs". The requirement of clause 7.1 f) quoted above (in the form that is used in BS 1363-1:1995 +A4:2012) was originally in clause 7.1 g) in BS 1363:1984. I fail to see what your limited experience of real world plugs has to do with this. I have with me in the US a number of moulded plugs which are correctly rated as 3A, 5A and 10A. The image used in the BS 1363 article to illustrate sleeved pins clearly shows a plug with a 3 A rating. Mautby (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, it does demonstrate how standards are not always as followed as you might like to believe. A look around my plugs shows a universal rating of 13 Amp regardless of the fuse fitted (although one example does have a sticker on the front that says, "Fitted with a 3 Amp fuse"). One interesting example is on a fan and the moulding machine appears to have a moveable insert with an arrow that can point to 3A, 5A, 10A or 13A around it (has anyone seen a 10 A BS 1362 fuse in the last 30 years?). The arrow points to 13 A despite the plug actually having a 3 Amp fuse in it. But this is not really so surprising. Most moulded plug and cable assemblies are manufactured in China as generic parts and bought by appliance manufacturers who then decide which fuse to fit. The Chinese manufacturer has no idea what the plug is going to finish up on the end of when he knocks out a million or so. There is a give away in that although the plug is often marked "Made in China", the fuse is of more local origin. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

More woolly speculation on your part! The fuse rating (and therefore the plug rating in the case of a non-rewireable plug) is determined by the cable attached, not the appliance it will be used with. The appliance manufacturer chooses to purchase the appropriate cord set for the appliance, and that will almost certainly be manufactured in China. Of course the fuse in a non-rewirable plug is fitted by the plug/cable manufacturer, no appliance manufacturer would buy in an incomplete cord. Take a look at this range of plugs offered by Volex, one of the major power cable manufacturers, note the range of ratings for each plug. Here is a sample of the various cables they offer with one particular plug. Amazon.co.uk will be pleased to provide you with 10 A fuses. If you want to make a serious contribution to these articles you really should stick to the facts! Mautby (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

But the essential point that you are continuing to miss the important part of DieSwartzPunkt's post above. The author of BS4573 can publish any interpretation they like elsewhere. They can claim that BS4573 specifies a rating of 0.2 A for a BS4573 plug. But that does not alter the reality that BS4573 does not explicitly specify any such thing. It is purely their interpretation of what is actually written, and what is actually written (not any interpretation) is the only thing that counts. DieSwartzPunkt's parallel on the Orange Book standard is a very good illustration of the point (if it is true - and I can find no evidence that it is not). I B Wright (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If someone would care to get a statement from BSI PEL/23 that they were mistaken when compiling the BS 4573 statements in IEC 60083 then I shall accept it, otherwise I will continue to put my faith in that body rather than editors who consistently demonstrate that the cannot read standards. (Or perhaps have not bothered to read?) Mautby (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the problem here is that it is you that cannot comprehend what you are being told. It doesn't matter a fuck what BSI PEL/213 or anyone else told the editors of IEC 60083 or any other standard. BS 4573 DOES NOT EXPLICITLY SPECIFY THE CURRENT RATING OF A PLUG MANUFACTURED TO THAT STANDARD. The article address plugs manufactured to BS 4573. It DOES NOT address plugs made to IEC60083. If you wish to maintain that a BS 4573 plug has a current rating of 200 mA, then show where in BS 4573 it explicitly states this. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

DieSwartzPunkt, you can keep saying that all you like, but it does not alter the fact that the BS PEL/23 statement of the plug rating is rather more authoritative than yours! Mautby (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I can only assume that you have a singular inability to comprehend simple English. What I may say or believe is not the point at issue. Furthermore, what BSI PEL/23 says or claims is also not the point at issue. Similarly, anything you claim is not the point at issue. And it never has been. The only thing that matters here is what BS 4573 says, or in this particular case what BS 4573 does not say. In case you missed it from the post above: BS 4573 DOES NOT EXPLICITLY SPECIFY THE CURRENT RATING OF A PLUG MANUFACTURED TO THAT STANDARD. That is the end of it. Nothing you; me; BSI PEL/23 or anyone else says can alter that basic fact. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

DieSwartzPunkt, let me remind you that, having repeatedly claimed that the BS 4573 socket is not rated at 200 mA when the standard so clearly says that it is, you are not in a good position to make claims about others being unable to comprehend! You have repeatedly demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that (at the time you were making those ridiculous claims) you had not read the standard. I would also remind you that I have not claimed that there is any explicit rating for the plug, but it is blatantly obvious that there is an implicit rating, as no one can credibly claim that a plug can be rated at a higher current than its mating socket can deliver! That is clearly the reason why BSI makes the unequivocal statement in sheet GB 6, submitted as part of IEC/TR 60083, that the rating is 0.2 A for both plug and socket. No amount of swearing and shouting on your part can change that situation, you are in a glass house of your own making and would do better to stop throwing stones. Mautby (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Previous arguments aside, you were specifically claiming that BS4573 plugs have a rating of 200 mA. When it was (repeatedly) pointed out that this is not the case, you resorted to a different line of argument by introducing a different document to support you case. It doesn't matter how frequently you type the reference to it (and I count six times), it does not alter the essential point that BS4573 does not explicitly state a rating for that plug. Your contention that because the socket is rated at 200 mA automatically means that the plug must have that rating is also a non sequiter.

There are a several examples of mateable plug and socket combinations where the plug has a different rating to the socket (and you yourself attempted to introduce such an example when you claimed that moulded on BS1363 plugs supplied fitted with a fuse smaller than 13 A had to be rated at the fuse size despite the fact they fit a 13 Amp socket). Wylex produced a domestic plug rated at 5 A that fits a socket rated at 13 A (there being no mating socket rated at 5 A). In the non domestic world, larger amperage plugs can often fit lower amperage sockets (e.g. Plessey made such a pairing where a (three phase) plug rated at 20 A would fit either a 20 A rated socket or an alternate 10 Amp socket (the rear of the socket was significantly smaller - ideal if space was limited). Plug ratings are artificial values anyway. Certainly in the domestic world, the rating is usually determined solely by the application rather than any contact capabilities. Based purely on dimensions (and assuming drawn brass contacts), the BS4573 plug's dimensions work out as capable of handling around 38 Amps. Commercial equipment connectors are usually rated much closer to the real contact's current capability which usually means that a connector's rating is often determined by the ability to connect the appropriate sized wire to the contacts, but does mean that the connector is usually much smaller than the types being dicussed in the article. Power plugs are artificially physically large for reasons of safety and the ability of the user to be able to grab hold of them. I B Wright (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I B Wright continues to distort what I have said, but it is unclear whether this is a deliberate ploy, or merely an inability to read and comprehend. He makes the accusation: you were specifically claiming that BS4573 plugs have a rating of 200 mA. When it was (repeatedly) pointed out that this is not the case, you resorted to a different line of argument by introducing a different document to support you case. This is simply untrue. What I did was to introduce the 200 mA rating for the socket into the BS 4573 section of the article, and, in the table headed Comparison of sockets removed the completely fictitious "BS 546 (2 pin)" and replace it with the BS 4573 socket rated at 200 mA. On 20th December Wtshymanski re-designated the table previously titled Comparison of sockets as Comparison of plugs, and therefore transferred the 200 mA rating from socket to plug, presumably as an oversight. On January 30th DieSwartzPunkt made an erroneous claim that the socket rating was 5A, which I reverted. If you look at the my posts for 31st January in this thread you will see that in a discussion about DieSwartzPunkt's claims of a 5A rating, I wrote: In summary, the only place in which the dimensions and rating of BS 4573 plugs and sockets can be found is BS 4573 itself, and the only rating given is 200 mA for the socket. Having realized that the table was now about plugs rather than sockets, I removed the rating in the table, so that it only appeared in the main text as a socket rating. On 13 February I discovered that I was wrong in believing that BS 4573 was the only place in which the rating of BS 4573 accessories was specified, and that was when I reinserted the 200 mA plug rating in the table, as what BSI say about THEIR standard is what counts! I maintain that the BSI position is the only valid interpretation of the rating. Claims that a plug can be rated at a higher value than its socket are clearly nonsense. The situation of a plug having a lower rating than its socket is completely different, and is not uncommon, the Europlug being the most obvious example. However, in this case we are not discussing a difference between plug and socket rating, BSI have made it crystal clear that all BS 4573 accessories have the same rating, 200 mA. Mautby (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You still have not got it have you? It does not matter what the BSI or anyone else says, crystal clear or otherwise. As suggested above, the BSI may have screwed up when they omitted the rating for the plug, but they are now stuck with it. The only thing that matters is what BS4573 actually says, not what it was intended to say. This is why the world is saddled with BS4573 plugs rated at 2.5 Amps and even 5&nbspAmps, all of which are fully compliant with BS4573. At the risk of repeating what others have said: "BS4573 does not explicitly specify a current rating for the plug". If you have inferred it from the current rating of the socket specified in BS4573, though I grant that it may be a reasonable inference, it is still an inference and is thus synthesis. If you take the trouble to read what WP:SYNTHESIS says, synthesis is where you (or someone else) provides an interpretation from the content of a reference that the reference does not explicitly state. The only valid reference for the characteristics and specification of BS4573 plugs is BS4573 itself and nothing else. 86.166.71.0 (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The above anonymous user seems so wrapped up in WP that they have become deluded into the belief that WP policy in some way affects the way that the British Standards Institution operates. This is, of course, not the case. If the BSI PEL/23 committee wishes to declare, by means of their submission to IEC 60083 in the form of Sheet GB6, that the rating of accessories in BS 4573 is 0.2 A then that is their prerogative, they do not need the permission of IB Wright or any anonymous WP editor, to so do. That should be abundantly clear! IB Wright's removal of the statement from the BS 4573 section that: "Sheet GB6 (BS 4573, dated 2002-06-03) which forms part of IEC 60083 confirms that the 0.2 A rating applies to all BS 4573 accessories." was an act of extraordinary arrogance, as is also the anonymous editor's belief that WP editors know better than the authors of a document what that document means. The reference for the removed statement was clearly to IEC 60083, so accusations of synthesis are completely wide of the mark, and yet another case of editors dashing to the keyboard without bothering to read what others have written. It is all a very sad reflection on those editors. Mautby (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Just get it will you. It is their perogative, BUT IT DOES NOT ALTER WHAT BS 4573 SAYS ONE JOT. You can repeat it as much as you like, but it doesn't make it true. This is how environmentalists work.

"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe that it is true - Adolf Hitler

DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, you ignore the facts that you do not like, just because the plug rating is not explicit in BS 4573 does not change the fact that BSI have declared in Sheet GB6 that it is 0.2 A, WP editors cannot determine that IEC 60083 is irrelevant! Accusations of lies are unbecoming to any editor when there is absolutely no evidence to back it up. SHAME ON YOU DieSwartzPunkt! Mautby (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out (and obviously ignored): if I wish to make a plug conforming to BS 4573, then I am only obliged to read BS 4573. BS 4573 does not state a current rating for my plug, so I am free to give it any suitable rating I chose and it will still comply providing I meet the other criteria (and thet seems to be precisely in accordance with what manufacturers have done). I am not obliged to consult every other standard in existence just in case the BSI have dropped an explanatory note or an interpretation into one of them. That you seem to believe otherwise is a delusion on your part.86.166.71.0 (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

BS 4573 requires a plug rated at .2 A, but it is does not prohibit a higher rating, therefore a manufacturer may claim (and mark) a higher rating, providing that they can demonstrate that both the plug and cable with which it is provided meet their claims, that is not in dispute. This is why some manufacturers claim, and mark, 200 mA, whereas others claim a higher rating. Mautby (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This whole discussion is entirely pointless, because the article currently has no claim (AFIACT) that the plug is rated at 0.2 Amp. It does have a note that the IEC 60083 standard contains a statement that the plug was intended (my interpretation) to be rated at 0.2 Amp. Since that is an accurate statement, it is proper that it says so. Unless anyone is proposing a change to the article, this discussion should end here. 86.166.71.0 (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The relevance of this discussion is that this editor is not prepared to sit silent when others accuse me falsely, and continue to distort my words. Mautby (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I cannot argue with most of that other than to observe that inference of the plug rating from the socket rating is not a reasonable inference precisely because the BS 4573 standard does not state the rating. It also occurs to me that Mautby is attempting to belittle the people who are arguing against him and that undermines his position completely. I can see several editors who (more or less) agree on this point and only he continues with the line that BS4573 plugs have a 200 mA rating even though the standard makes no such statement. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again, to be completely clear, what I say is that those responsible for BS 4573 have stated that the rating is 0.2 A. Theirs is the only statement which counts. Mautby (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

As another parallel (of which there is no shortage), something fairly similar happened when the USB 1.0 standard was drawn up. One of its many provisions was that it permitted USB peripheral devices to have a serial number (it allows an operating system to identify a previously installed peripheral and to, for example, allocate it the same drive letter at enumeration). What the standard did not say was that the number should be unique among like devices. Manufacturers have become very adept at carefully studying standards looking for interpretations that can save them money. As a result, there are no shortage of USB FLASH sticks on the market where the whole production run has exactly the same serial number (the upshot of this is that you cannot connect more than one unless you disable serial number monitoring in your operating system). The companies that contributed to the standard were quick in publishing a clarification that the serial number should be unique (for a single peripheral type), but it was too late. The USB 1.0 standard does not specify that the serial number must be different. The omission has had to be carried forward into USB 1.1, USB 2.0 and USB 3.0, because manufacturers are also very adept at seeking damages if a standard is changed to their detriment. The USB standard(s) have several other omissions and ambiguities. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Such parallels have no relevance; they do not affect the BSI statement. Mautby (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Another priceless gem from yourself demonstrating your general cluelessness: ,"The fuse rating (and therefore the plug rating in the case of a non-rewireable plug) is determined by the cable attached, not the appliance it will be used with.". Where on earth did you dig that nonsense up from? There are plenty of good examples around, but medium to large switch mode power supplies are often supplied with nominally 3 Amp cable in a moulded on plug, many with an IEC 60320 C7 type plug (rated by that standard at 2.5 Amps). According to you, the plug should therefore be fitted with a 3 Amp fuse (determined by the cable). If you did so, you would never get any but the smallest power supplies running. You have to fit a 5 Amp fuse because the very large >40 Amp momentary inrush current lasts long enough that it will blow a 3 Amp fuse. The cable and plug can retain their original ratings because the inrush current will not harm them. The rating of the fuse is determined by much much more than the cable size alone. Indeed, the type of power supply that is built into a plug usually has no fuse at all! DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

DieSwartzPunkt, when discussing standards it is not "clueless" to be guided by the content of the standard. BS 1363 Table 2 specifies the maximum fuse rating according to the size of the flex, if that is nonsense, tell BSI, not me! Only in the case of 0.5 mm2 flex is a possible exception made for inrush current, table 2 requires a 3 A fuse, but allows for the use of a 5 A fuse when high inrush current is expected. The reason that plug-top power supplies normally have no fuse is precisely because there is no flex to protect. Your ignorant comments betray yet again that you speculate what might be in standards, but do not bother to actually read them. Mautby (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It really would help if I B Wright actually understood what he is reading, he seems very very confused! The standard referred to is the Cenelec standard EN 50075 from which national standards for the Europlug are derived. Just to spell it out, Cenelec is a EUROPEAN body. IEC is an INTERNATIONAL body! My following statement "which has national equivalents in most European countries, as described in IEC 60083" is not referred to in the edit summary, and it is a true statement. Mautby (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It may help those discussing the rating of 0.2 A to understand that shavers used to be mains operated and the cord was normally connected by means of an appliance coupler. I seem to remember that some of these couplers may have been proprietary, but the preferred coupler became the IEC 320 C1 type, and that has a rating of 0.2 A, so there would have been no point in rating a shaver plug and socket at more than that. IEC 320 was originally published in 1970, the same year as BS 4573. SSHamilton (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The first edition of IEC 320 (later renumbered to IEC 60320) was published in 1970 and post dates the connector that you refer to by a considerable number of years. If the connector was proprietary, it could have had any current rating that the design owner chose to ascribe to it. 86.166.71.0 (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The above anonymous comment would seem to be entirely irrelevant. Mautby (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I have wide experience of British and International standards, and still have access to many which deal with electrical subjects. I have examined closely what Mautby has written here, and cannot find anything which is incorrect. I cannot say that I like his abrasive manner, but perhaps it is unsurprising when he is faced with the barrage of rudeness which has been directed at him. There is no doubt in my mind that BS 4573 is a badly written document, but it is also very clear that the plug is both implicitly rated at 200 mA, and that this has been confirmed by BSI in Sheet GB6 beyond all reasonable doubt. I would like to suggest that the time has come to end this particular discussion, unless anything completely new comes to light. I recommend that all parties reflect on their conduct, and in future editors should refrain from making unsubstantiated attacks on the work of others. SSHamilton (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything SSHamilton says in the above post. I have also checked Mautby's statements about the relevant standards and find them correct. (By the way, are you the Ms SS-H that I met at a Brighton conference in the 90s?) FF-UK (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I also agree, and am very fed up with the sniping that has been focused on Mautby. Deucharman (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I note that IP 86.166.71.0 has made numerous attempts to censor this discussion, apparently based on the completely false assertion that "I CAN collapse any discussion that does NOT result in a change. Your change was nothing more than a repetition of a point already in the article." Fortunately WP provides us with the means for comparing revisions, the link to the comparison of the version of this article before the discussion started on 14th December to the version at the time that IP 86.166.71.0 commenced censorship attempts is: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=AC_power_plugs_and_sockets&diff=543266684&oldid=527927132 I wonder what this person wishes to hide, and why? My thanks to Jeh, SSHamilton and McGeddon for ensuring that WP policies are upheld. Mautby (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Agrgument is practically a non sequiter. There has been a lot of change to the article included in the above diff, but precious little of it is anything to do with this discussion. I also note that one other contributor beside myself has pointed out that this discussion should be ended. 86.166.71.0 (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the suggestion was to end the discussion, not censor it! Mautby (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus here clearly does not support 86.166.71.0 (talk · contribs) actions as self-appointed moderator. And IP's action of deleting only Mautby's comments (as in this edit) was clearly NNPOV. IP should review WP:TPOC; IP's actions here are not supported there that I can see. Note, for example:

Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution.

and

Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.

and

Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection.

(emphasis added.) Obviously there has been objections to (and reversions of) IP's "moderation" efforts. IP should therefore stop. Jeh (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

A further issue has arisen in the parts of the article dealing with BS 4573. User Ant75 has attempted to change headings from BS 4573 to BS EN 61558-2-5. It is important that editors making specific references to standards documents should refer to the actual documents rather than simply speculate on what the document might contain, in this case BS EN 61558-2-5 is a standard which includes no information on specific plugs or sockets, but covers other aspects of shaver supply units. Mautby (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I am wondering if anyone in the UK has yet managed to see BS 372:1930 (Part I) or BS 73:1915? It would be very useful to know what they say, especially what ratings were included and what the pin size and spacing was? Will anyone win Wtshymanski's gold sovereign? (See 21 December 2012 post above.) Mautby (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I might be able to locate those standards, but will Wtshymanski pay up? ElectricTattiebogle (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You notice it was conditional, and no-one took the bet anyway. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I note that it has gone unremarked that Deucharman has apparently done what no one else has managed by quoting from BS 73 - so we now know for sure what that standard defined. Deucharman is, therefore, to be congratulated. (I also note that ElectricTattiebogle has remained silent having expressed a hope that he could locate the standard.). It is now quite clear that BS 4573 does have the same dimensions as the original British 5A plug standardized in 1915, but apparently dating from the late nineteenth century. However, does that mean that the BS 4573 plug is actually rated at 5A? Or is it, as Mautby has so powerfully argued, rated at 200 mA? Back in February, fascinated by this debate, I asked the BSI committee responsible for the standard if they could clear this up, here is the verbatim reply I have just received: "BS 4573 rates the socket at 200 mA and, although it doesn’t rate the plug, the corresponding tests in the Standard test the plug and socket together and therefore, by implication, the plug has a 200 mA rating. The plug is intended for use with BS 4573 sockets and is not intended to be compatible or used with other socket outlet systems." This would appear to support what Mautby has been claiming, although I note that the point about the plug and socket being tested together had not been made here. It does seem to explain why BSI submitted the Sheet GB 7 information in the form that they did. This new information does not require any change to the article as it stands, but it does increase confidence that the existing information is correct. FF-UK (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)