Talk:IEC 60906-1/Archive 1

Archive 1

IEC 60906-2 or 3?

Is there a public pic or schematic of a 115V or low voltage version of the 60906 System? --80.109.73.21 22:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are there no schematics of Type 2 and 3 available? Whats the different between the US Type B (with grounding) and the IEC 60906-2? --80.123.15.180 14:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone sponsors the purchase of these two documents (54+32 CHF [1]), I'd be happy to write the articles (I'm myself especially curious about part 3). So far, I've only received a donated copy of part 1 of this standard, which resulted in this article. IEC standards that have not been adopted as British Standards are unfortunately not commonly available in the UK via inter-library loan. Such IEC and ISO standards are generally a real pain to get hold of. Also high on the wishlist in that area would be a copy of IEC/TR 60083 (307 CHF [2]). Markus Kuhn 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Renaming

Let's rename the article to:

"IEC system of plugs and socket-outlets for household and similar purposes - Part 1: Plugs and socket-outlets 16 A 250 V a.c."

to be properly listed in "IEC standards" Category. And redirect IEC 60906-1 page to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BPK (talk • contribs) 07:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wasnt this tried before ?

Wasnt it originally intended that the C13-C16 versions of the 10 amp IEC connector would be adopted as a universal AC plug/socket system ? 86.112.254.104 (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the IEC Cxx were always only intended to be used at the appliance end. They aren't designed for live plugging/unplugging or the level of consumer safety that IEC 60906 offers (such as finger guards and insulated pins). Md84419 (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

New Edit

I will be editing it to provide a new section. The new section will be the glossary, but I only have a little knowledge on the subject, so be sure to add more definitions. Trajing (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Class 0 socket with protective earth connection

Does the standard allow for a socket that can take class 0 plugs but provides an actual earth connection for class 1 appliances? Plugwash 12:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The standard neither explicitely forbids the sort of socket you describe, nor does it describe it. The full list of Class 0 sockets described in Annex A is:

• Standard sheet A 1-1: 16 A 250 V two-pole fixed socket-outlet without earthing contact – flush-type socket-outlet
• Standard sheet A 1-2: 16 A 250 V two-pole fixed socket-outlet without earthing contact – semi-flush and surface-type socket-outlet
• Standard sheet A 1-3: 16 A 250 V two-pole portable socket-outlet without earthing contact

Instead of an earth contact, all these drawings provide for a "dummy hole, provided or not according to national wiring rules". So the philosophy of the standard could be interpreted as: "If you see a Class 0 socket, never expect a protective-earth connection." Encouraging the type of socket you describe could lead to complicated situations if countries migrate away from Class 0 simply by mandating from some point onwards an earth connection instead of a dummy hole in new sockets and outlaw new Class 0 appliances, but never move to the proper Class I/II sockets, thereby never gaining protection from equipment imported from Class 0 countries.

No doubt the best solution is to forget about the entire Class 0 idea, which I suspect was more a political rather than an engineering idea at the time. Note that IEC 60320 has no provisions for Class 0 plugs. Markus Kuhn 16:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Also it doesn't really protect against imported equipment anyway because users can always use adaptors or replace plugs and of course there is nothing stopping a national standard from saying it is acceptable to use class 2 plugs for class 0 devices. Plugwash (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Appendix A was removed from ed2.0, so there is NO provision for class 0 in the standard. FF-UK (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

is is feasible

to make a plug of this type that can be fitted by a layperson to an existing flex without the use of specalist tools? Plugwash 19:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, buy yourself three banana plugs and glue them together. -- 213.39.139.130 18:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. This thing is similar to the Swiss plug, which I've fitted on existing flexes before. It's also the same procedure as fitting an Italian plug. They're fiddly, however, because the insides are so cramped. Stephanie Weil 20:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

An example is the Crabtree C1071 rewirable plug with cable exit at top or bottom, available in South Africa. FF-UK (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

all of the advantages of the BS 1363 system

I thought the biggest advantage of (and indeed the reason for creating) the BS 1363 system was the fact it was fused allowing for higher current socket cuircuits and better protection for thin flexes. Plugwash 15:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As I understood it, nothing in the IEC 906-1 standard prevents the inclusion of a fuse into the plug, however, I do not know whether the engagement face is large enough to include in it the cover for a fuse (would be an interesting design exercise). This standard is only concerned with the physical dimensions of the plug and socket and leaves all other safety requitements to be defined in other IEC standards. Markus Kuhn 11:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that fact that british plugs are very flat to the wall (only a couple of centimeters sticking out) and can easilly stand having cupboards pushed into them. whereas this is a straight plug design making it totally unsuitable for use behind cupboards. Plugwash 15:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the IEC 906-1 standard says that these plugs must be straight or must stick out of the socket any further than a BS 1363 plug. Although the IEC 906-1 standard recommends that the angle between the pin axis and the cable is not larger than 35°, it does permit angles up to 90°. The only factor limiting the flattness of an angled IEC 906-1 plug is the 14 mm clearance required between the engagement surface and the cable or cable guard. Subtract from this the 10 mm recess of the socket, and you'll end up with an IEC 906-1 plug/socket implementation that is at least as flat as BS 1363 plugs. Note that the IEC 906-1 standard does not specify the exact shape and dimensions of plugs and sockets. It only restricts these insofar as is required for mateability and safety. It leaves the designer of the parts or the author of a (possibly stricter) regional standard a lot of leeway with regard to the exact design. Markus Kuhn 11:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I should have been a little more clear, the whole point of the BS 1363 system was it made fusing mandatory and was deliberately made incompatible with unfused types. As for the right angled plug yes you probablly could do it assuming you actually had the recess but practical plugs are unlikely to in just the same way that europlugs are not. Plugwash 14:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Better now? Markus Kuhn 18:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

yep looking much better now. I just added a bit myself regarding the plug profile issue (plug profile is one of the biggest advantages of the british systems (546 and 1363) actually. most other plugs seem to be either big in all dimensions or have a small mating surface combined with a long body and a cable out the back.

Funny to hear the arguments of the British plug fanboys. British plugs may be safe (though my experience working at conference facilities around the world is that they have so many failure points (the switch, the fuse, the mechanism that prevents inserting nails) that they are broken half the time. Unpacking any device (e.g. cell phone charger) that comes with adapters for various standards shows how the British is one of the most wasteful (Size) and impractical (wanna carry this in a handbag, anyone?) As a Swiss I am used to a standard very similar to the one here discussed and can say that when needed, one can easily get the version that doesn't stick out of the wall. When not needed, e.g. vacuum cleaner, etc. a plug that sticks out of the wall is much easier to plug in and out than the British. The so often criticized US system is one of the most economical when it comes to producing it, handles pretty well, and the new folding versions make for very handy cellphone chargers, etc. The main disadvantage of the Swiss and the here discussed plug is that it's often not easy to figure out which way to plug it in, e.g. when visibility is limited (darkness, recessed plug looked at at an angle). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.170.245 (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Failure points? In all my years dealing with British sockets and plugs, I've never seen any of the problems you so describe. Yes, it is huge. But it is also the safest socket and plug standard in existence, fanboyism has nothing to do with it. It ticks every possible box. There are two main disadvantages: size (of concern when packing things to carry), and the fact it always faces up when on the floor, so in the dark you're likely to step in the pins (clean your house). The worst "standard?" Type K. Danish plugs and sockets. Why make the earth pin the shortest pin, to start with? But it gets far worse. No kit there is sold with the proper plug. Almost every single device in Denmark that requires an earth is unearthed. This is such a remarkably hilarious state of affairs, that it defies belief that it would be the case in a modern country. Piro RoadKill (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Are electrocution/injury statistics much worse in Denmark than other countries? Perhaps the plugs don't really make that much difference. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Biggest flaws in the British plug are size (no reason why even with a fuse they have to be so big) incompatability and limited current carrying capacity (13 rather than 15 or 16 amps) frequently leading to overheating/discolourtion when used on heavy loads. 178.167.239.216 (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The UK edition of plug come with Samsung Galaxy S5 or HTC's TC P1000 15W Fastcharger show that the UK plug can be made in similar dimension as europlug.C933103 (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually the earth pin on type K plugs is the first pin to be connected. While it is shorter (5 mm shorter) than the live and neutral pins, the corresponding connector in the socket has a forward position approx. 12 mm ahead of the connectors for live and neutral. This leaves 7 mm of air between live and neutral pins and their corresponding connectors in the socket at the time of the earth pin making contact with the earth connector. So you are wrong about safety in regards to type K. The debacle of CEE 7/4, 7/5 and 7/7 plugs having unsafe compatibility with unearthed sockets and differently designed earthed sockets does not affect safety of type K plugs and sockets. The problem is with the plugs having the unsafe compatibility. Also, none of the appliances actually needing earth are usually connected with a plug. Stoves are polyphase as are most laundry machines while dish washers are usually permanently connected without a plug. All with earth connection. What is left are smaller transportable devices which do not physically expose the electrically exposed parts. So they are safe without earth, since we obviously rely on RCD's being present, since we use TT-earthing. Dylansmrjones (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)