This is an archive of past discussions about AC power plugs and sockets. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Massive changes to article made by User:Wtshymanski
Through a series of edits made by User:Wtshymanski, massive changes were made to this article resulting in the loss of a lot of information (see the following differences in revisions [1]). I have my reservations over the edits that were made during this period, as a significant quantity of text was lost. Much of this article, it has previously been stated, is in needing of separation into new articles that deal with specific sections of this information. I know that this reduction was performed for the sake of reducing the amount of "wordyness" that this article has (and admittedly it is very descriptive), but I can't help feeling that we lost something during this flurry of activity. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Why don't you provide a list of exactly what you feel was lost that was vital to the article, instead of asking others to do so? Sorry but to me, the your lack of specifics ("I can't help feeling that we lost something") reads like someone spreading FUD. Jeh (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not trying to say that the edits were done to disrupt or that they did not have good intentions, just that after the two significant editing events on the 9th of Jan and 20th of Jan the article went from having a 'Concepts and terminology' section that was a beefy 600+ word description to a mere 9 sentences. This was not the only section that had large changes done to it mind you. I'm also not saying that I necessarily wish to revert these edits, but that the earlier state of these sections, which were far more elaborate, should be considered if we do eventually go ahead with splitting the article up further. - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
This article is still nearly 10,000 words, well over the usable length of an article. We should spend less time teaching about "electricity in general" and confine this article to its subject. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Should the removed material go into another article, or its own article? Does it duplicate existing articles? If so, should there be references to those articles? Gah4 (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
There are some indicators that this article is too large. I wonder if it could be split into regions of the world, maybe by continents. Partly some of the characteristics follow continents, and often enough one is only interested in one continent. Maybe one article with some history that is continent independent, and then brief descriptions and links to the appropriate articles. Gah4 (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Don't think a geographical split would work well. Many of these are international standards used on several continents. We could reduce the size of any section that refers to a main article - lots of excess at the NEMA section,for instance. The compatibility section is pretty much redundant; the reader knows that round pegs don't nicely fit in square holes so we're wasting the readers' time here. Maybe move all the CEE details to its own main article and summarize it down to a list of types here? In some senses, I do like the length of details given as I ponder mankind's folly here, but it's way over length given that there's no explanation of how any of these types came about. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Prong vs. pin
"Prong" is used once in the article, without definition.
Prong says:
"Power plug prongs, the forking metal parts which project from the end of power plugs, also referred to primarily in British English as 'pins' "
Your point? If you're trying to point out the article is inconsistent, I would support rewriting the article so that it uses the more precise American English distinction between prongs and pins. "Prong" in American English carries a connotation of being blunt or fat, while a "pin" (at least in the context of metal objects) carries a connotation of being slender or sharp. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
There is no socket defined to accept the Europlug. This is because the Europlug doesn't exist as a paired plug and socket standard, it's a compromise lowest-common-denominator plug to fill most of Europe's various sockets, without adapters. There is no need to generate a new and specific socket for it.
I don't know of any extension leads for Europlugs. There would be some sense to that, for two reasons. Firstly they're portable equipment, so like the Europlug itself, they could travel between countries. Secondly, an extension lead with a Europlug would thus be limited to only Europlugs, or equally limited plugs, being used from it (no earth, no fusing, low current, no polarisation). But I know of no such leads.
Nor are there any adapters specifically for them – I'm in the UK, we need "an adapter" to use Europlugs: but we use adapters which offer one of the common European standards. We're also (as always) a little slapdash about such, as we find ourselves using low current equipment that's then unfused (and so the cable is unprotected against damage faults) and we might also plug a Europlug into our compatible [sic] "shaver sockets", which have internal isolating transformers and are the only [sic] sockets permitted in bathrooms. Yet they don't have the current capacity for heated haircare products on Europlugs (the shaver socket will be either fused, or safely limits the current available - but the hair straighteners won't work).
There are no UK adapters for Europlugs, thus no sockets for them. We do have "conversion plugs", but these aren't adapters (in either a technical or legal sense). They "lock onto" the Europlug and can't be removed without a tool. Nor are they sockets - the converter is "assembled round" the plug, rather than the plug plugging into it.
These are actually quite common, at least here in The Netherlands. I'm not a photographer and I used my phone to take the photo, but here is a photo of one I own.An extension cord that will only accept CEE 7/16 Alternative II "Europlug" plugs I think the critical distinction here is that I think there is no socket for CEE 7/16 defined. That of course does not mean that they do not exist, just like the USB standard specifically disallows (passive) extension leads, in order to make it impossible to make a too-long USB lead. Yet, USB extension leads are abundantly available and used in practice. Digital Brains (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Photo of CEE 7/16 Alternative I
Can anyone provide a photo of the elusive CEE 7/16 Alternative I? Even though it is described in words, I'm rather curious what it looks like exactly, and I can't find it on the web! Digital Brains (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Proprietary plugs
I think that next to the Bticino section, there can be attention to some more widespread proprietary standards. I know that Wieland GST18 is often used in furniture lighting and can be found as sockets in many 'light commercial' settings, especially since it doesn't have its own page. Next to that there's the PowerCon which is not used as widely, but has the rather rare feature of being able to be disconnected under load safely. Both of these are not limited to being device connectors. Tkteun (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Zero and Phase
In many plug designs, the plug can be inserted two ways (rotated 180 degrees). But in designs where it cannot - including most designs with an earth pin - it is possible to differentiate between the zero pin and the phase pin. E.g., for Danish type K and DK 2-5a, looking at a wall outlet from the room, with the semicircular earth hole (PE or earth symbol; green/yellow wire) at bottom, the phase (L or P; brown wire) is the left hole and zero (N or 0 or B; blue wire) the right hole (unless the electrician messed it up, which unfortunately is not unlikely). This means that rocker switches, lamp sockets etc. can be mounted so that the risk of contact with phase is minimized (for better security), and also means that IT devices can be connected so that they have the same zero and phase (for more stable communications). This info - which pin is zero and which is phase - could naturally be included in this article, for all types where the distinction is possible.--Nø (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Most small switching power supply devices will run from 100VAC to 240VAC. I have a Philips rechargeable shaver that will charge, but not run, on 12VDC. They sell a cord with the usual plug on the shaver end, and cigarette lighter plug on the other end. Devices with iron core transformers usually don't do that. Gah4 (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I acquired my Philishave in the Netherlands many years ago. It came with a detachable cord equipped with the Dutch plug. when I got back home I acquired a cord with a NEMA plug. I have recharged its battery at different times with either 110 V at home or with 240 V in England or the Netherlands, but I never have recharged with 12 V. I am operating it on either voltage or by battery alone. Peter HornUser talk21:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
NEMA
There is a recent edit summary mentioning NEMA is a US standard. It seems that it is US based, but not part of the US government. As well as I can tell, groups from other countries can be members. Since Canadian standards are close, and there is likely much cross-border trade, I don't think it is so far off to say North America. Mexico uses the same plug styles, though possibly with different standards. It seems that there is a NEMA office in Mexico. Gah4 (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
IEC
The IEC could make a general recommendation based on ones that have an appropriate ground pin, but I agree, it is better without statements that are just a recommendation. Are there any known cases of something falling on a partly inserted plug, and electrocuting someone? Gah4 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
IEC 60320 link
@Wtshymanski: Greetings! Regarding this revert: I added this language in because I was in fact on this page looking for the name of the plug that is commonly used with computers, and I was unable to find it on this page or any link to it. It was only after I did a separate search that I figured out the IEC 60320 link on this page was trying to highlight that information. Unfortunately, anyone looking on this page for info about the IEC computer plug or kettle plug by searching for "computer" or "kettle" isn't going to find that link, either. As it stands, it looks like the link might be referring to heavy-duty appliances, like the 240V ones here in the U.S., or industrial appliances. Do you see a downside to adding more descriptive language, or is there something I'm missing? Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Wiz9999: This is in a "See also" section, which generally doesn't have inline citations. All those sections do is describe or summarize the contents of the target article. -- Beland (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
adaptor
I don't have any interest in changing them, but as far as adapter says, both work. I am pretty sure it is unrelated to being used for power or other things. IBM used to sell the channel-to-channel adaptor to connect two of their mainframe computers together. Then later changed the spelling. This question comes up in other articles, too. I don't know why it changed. Gah4 (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The Guardian uses "Adaptor" to refer to electronic equipment, while "Adapter" is specified for use in describing persons. See here: [3]. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, The Guardian is British, but it doesn't seem to be a word that divides well between British and US usage. As well as I know, either is fine, but usage has changed over the years. As I wrote above, I am not interested in changing it, but I am interested in the distinction. It has come up in other articles. Gah4 (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The Guardian is hardly a definitive guide to English given its frequent spelling mistakes and typos.
Adaptor is regarded as archaic these days and neither the Oxford nor the Collins [British] English dictionaries list the spelling. The Cambridge dictionary does note the old spelling but also notes that 'adapter' is the current (British) English spelling. A quick check of spelling around modern British English sources (catalogues, specifications etc.) shows that 'adapter' appears a little over two and a half times as frequently as 'adaptor'. 'Adapter' in US usage appears over eight times as frequently as 'adaptor' so probably not a US -v- British English matter. Although the article appears to use predominantly (but not exclusively) British English (e.g. 'socket' and not 'receptacle'), 'adapter' should now be regarded as the modern correct spelling in both English variants. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
This has been discussed previously. See here. However, it seems that the prevalence of 'adaptor' has diminished somewhat since this 2016 discussion. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what Gah4 is talking about with respect to the "channel-to-channel adaptor." If you look at the first item of IBM technical documentation linked in the footnotes of that article, IBM itself calls it a "channel-to-channel adapter." If you look at Google Books, "adaptor" seems to be used primarily to describe (1) a specific class of proteins and (2) a specific software mechanism in the Oracle Tuxedo middleware platform. But I agree with 86.146.209.237 that "adapter" is far more common. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I believe that Gah4 was referring to the discussion located at Talk:Channel-to-channel adapter. As to the claim that the usage has diminished since 2016, I highly doubt that. In a mere 4 years we wouldn't be seeing a dramatic shift in worldwide English usage over such a short period of time. This article: [5] actually lays out (in graph form) the usage in US vs British English variants. The article itself does state that the matter is far from settled though, or a definitive usage preferred. However, I do slightly disagree with portions of the conclusion reached in the article based on statements it makes within itself, but for the most part it remains accurate, and states that the variant is indeed more utilised in British English than in US English, additional to the situational distinction. - Wiz9999 (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The CTCA goes back to IBM S/360 and S/370, in the 1960's or 1970's. The 4381[1] manual mentions it with the adaptor spelling. It seems that somewhere over the years since, IBM changed its spelling. Since much of IBM documentation still spells disk drive DASD, they are often pretty slow to change spelling. The CTCA was the computer equivalent to a device that might be described in this article, with two (male) plugs on it. Plug the ends into two different houses, and transfer power across. It connects two different computers, such that one does a write operation, the other read, and data transfers across, with no storage in between. (IBM also has dual port disk drives, which can transfer data between computers.) Gah4 (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually, a shift in English usage and spelling in just four years is par for the course these days, given the enormous prevalence of American English publications. Also: it should be borne in mind that nearly all so called British companies who would normally produce [British] English publications are now foreign owned (usually by American corporations) and no longer do so. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
At a minimum the spelling used should be consistent throughout the article. I would say that no matter which other article (within WP or outside) you read, a word in contention would be used consistently throughout. What we have here is just a dog's breakfast. inveniotc03:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The ratio between phase voltage (phase to neutral) and line voltage (phase to phase) is fixed. It cannot be any ratio other than the square root of three (1.732 to four significant figures). For a 250 volt phase voltage, the line voltage is 433 volts. For a 230 volt phase voltage, the line voltage is 398 volts. If a plug is rated at 250 volts phase voltage, then it must be rated at 440 volts for line voltage. If the plug is only rated at 400 volts line voltage, then application of the rated phase voltage will over stress the plug which is hazardous. Swiss documentation often refers to the three phase plugs and electrical system as being 250/400 volts. However, that documentation does not state that that is the rating for the plugs (or even the actual voltages) and therefore cannot be used to support any claim otherwise. The given voltages are merely their way of [incorrectly] stating the nominal voltages of the Swiss electrical system. The correct stated nominal voltages should be 230/400 volts but the plug's ratings should be 250/440 volts (ratings usually being rounded up to a standardised number). Even the Swiss "... canna change the laws of physics". 86.188.36.150 (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
As far as I know, no plug is anywhere close to dielectric breakdown. The ratings are all for political/legal purposes. This is especially true in Europe, where the voltage standardization tends to use 230V, when they mean somewhere between 220V and 240V. The answer to this question depends on Swiss law, not the laws of physics. Gah4 (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Breakdown is often a long way from the specified working voltage and often the voltage at which plugs and sockets are tested. The US NEMA plugs (type A and B) are specified for 125 volts or thereabouts) but in practice they will usually operate without problem at 240 volts (and they often are on older installations in Thailand). Nevertheless, proper electrical practice dictates that a plug and socket should never be used at any voltage above its specified voltage (also true for current). If the Swiss three phase plug were really specified for a maximum of 400 volts line voltage, then such a plug would be marginally rated as the line voltage is less than two volts lower, which means that if the voltage deviates within its specified tolerance then the plug will become underrated. I know the Swiss well enough to know that they do not practise this sort of shoddy indulgence. The Swiss plug and socket designs are probably the best in the world and highly unlikely to be poorly rated.
Three phase (red) Commando plugs and sockets (to IEC/EN 60 309) are described as 400 volt plugs and sockets in most, if not all, catalogues. However, the specified line voltage for the plugs is 440 volts not 400 volts (though the test voltage is a lot higher). Just as well as they would otherwise be barred from use in the UK where the line voltage is 415 volts in most places and 433 in the suburbs of some cities (very notably London). Unfortunately: I cannot access the Swiss standard, but I would be very surprised indeed if it did not specify the line voltage for the three phase plugs as less than 440 volts as 440/250 volts seems to be standard for non North American plugs and sockets. 86.188.36.150 (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Not being in Europe, I haven't followed it quite that close, but there is: Low Voltage Directive, otherwise called voltage harmonization, which is used to make things easier for all of Europe. As well as I know it, they use 230/400 with a large enough tolerance to cover the range from 220/380 to 240/416. In all cases, there is a tolerance on the voltage given. Voltages given are nominal voltages, not maximums, and this is all legal and not physics. Gah4 (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The Low Voltage Directive does not apply to plugs and sockets because there is no unified design of plug and socket combination in Europe. As you say, there is the nominal voltage of the various electrical distribution systems. But it is not the plug (or socket) specified ratings just as in the example that I gave above. The so called voltage harmonisation was not a real harmonisation. All that happened is that Europe became nominally 230 volts plus or minus ten percent. The UK remained 240 volts (with pockets of resistance at 250 volts) and most of the rest of Europe remained at 220 volts. All encountered voltages are within the ten percent band which most modern appliances can tolerate without problems. The only exception is filament lamps which still remain available in some designs and these are still 240 volt in the UK and 220 volt in most of Europe. 86.188.36.150 (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes. So a plug should be rated 230/400 which can be used +/- 10%. Plugs and outlets have a nominal voltage rating, not a maximum. Current ratings might be maximum, though still with a reasonable tolerance. Gah4 (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
No. The rating of a plug is the maximum voltage at which it should be used. This is why the IEC/EN 60 309 plugs are described as 400 volt plugs but are rated at 440 volts. If they were rated at 400 volts they could not legally be used in the UK.
I have discovered that the new SN 441011 specification revision due to become valid on 1st March 2022 specifies the phase to phase voltage rating for the type 15 and type 25 plugs and sockets as 440 volts (though it does describe them as 400 volt plugs). Since this new revision only changes certain aspects of checking the mechanical aspects of the pins of the plug, it can be safely assumed that the existing standard specifies 440 volts as the electrical characteristics are unaffected (I cannot access the current revision as money is required to change hands). 86.188.36.150 (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Soviet adaptor plugs
This section looks very OR-ish to to me and lacks any sources. I can confirm that those plugs existed in the USSR and also were unreliable and dangerous. However this style of plug is in no way unique to the Soviet Union. It is called piggyback plug. This style of plug was much more common in the yesteryear when power outlets were often in scarce around average household(1). Such plugs still exist today - see this Type E version can is sold in Poland(2). It appears that these days they are most prominent in New Zealand where they are often featured on extension cords and power strips among other things(3). Google image search also indicates that USA Type B version of such plugs does at least exist.
1. https://www.plugsocketmuseum.nl/ContEUR_multiPlugs.html
2. https://www.plugsocketmuseum.nl/French1.html
3. https://www.mattmillman.com/omg-its-a-uk-bs1363-piggyback-plug/
schmalter // 92.124.22.95 (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
ratings for aus/nz plugs
Technically the standard allows 10/15/20/25 and 32A connections. 10 is by far the most common, especially domestically, but 15 is reasonably common with most households having one of these for a stove or pool or larger aircon. 20A is also not hard to find, though less common domestically. 115.64.232.253 (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Request: plug-socket cross-compatibility table
For the benefit of people looking at this page to assess what travel adapters they may need, I suggest adding a full cross compatibility table.
I'd make it if I knew the answers, but I don't, hence raising it for those of you with more knowledge.
grid
Columns: socket names
Rows: plug names
include variants if a cell would differ by this, e.g. Type A/B unpolarised vs polarised (unequal prong width)
lowlight if no country uses it commonly (think "would a traveler need to use it"), e.g.
not a normal consumer plug/socket — e.g. only for shavers, large appliances (e.g. Type D & Type M), specialty equipment, or the like
not yet adopted by any country
functionally deprecated by all countries
cells: whether that plug physically fits in that socket
highlight yellow if not vice versa (e.g. Type A plug fits in Type B socket, but Type B plug doesn't fit in Type A socket)
highlight orange if it physically fits, but likelihood for major issue if used, or if used in the wrong country (e.g. for Type I, some countries have opposite polarity; for BS 4573, Type A & C plugs will fit but likely to not have enough wattage)
highlight red if it almost physically fits, such that it would be likely to confuse or cause damage trying to shove the plug in
otherwise highlight grey if no, blue if yes (not green vs red as that's the most common colour-blindness)
There is no vice versa, since there is no Type C socket!!
And the main purpose of the different types is that they are intentionally physically not compatible, since every type has its own different (national) backgrounds (security norms, standards, legislation, building norms etc) except for Europlug and the possible intermix of German and French types. Anything else is outside of the intention by any standard.
So I do not support a comparison table that indicates non-official compatibilities. Such a table would probably raise WP:NOR issues as well.
