![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 |
What is an 'electric jug'? Does this mean an electric kettle? Is it an Australianism? Edward 08:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I live in Australia and have never heard it referred to as anything but an "electric Jug" or just a "jug". An electric kettle would be a good description I guess. (A "kettle" here is typcally a non-powered metal vessel with a spout on it, that is used on a gas or electric stove for the purpose of boiling water for coffee/tea etc. A "whistle" usually plugged into the spout, and when the water boiled and produced steam, the steam pressure would make the whistle would sound to tell you that the water has boiled)
Traditionally (until the 1980s when the modern molded plastic jugs came on the market) the Australian Electric Jug was a ceramic vessel with a flip-top plastic or bakelite lid, that looks like a water jug, and had an un-insulated 240v 1100w heating element inside it.
The arrangement of the lid, is that it cannot be lifted and opened when the electric cord receptacle is inserted, so you cant touch the internal live electric heating element when there is power present.
The special cord universally used on all these jugs (was also used on old toasters and some electric frypans that had a regulator built into the handle) was commonly referred to as a "jug cord". Jug elements are typically available in hardware stores etc for about $2 and you can replace them yourself.
this is a page of antique australian electric jugs (typical) http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/?irn=56815
Jeez, I have been searching the web for half an hour and still can't find the info I'm looking for: Which of the connectors are the Earth (ground) ?? I hope it's the middle one, cuz now I'm tired of searching and will hope for the best :-() —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.217.99.94 ( talk • contribs) .
Hello There is another that's looks like this, that fit in a heating machine like a tasty iron The cable can handle more temperature than a standard Euro-cable. -- 86.92.132.118 ( talk) 13:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Stef
At some point, we should turn this article into a description of all IEC 320 connectors. Photo or drawing contributions needed, preferably all with equal aspect ration (say 4:3), so they can be arranged into a table. Markus Kuhn 17:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Aren't the images of the chassis plug and line socket exchanged? The thing labeled socket looks like a plug and vice versa...? -- 85.216.70.168 10:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
My guess based on the pictures at the link: C13 fits C18, C15 fits C14 (as noted), C21 fits C20 and C24, C19 fits C24. Maybe C5 fits C4 (it makes electrical sense)? -- Random|[[User talk:Random832|832]] 19:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The article lists C16/16 for use in kettles, however my kettle uses a C13 lead. In fact every literal kettle lead I can remember using in the UK was a BS4491 (C13). I assume the main reason I couldn't use a computer cable in my kettle is that it would blow the fuse. -- Zoganes 15:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The article currently says the c15 and c16 cords have been obsoleted by the "appliance plug" the appliance plug page sayse the appliance plug has been obsoleted and replaced by IEC C15 and C16 cord. I'm a Yank and I dont even know anyone who owns a tea kettle, so I'm not going to try to correct one page or the other, but they can't both be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.93.234 ( talk) 18:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
{{Image requested|Technology|of=the C1,C2,C3,C4,C11,C12,C21,C22,C23 and C24 connectors need photos also outlet variants of connectors that do not have them would be nice}} There should be a photo for every plug type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.71.136 ( talk) 03:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I have seen several C7 type connectors that have the left side squared off. (The one photographed shows a rounded left and right hole). Does anyone know what the squared varient is called? -- 24.249.108.133 22:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Some vendors refer to this as "C7 Polarized," e.g. Quail Electronics. Apparently this connector is used on Sony's Playstation 2. jhawkinson 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It is extremely common to find power cords with a C13 on one end and a NEMA 5-15P on the other. The C13 is rated at 10A while the 5-15P is rated at 15A. How is this allowed? Is the C13 allowed to carry 15A when operated at 120V? Similar situation with 5-20P (20A) and C19 (16A). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.3.121 ( talk • contribs)
What is the early history of the IEC-320 connectors? What is the firt use of IEC-320 C13 connectors? They were in "common" use before 1980 Please give any early examples, thanks 68.27.164.147 18:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be interesting to know whether there's any compatibility between the polarised and unpolarised versions of the C7 and C8 connectors... will an unpolarised ("shotgun") C7 plug into a polarised C8 receptacle for example, and if not what stops it. There could be safety issues both ways, but it looks from the pictures as if it might work one way around and not the other. Either way, it would be good to know. Andrewa ( talk) 12:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello
Can we put some warning on the page to keep this kind of connectors out of reach of children and animals Sometimes they want to put is in the mouth
Stef Breukel -- 86.92.132.118 ( talk) 13:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I grew up with this phrase in the UK to describe the figure of 8 lead (C7) when they were less common, however I have rarely heard it in the last ten years, and I can only find a couple of hits for "Telefunken lead" or "Telefunken cable" that call it so. Does anyone know why they are also called Telefunken leads? 91.85.128.150 ( talk) 17:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe they were introduced on portable radios and cassette recorders by Telefunken. A competing plug was the Paros plug - similar but rectangular - most machines using that one have long since broken down. EmleyMoor ( talk) 18:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
My belief was that the Paros was a rounded figure of 8 whereas the Telefunken had one side squared off, as you state, we are a dying breed and i can find no information other than what's in my head. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.86.2.237 (
talk) 12:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
from a quick look at some pics online it seems that a c15a connector can be used with a c16 inlet but a c15 connector will not fit a c16a inlet, can anyone confirm this? Plugwash ( talk) 23:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Have been using this page on a regular basis recently and have found it to be completely inadequate. Made a few minor changes to the page like join two images together and added a drawing of the C13 & C14 connectors. Also, found more interesting links as follows:
http://mindmachine.co.uk/products/IEC_Connectors.html
http://www.leadsdirect.co.uk/technical/iec.html
http://www.pat-training.co.uk/IEC320connectors.htm
Decided to work on a table like in, what I would consider our sister article, AC power plugs and sockets. Following is far from complete and requires new drawings for most connectors.
William Branston ( talk) 01:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The article says these are "3-conductor 15A. Most desktop personal computers use the fifteen-amp panel-mounting C14 inlet ...", but William's table and most references he cites list it as 10A (one suggests 10/15)
Would someone be kind enough to clarify the situations where 15A and 10A are applicable, please, and amend the article so us newbs are not so confused ;-)
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.12.4 ( talk) 03:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I recommend we move this article to IEC 60320 as it more accurately describes the contents of the article. Rewriting to reflect this change will be necessary. Lmatt ( talk) 23:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Another thought is we probably should have a {{ redirect}} hatnote since IEC connector redirects here so that readers can find what they are looking for. Another option if we have other IEC connector articles would be to either create IEC connector (disambiguation) or possibly turn the IEC connector redirect itself into a disambiguation page. Given how common it is to refer to C13/C14 connectors as "IEC connectors" it would probably be best to maintain the IEC connector redirect to IEC 60320 and just use a separate IEC connector (disambiguation) page if we have more articles than IEC 60320 and IEC 60309 though. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 00:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
A representative dimension on each receptacle would be very useful to gain some idea of the scale of these connectors - perhaps center-to-center spacing of the blades for each type? This is readily available for the NEMA connectors, but I haven't found a source for IEC. We don't need all the critical dimensions, but a general indication of the spacing would help readers grasp the approximate size of connectors. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 16:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really sure we should merge Mating Connectors here (it certainly should be renamed IEC 60320-2-2 though). It covers a parallel and related topic, but not the exact same topic as this article. I would like to avoid what happened with IEC 60309 or having this article grow too large and then have to be split back out again. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 06:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought it useful to point out that 60302-1 is for sets of connectors that get power from the wall to the appliance, and 60302-2-2 is for connectors that an appliance uses to feed something else. Old-timers among us will remember the very handy outlet on the back of some PC power supplies, where you could, in principle, plug in your monitor so that it went on and off with the computer power. Only trouble for us N. Americans is that we needed a rare and goofy IEC to NEMA adapter to match our monitor, usually, unless IBM thoughtfully packed a mating cord with their monitor. This puts a lower bound on the age of these standards -- certainly the 1981 PC used an IEC 320 inlet and cord set and it wasn't unique at the time. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 14:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The downside to the appliance outlet on the rear of the AT power supplies (see this photo) is the output current was limited by the computer's power switch. With the original power supplies from major vendors such as IBM, the switches were more than sufficient for the combined load of the computer power supply and a 12-14" CRT monitor. Problems began to turn up later as 15" and larger SVGA monitors hit the market because of the larger power requirements combined with the cheap import switches used by 386 and 486 IBM-compatible clones in tower style cases. The cheaper switches weren't designed to handle more than a few amps, total, and I replaced quite a number of these switches that failed for this very reason. The large orange toggle switches used by the PC/XT/AT 286 and 386 clones in desktop style cases tended to hold up well though.
IBM included the appliance outlet on the PC, XT, AT, and PS/1 (the PS/1's display made use of it), but they stopped including them when they introduced the PS/2 line. (See this photo for one example.) PC/XT/AT clones that used the "AT size" full-size power supplies in a desktop style case also included the appliance outlet. Most (but not all) clones that used "PS/2" power supplies (see this photo, also note the cheap push button switch) in both desktop and tower style cases also included the appliance outlet. With the shift to ATX power supplies (see this photo) which used soft-power, the appliance outlets were largely dropped since including them meant also including a relay to control power to the outlet. The extra space on the rear of the power supply also gave manufacturers a place to add a manual power switch, although not all manufacturers include the switch. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 17:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
We can either change that long list of bullet points into a table, or else blow up the color tables to make them big enough to read. It's the same information in two forms, a bit redundant and hard to keep consistent. The table might say something like plug name, inlet name, rated current, rated temperature, grounding, polarized, illustration, and remarks. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 18:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The lost C11/C12 probably should not have both 10 mm spacing and 10 amp rating. If it look like C9/C10, why would the polarized edition have a different rating than the non-polarized? Let's see, the polarizing slot is on the connector, with a ridge on the inlet. You can't put a non-polarized C9 cord rated at 9 A into a missing C12 polarized inlet that also has a higher current rating, but it seems odd to combine both current and polarization keying this way. If you could jam a C9 past the ridge of a C12, it seems poor practice to put a 6 A cord into an 10 A inlet. All the other 10 A inlets have 14 mm spacing. This seems an odd glitch for the logical European mind, or is this the same logical mental process that made a prefixed unit of mass a base SI unit? -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 21:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice to know where all this came from - were these connectors pulled from the wreckage of a flying saucer, or was there a development history? Who invented these plugs? When did they become standardized? -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 18:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This article currently lacks a proper lead section. The text currently in the lead section is a list of the various IEC 60320-x standards. While this list should be included in a section of this article, it does not do a good job of introducing the topic to a new reader because it is difficult for someone unfamiliar with this topic to understand. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 10:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This article contains a number of images that seem to have been copy/pasted from the standard (though I haven't actually checked agianst the standard itself the formatting and naming really implies that they have). They have been uploaded under claims of a CC license but I find that hard to beleive. 12:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Connectorsstandarddefinition.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations |
An image used in this article, File:Steckerdosen.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations | |
An image used in this article, File:Tabelle blau.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations | |
An image used in this article, File:Tabelle gelb.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations | |
An image used in this article,
File:Tabelle gruen.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC) |
Could we get a reference saying that any connector rated by IEC 60320 standards is rated by CSA and UL at a higher current than the IEC rating? "Why" would also be interesting to know. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 03:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
especially when it is essentially duplicating the "earth contact" column right next to it. Plugwash ( talk) 11:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I just received a sample of a lighting fixture from China that has an "inlet" that looks exactly like C5/C6, however the pin spacing (line to neutral) measures 9.0mm center-to-center rather than the 10mm listed for C5/C6. I could upload a photo, but it would look exactly like the ones for C5/C6. So is the 10mm shown for C5/C6 wrong? Or is this something new? Or maybe unique to China? Professor Hosquith ( talk) 20:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know. The manufacturer doesn't identify what standard it is. I've contacted them to find out. Will update once I know. Professor Hosquith ( talk) 04:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The article currently says that the polarized C7 has the round pin as neutral and the square pin as live. The evidence presented is a chopped cable showing the round pin wired as blue and the square pin is brown.
This assumes on the person wiring the cable uses European colour coding but without knowing the wiring of the other end of the cable I'm not sure it actually tells us much.
I just purchased a pre-moulded C7-PW to NEMA 1-15 cable and it has been wired so that the square pin goes to the wider of the two prongs. The article on NEMA_1 says that the wider pin is neutral which makes the square pin neutral which is wrong according to this article.
So, does anyone know for certain who is correct? Nick Austin ( talk) 11:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
THIS SECTION HAS BEEN COPIED FROM THE TALK PAGE FOR AC power plugs and sockets. IT COVERS ASPECTS OF BOTH SUBJECTS. Mautby ( talk) 23:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I innocently corrected what I thought was a simply oversight/misunderstanding on this page; which came about because of a kit that tried to build a "plug" into chassis, and then connect a plug (in- over- round-?) it, but on later reading this talk page (read: rookie) by DieSchwarzPunkt I was rather surprised at the extent. Plugs fill holes (sockets, which may or may not be shrouded, shielded, internal, external.) Connecting pins are designated male or female and have nothing to do with plugs and sockets, which can be male or female.
The text "Plugs have male circuit contacts, while sockets have female contacts" contradicts both ASME_Y14.44-2008 which follows the same commonsense of Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners <IEEE STD 100 and ANSI Y32.16 (identical to IEEE 200-1975 and replaced by ASME Y14.44-2008) which define "Plug" and "Jack" by location or mobility, rather than gender.[3][4]>
and partly the picture with explanatory text to the right. To clear up confusion, because the hermaphroditic socket with the male earth pin shown in the picture is normally never energized (and this plug/socket combination, incompatible with surrounding countries, is likely to disappear into the museum one day) a picture of a male socket (eg a portable cement mixer might be more useful. It does not contradict Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners:- <In some cases (notably electrical power connectors), the gender of connectors is selected according to rigid rules, to enforce a sense of one-way directionality (e.g. a flow of power from one device to another). This gender distinction is implemented to enhance safety or ensure proper functionality by preventing unsafe or non-functional configurations from being set up.> because the term connectors is used which like plugs and sockets may also be of any gender and the female connector must of course be the energized one. Referring to these as sockets on cables as in common usage ( on extension leads/cables) is as bad as (audio) 'jack' plugs being shortened to jacks. Spaghettij ( talk) 14:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Did we really need 15,000 bytes of that copied here? What is the relevance to *this* article? IEC seems to define their terms and all that above won't influence them. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 02:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
What exactly does the "rewiring allowable?" column of the table indicate? This should be described in the article prose, probably in the "Contents of standards" section. Jeh ( talk) 08:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It is clearly possible for a user to use a "connector" and "plug connector" to join two flexible cables together without involving any "inlets" or "outlets". Anyone familiar with the standards know if they have anything to say on such use? Plugwash ( talk) 13:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The tables, as they are today, include a column with "Earth contact" which is red in case of "no" and green in case of "yes". From my point of view, it leads to the belief that cables with earth are better than cables without earth contact (or devices with earth are safer than devices without it), which is by no means exact. Class II devices are MUCH SAFER than Class I devices, because all the means of protection are built-in into the device, and thus the safety is independent of the conditions of the electrical installation where you plug it. To say in a different way, having an earth contact normally denotes a product without less protections. Does it make sense to remove the colour code of the tables?-- Jacobopantoja ( talk) 08:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Is "the female part connector supplies power to the male appliance inlet" in Parts of the standard
the wrong way round? I always thought the male part inserted a piece into the female part, or am I totally mixed up?
RainCity471 (
talk) 00:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
There have been several notes on the C7 and some recent changes to the pictures of the C7-PW (polarized version). The problem is that the picture of the C7 polarized plug and the text now do not match.
I believe the C7-PWs that are in the wild will all have a matching polarization, but before simply changing the text or picture I wanted to see if anyone else has hard data on the plug type and whether the rounded or squared is 'live'. If you happen across this, please confirm or refute the below - I'd especially like a PlayStation cord checked against the below as I believe they are the most prevalent using this connector.
The C7-PW cord I have handy is small (live) of the NEMA-1-15P to the rounded portion of the C7-PW and the large (neutral) portion of the NEMA-1-15P to the square portion of the C7-PW.
Velowiki ( talk) 04:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this edit by Eric Corbett ( talk · contribs), which I reverted, and he subsequently restored with the unhelpfully rude comment "reverted misinformed rubbish":
Please see http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/which-versus-that-0 , http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/103103whichthat.htm , http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that , http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/which.htm , http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whovwhvt.asp , http://www.dailywritingtips.com/that-vs-which/ , http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/that-or-which-american , and many others.
For that matter, please search the web and try to find anything contradictory.
In
A kettle plug is an imprecise colloquial term that may refer to the high-temperature C15 and C16, or the regular temperature C13 and C14 connectors.
the clause following "that" is nonrestrictive: It adds description, but it is not restrictive: It does not identify a subset of possible subjects (the subject is the term "kettle plug", and there is only one term under discussion; nor can "could be this, could be that" be considered restrictive to one usage). Therefore "which" is correct.
The common use of "which" in the question "which one?" is perhaps confusing in this regard, but a way to remember the correct usage is to remember that the answer to the question, if accompanied by pointing, would always be phrased as "that one". Restrictive (or as I put it in my edit comment, "selective").
While we're here: the leading article "A" should not be present (at least as long as the italics are there to demarc the term), as we are discussing the term, not the object. Jeh ( talk) 21:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I do not wish to become embroiled in the "which vs. that" debate, but I do want to point out that it is quite wrong to describe either the C13 or C15 as a "plug", as both connectors are "sockets". Also, as the C14 is not for use at high temperature, it cannot accurately be called a "kettle plug" as it is completely unsuited to that application. Only the C16 can be properly described thus. Perhaps we should concentrate on rewriting the offending sentence in a way which describes the correct term, as well as acknowledging the inaccurate colloquial usage? Mautby ( talk) 02:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The IEC may have designed the C7/C8 connector for 2.5A service, but the great majority of the cables with North American plugs and CSA/NOM/UL certifications I can find claim 10A (sometimes 7A) ratings.
Digi-key list 15 such cord sets, Mouser list 9, and there are plenty more: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Or just do a web search for "C7 125V 10A" and see how many you can find.
The sheer number convinces me that the certifications are genuine and North American certification agencies have a more generous view of the C7/C8 coupler's current capacity than the IEC.
I also note that Digi-key and Mouser list no NEMA 1-15R to IEC C7 cords with less than 7A ratings. Web searching turns up some 125V 2.5A C7 cords (among the hits for "10A/125V; 2.5A/250V"), but they're generally less detailed listings, from some distant reseller, not the original manufacturer. Here is one of the few 2.5A NEMA 1-15P manufacturer's data sheets I could find, and note that it's certified for Taiwan, not North America.
I can even find some C14 to C7 cords (p. 24 of PDF) claiming UL/CSA approval for 10A/250V, so it appears that the difference is the certifying agency, not the operating voltage.
It's not particularly unusual to revise a rating based on real-world experience, although a factor of 4 is remarkably large. But can anyone find an authoritative source for thus? UL 1681 might say something, if anyone has access to a copy. (Likewise, C13/C14 is normally used up to 15A in North America, but that's a much smaller discrepancy.) 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 22:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
An IP is persistently adding this section, and a registered user is deleting it. Per WP:BRD and WP:EW, please discuss here, not in edit summaries. Please be aware that continuing to edit disputed text is considered edit-warring, even if you haven't reached the "three revert rule". Jeh ( talk) 02:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations to IP 71.41.210.146 for all the research you have put into the subject of non-standard appliance connectors, I hope that you manage to reveal the logic behind this seemingly widespread American disregard for the IEC Standard (Both the US and Canada are full members of the IEC).
Perhaps, to avoid confusion, would it be better to place the non-standard content in a separate article, linked from this article? FF-UK ( talk) 14:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay; I had posted this in the wrong talk page. D'oh!
In this edit, with the above edit comment, User:Wtshymanski removed a prefatory comment I included in the "North American ratings" section I created:
Because mains electricity in North America is at half the voltage (120 V) used in other parts of the world, power cords in that region need to carry twice the current to supply the same electrical power. To facilitate this,
I'm of two minds. On the one hand, it's unsourced editorializing (even though I think it is verifiable if I went to a library and dug deep enough).
On the other hand, I think it is an issue sometimes. I agree it's uncommon, but definitely not rare; there are plenty of products that depend on the uprating. Computer power supplies more than 880 W, assuming they are 80% efficient and operating from 110 V (it's worse in Japan) mains power, will draw 10 A (1100 W) from the wall. But power supplies up to 1200W use C14 inlets.
And there are 300 W power supplies with C6 and C8 inlets. Less common, because of the popularity of the C14 inlet, but they exist. A 2.5A limit would make that impossible.
Basically, a 125V/5A and 250V/2.5A lets products use smaller C6 and C8 inlets up to 5×110 = 2.5×220 = 550 W input power.
(Oh, I might mention: no appliance is technically limited by its input power cord, at least not after the design phase, as the safety rule is that the appliance must do the limiting for the power cord to ensure the latter is not overloaded.)
I'll try to add something else, but just wanted tp start discussion here. Maybe I'm just attached to it because I spent a long time agonizing over it (multiple drafts are visible in the edit history). Do people think any such comment is useful? 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 01:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Lots of little blue numbers in a Wikipedia article doesn't guarantee that it's free of original research either. Is there something in particular we're concerned about, perhaps tagging a section or paragraph is a more useful guide to places that references need to be improved? There's not much I suspect of being "original" here, even if it doesn't have little blue numbers after it. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 16:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This sentence is wrong: 'In some countries these cables are sometimes referred to as a "kettle cord" or "kettle lead", but the C13/14 connectors are only rated for 70 °C; a device such as a kettle requires the C15/16 connector, rated for 120 °C.' In the UK, we use the C13 as a kettle cord, not the C15; that is why we refer to it as a kettle lead.-- Jcvamp ( talk) 23:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Please add better diagrams with complete dimensions, such as pin diameters. Until then, please add a working link to such!- 96.233.20.34 ( talk) 21:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
They are basically the inverted versions of each other. This can not be seen in the drawings and should be clarified. Check out interpower.com/ic/images/IEC_60320_sheet-print.pdf for a drawing which clarifies how the connectors are actually build. Adius ( talk) 16:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 |
What is an 'electric jug'? Does this mean an electric kettle? Is it an Australianism? Edward 08:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I live in Australia and have never heard it referred to as anything but an "electric Jug" or just a "jug". An electric kettle would be a good description I guess. (A "kettle" here is typcally a non-powered metal vessel with a spout on it, that is used on a gas or electric stove for the purpose of boiling water for coffee/tea etc. A "whistle" usually plugged into the spout, and when the water boiled and produced steam, the steam pressure would make the whistle would sound to tell you that the water has boiled)
Traditionally (until the 1980s when the modern molded plastic jugs came on the market) the Australian Electric Jug was a ceramic vessel with a flip-top plastic or bakelite lid, that looks like a water jug, and had an un-insulated 240v 1100w heating element inside it.
The arrangement of the lid, is that it cannot be lifted and opened when the electric cord receptacle is inserted, so you cant touch the internal live electric heating element when there is power present.
The special cord universally used on all these jugs (was also used on old toasters and some electric frypans that had a regulator built into the handle) was commonly referred to as a "jug cord". Jug elements are typically available in hardware stores etc for about $2 and you can replace them yourself.
this is a page of antique australian electric jugs (typical) http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/?irn=56815
Jeez, I have been searching the web for half an hour and still can't find the info I'm looking for: Which of the connectors are the Earth (ground) ?? I hope it's the middle one, cuz now I'm tired of searching and will hope for the best :-() —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.217.99.94 ( talk • contribs) .
Hello There is another that's looks like this, that fit in a heating machine like a tasty iron The cable can handle more temperature than a standard Euro-cable. -- 86.92.132.118 ( talk) 13:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Stef
At some point, we should turn this article into a description of all IEC 320 connectors. Photo or drawing contributions needed, preferably all with equal aspect ration (say 4:3), so they can be arranged into a table. Markus Kuhn 17:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Aren't the images of the chassis plug and line socket exchanged? The thing labeled socket looks like a plug and vice versa...? -- 85.216.70.168 10:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
My guess based on the pictures at the link: C13 fits C18, C15 fits C14 (as noted), C21 fits C20 and C24, C19 fits C24. Maybe C5 fits C4 (it makes electrical sense)? -- Random|[[User talk:Random832|832]] 19:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The article lists C16/16 for use in kettles, however my kettle uses a C13 lead. In fact every literal kettle lead I can remember using in the UK was a BS4491 (C13). I assume the main reason I couldn't use a computer cable in my kettle is that it would blow the fuse. -- Zoganes 15:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The article currently says the c15 and c16 cords have been obsoleted by the "appliance plug" the appliance plug page sayse the appliance plug has been obsoleted and replaced by IEC C15 and C16 cord. I'm a Yank and I dont even know anyone who owns a tea kettle, so I'm not going to try to correct one page or the other, but they can't both be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.93.234 ( talk) 18:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
{{Image requested|Technology|of=the C1,C2,C3,C4,C11,C12,C21,C22,C23 and C24 connectors need photos also outlet variants of connectors that do not have them would be nice}} There should be a photo for every plug type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.71.136 ( talk) 03:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I have seen several C7 type connectors that have the left side squared off. (The one photographed shows a rounded left and right hole). Does anyone know what the squared varient is called? -- 24.249.108.133 22:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Some vendors refer to this as "C7 Polarized," e.g. Quail Electronics. Apparently this connector is used on Sony's Playstation 2. jhawkinson 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It is extremely common to find power cords with a C13 on one end and a NEMA 5-15P on the other. The C13 is rated at 10A while the 5-15P is rated at 15A. How is this allowed? Is the C13 allowed to carry 15A when operated at 120V? Similar situation with 5-20P (20A) and C19 (16A). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.3.121 ( talk • contribs)
What is the early history of the IEC-320 connectors? What is the firt use of IEC-320 C13 connectors? They were in "common" use before 1980 Please give any early examples, thanks 68.27.164.147 18:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be interesting to know whether there's any compatibility between the polarised and unpolarised versions of the C7 and C8 connectors... will an unpolarised ("shotgun") C7 plug into a polarised C8 receptacle for example, and if not what stops it. There could be safety issues both ways, but it looks from the pictures as if it might work one way around and not the other. Either way, it would be good to know. Andrewa ( talk) 12:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello
Can we put some warning on the page to keep this kind of connectors out of reach of children and animals Sometimes they want to put is in the mouth
Stef Breukel -- 86.92.132.118 ( talk) 13:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I grew up with this phrase in the UK to describe the figure of 8 lead (C7) when they were less common, however I have rarely heard it in the last ten years, and I can only find a couple of hits for "Telefunken lead" or "Telefunken cable" that call it so. Does anyone know why they are also called Telefunken leads? 91.85.128.150 ( talk) 17:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe they were introduced on portable radios and cassette recorders by Telefunken. A competing plug was the Paros plug - similar but rectangular - most machines using that one have long since broken down. EmleyMoor ( talk) 18:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
My belief was that the Paros was a rounded figure of 8 whereas the Telefunken had one side squared off, as you state, we are a dying breed and i can find no information other than what's in my head. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.86.2.237 (
talk) 12:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
from a quick look at some pics online it seems that a c15a connector can be used with a c16 inlet but a c15 connector will not fit a c16a inlet, can anyone confirm this? Plugwash ( talk) 23:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Have been using this page on a regular basis recently and have found it to be completely inadequate. Made a few minor changes to the page like join two images together and added a drawing of the C13 & C14 connectors. Also, found more interesting links as follows:
http://mindmachine.co.uk/products/IEC_Connectors.html
http://www.leadsdirect.co.uk/technical/iec.html
http://www.pat-training.co.uk/IEC320connectors.htm
Decided to work on a table like in, what I would consider our sister article, AC power plugs and sockets. Following is far from complete and requires new drawings for most connectors.
William Branston ( talk) 01:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The article says these are "3-conductor 15A. Most desktop personal computers use the fifteen-amp panel-mounting C14 inlet ...", but William's table and most references he cites list it as 10A (one suggests 10/15)
Would someone be kind enough to clarify the situations where 15A and 10A are applicable, please, and amend the article so us newbs are not so confused ;-)
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.12.4 ( talk) 03:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I recommend we move this article to IEC 60320 as it more accurately describes the contents of the article. Rewriting to reflect this change will be necessary. Lmatt ( talk) 23:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Another thought is we probably should have a {{ redirect}} hatnote since IEC connector redirects here so that readers can find what they are looking for. Another option if we have other IEC connector articles would be to either create IEC connector (disambiguation) or possibly turn the IEC connector redirect itself into a disambiguation page. Given how common it is to refer to C13/C14 connectors as "IEC connectors" it would probably be best to maintain the IEC connector redirect to IEC 60320 and just use a separate IEC connector (disambiguation) page if we have more articles than IEC 60320 and IEC 60309 though. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 00:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
A representative dimension on each receptacle would be very useful to gain some idea of the scale of these connectors - perhaps center-to-center spacing of the blades for each type? This is readily available for the NEMA connectors, but I haven't found a source for IEC. We don't need all the critical dimensions, but a general indication of the spacing would help readers grasp the approximate size of connectors. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 16:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really sure we should merge Mating Connectors here (it certainly should be renamed IEC 60320-2-2 though). It covers a parallel and related topic, but not the exact same topic as this article. I would like to avoid what happened with IEC 60309 or having this article grow too large and then have to be split back out again. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 06:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought it useful to point out that 60302-1 is for sets of connectors that get power from the wall to the appliance, and 60302-2-2 is for connectors that an appliance uses to feed something else. Old-timers among us will remember the very handy outlet on the back of some PC power supplies, where you could, in principle, plug in your monitor so that it went on and off with the computer power. Only trouble for us N. Americans is that we needed a rare and goofy IEC to NEMA adapter to match our monitor, usually, unless IBM thoughtfully packed a mating cord with their monitor. This puts a lower bound on the age of these standards -- certainly the 1981 PC used an IEC 320 inlet and cord set and it wasn't unique at the time. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 14:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The downside to the appliance outlet on the rear of the AT power supplies (see this photo) is the output current was limited by the computer's power switch. With the original power supplies from major vendors such as IBM, the switches were more than sufficient for the combined load of the computer power supply and a 12-14" CRT monitor. Problems began to turn up later as 15" and larger SVGA monitors hit the market because of the larger power requirements combined with the cheap import switches used by 386 and 486 IBM-compatible clones in tower style cases. The cheaper switches weren't designed to handle more than a few amps, total, and I replaced quite a number of these switches that failed for this very reason. The large orange toggle switches used by the PC/XT/AT 286 and 386 clones in desktop style cases tended to hold up well though.
IBM included the appliance outlet on the PC, XT, AT, and PS/1 (the PS/1's display made use of it), but they stopped including them when they introduced the PS/2 line. (See this photo for one example.) PC/XT/AT clones that used the "AT size" full-size power supplies in a desktop style case also included the appliance outlet. Most (but not all) clones that used "PS/2" power supplies (see this photo, also note the cheap push button switch) in both desktop and tower style cases also included the appliance outlet. With the shift to ATX power supplies (see this photo) which used soft-power, the appliance outlets were largely dropped since including them meant also including a relay to control power to the outlet. The extra space on the rear of the power supply also gave manufacturers a place to add a manual power switch, although not all manufacturers include the switch. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 17:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
We can either change that long list of bullet points into a table, or else blow up the color tables to make them big enough to read. It's the same information in two forms, a bit redundant and hard to keep consistent. The table might say something like plug name, inlet name, rated current, rated temperature, grounding, polarized, illustration, and remarks. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 18:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The lost C11/C12 probably should not have both 10 mm spacing and 10 amp rating. If it look like C9/C10, why would the polarized edition have a different rating than the non-polarized? Let's see, the polarizing slot is on the connector, with a ridge on the inlet. You can't put a non-polarized C9 cord rated at 9 A into a missing C12 polarized inlet that also has a higher current rating, but it seems odd to combine both current and polarization keying this way. If you could jam a C9 past the ridge of a C12, it seems poor practice to put a 6 A cord into an 10 A inlet. All the other 10 A inlets have 14 mm spacing. This seems an odd glitch for the logical European mind, or is this the same logical mental process that made a prefixed unit of mass a base SI unit? -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 21:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice to know where all this came from - were these connectors pulled from the wreckage of a flying saucer, or was there a development history? Who invented these plugs? When did they become standardized? -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 18:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This article currently lacks a proper lead section. The text currently in the lead section is a list of the various IEC 60320-x standards. While this list should be included in a section of this article, it does not do a good job of introducing the topic to a new reader because it is difficult for someone unfamiliar with this topic to understand. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 10:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This article contains a number of images that seem to have been copy/pasted from the standard (though I haven't actually checked agianst the standard itself the formatting and naming really implies that they have). They have been uploaded under claims of a CC license but I find that hard to beleive. 12:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Connectorsstandarddefinition.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations |
An image used in this article, File:Steckerdosen.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations | |
An image used in this article, File:Tabelle blau.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations | |
An image used in this article, File:Tabelle gelb.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations | |
An image used in this article,
File:Tabelle gruen.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC) |
Could we get a reference saying that any connector rated by IEC 60320 standards is rated by CSA and UL at a higher current than the IEC rating? "Why" would also be interesting to know. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 03:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
especially when it is essentially duplicating the "earth contact" column right next to it. Plugwash ( talk) 11:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I just received a sample of a lighting fixture from China that has an "inlet" that looks exactly like C5/C6, however the pin spacing (line to neutral) measures 9.0mm center-to-center rather than the 10mm listed for C5/C6. I could upload a photo, but it would look exactly like the ones for C5/C6. So is the 10mm shown for C5/C6 wrong? Or is this something new? Or maybe unique to China? Professor Hosquith ( talk) 20:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know. The manufacturer doesn't identify what standard it is. I've contacted them to find out. Will update once I know. Professor Hosquith ( talk) 04:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The article currently says that the polarized C7 has the round pin as neutral and the square pin as live. The evidence presented is a chopped cable showing the round pin wired as blue and the square pin is brown.
This assumes on the person wiring the cable uses European colour coding but without knowing the wiring of the other end of the cable I'm not sure it actually tells us much.
I just purchased a pre-moulded C7-PW to NEMA 1-15 cable and it has been wired so that the square pin goes to the wider of the two prongs. The article on NEMA_1 says that the wider pin is neutral which makes the square pin neutral which is wrong according to this article.
So, does anyone know for certain who is correct? Nick Austin ( talk) 11:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
THIS SECTION HAS BEEN COPIED FROM THE TALK PAGE FOR AC power plugs and sockets. IT COVERS ASPECTS OF BOTH SUBJECTS. Mautby ( talk) 23:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I innocently corrected what I thought was a simply oversight/misunderstanding on this page; which came about because of a kit that tried to build a "plug" into chassis, and then connect a plug (in- over- round-?) it, but on later reading this talk page (read: rookie) by DieSchwarzPunkt I was rather surprised at the extent. Plugs fill holes (sockets, which may or may not be shrouded, shielded, internal, external.) Connecting pins are designated male or female and have nothing to do with plugs and sockets, which can be male or female.
The text "Plugs have male circuit contacts, while sockets have female contacts" contradicts both ASME_Y14.44-2008 which follows the same commonsense of Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners <IEEE STD 100 and ANSI Y32.16 (identical to IEEE 200-1975 and replaced by ASME Y14.44-2008) which define "Plug" and "Jack" by location or mobility, rather than gender.[3][4]>
and partly the picture with explanatory text to the right. To clear up confusion, because the hermaphroditic socket with the male earth pin shown in the picture is normally never energized (and this plug/socket combination, incompatible with surrounding countries, is likely to disappear into the museum one day) a picture of a male socket (eg a portable cement mixer might be more useful. It does not contradict Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners:- <In some cases (notably electrical power connectors), the gender of connectors is selected according to rigid rules, to enforce a sense of one-way directionality (e.g. a flow of power from one device to another). This gender distinction is implemented to enhance safety or ensure proper functionality by preventing unsafe or non-functional configurations from being set up.> because the term connectors is used which like plugs and sockets may also be of any gender and the female connector must of course be the energized one. Referring to these as sockets on cables as in common usage ( on extension leads/cables) is as bad as (audio) 'jack' plugs being shortened to jacks. Spaghettij ( talk) 14:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Did we really need 15,000 bytes of that copied here? What is the relevance to *this* article? IEC seems to define their terms and all that above won't influence them. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 02:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
What exactly does the "rewiring allowable?" column of the table indicate? This should be described in the article prose, probably in the "Contents of standards" section. Jeh ( talk) 08:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It is clearly possible for a user to use a "connector" and "plug connector" to join two flexible cables together without involving any "inlets" or "outlets". Anyone familiar with the standards know if they have anything to say on such use? Plugwash ( talk) 13:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The tables, as they are today, include a column with "Earth contact" which is red in case of "no" and green in case of "yes". From my point of view, it leads to the belief that cables with earth are better than cables without earth contact (or devices with earth are safer than devices without it), which is by no means exact. Class II devices are MUCH SAFER than Class I devices, because all the means of protection are built-in into the device, and thus the safety is independent of the conditions of the electrical installation where you plug it. To say in a different way, having an earth contact normally denotes a product without less protections. Does it make sense to remove the colour code of the tables?-- Jacobopantoja ( talk) 08:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Is "the female part connector supplies power to the male appliance inlet" in Parts of the standard
the wrong way round? I always thought the male part inserted a piece into the female part, or am I totally mixed up?
RainCity471 (
talk) 00:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
There have been several notes on the C7 and some recent changes to the pictures of the C7-PW (polarized version). The problem is that the picture of the C7 polarized plug and the text now do not match.
I believe the C7-PWs that are in the wild will all have a matching polarization, but before simply changing the text or picture I wanted to see if anyone else has hard data on the plug type and whether the rounded or squared is 'live'. If you happen across this, please confirm or refute the below - I'd especially like a PlayStation cord checked against the below as I believe they are the most prevalent using this connector.
The C7-PW cord I have handy is small (live) of the NEMA-1-15P to the rounded portion of the C7-PW and the large (neutral) portion of the NEMA-1-15P to the square portion of the C7-PW.
Velowiki ( talk) 04:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this edit by Eric Corbett ( talk · contribs), which I reverted, and he subsequently restored with the unhelpfully rude comment "reverted misinformed rubbish":
Please see http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/which-versus-that-0 , http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/103103whichthat.htm , http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that , http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/which.htm , http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whovwhvt.asp , http://www.dailywritingtips.com/that-vs-which/ , http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/that-or-which-american , and many others.
For that matter, please search the web and try to find anything contradictory.
In
A kettle plug is an imprecise colloquial term that may refer to the high-temperature C15 and C16, or the regular temperature C13 and C14 connectors.
the clause following "that" is nonrestrictive: It adds description, but it is not restrictive: It does not identify a subset of possible subjects (the subject is the term "kettle plug", and there is only one term under discussion; nor can "could be this, could be that" be considered restrictive to one usage). Therefore "which" is correct.
The common use of "which" in the question "which one?" is perhaps confusing in this regard, but a way to remember the correct usage is to remember that the answer to the question, if accompanied by pointing, would always be phrased as "that one". Restrictive (or as I put it in my edit comment, "selective").
While we're here: the leading article "A" should not be present (at least as long as the italics are there to demarc the term), as we are discussing the term, not the object. Jeh ( talk) 21:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I do not wish to become embroiled in the "which vs. that" debate, but I do want to point out that it is quite wrong to describe either the C13 or C15 as a "plug", as both connectors are "sockets". Also, as the C14 is not for use at high temperature, it cannot accurately be called a "kettle plug" as it is completely unsuited to that application. Only the C16 can be properly described thus. Perhaps we should concentrate on rewriting the offending sentence in a way which describes the correct term, as well as acknowledging the inaccurate colloquial usage? Mautby ( talk) 02:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The IEC may have designed the C7/C8 connector for 2.5A service, but the great majority of the cables with North American plugs and CSA/NOM/UL certifications I can find claim 10A (sometimes 7A) ratings.
Digi-key list 15 such cord sets, Mouser list 9, and there are plenty more: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Or just do a web search for "C7 125V 10A" and see how many you can find.
The sheer number convinces me that the certifications are genuine and North American certification agencies have a more generous view of the C7/C8 coupler's current capacity than the IEC.
I also note that Digi-key and Mouser list no NEMA 1-15R to IEC C7 cords with less than 7A ratings. Web searching turns up some 125V 2.5A C7 cords (among the hits for "10A/125V; 2.5A/250V"), but they're generally less detailed listings, from some distant reseller, not the original manufacturer. Here is one of the few 2.5A NEMA 1-15P manufacturer's data sheets I could find, and note that it's certified for Taiwan, not North America.
I can even find some C14 to C7 cords (p. 24 of PDF) claiming UL/CSA approval for 10A/250V, so it appears that the difference is the certifying agency, not the operating voltage.
It's not particularly unusual to revise a rating based on real-world experience, although a factor of 4 is remarkably large. But can anyone find an authoritative source for thus? UL 1681 might say something, if anyone has access to a copy. (Likewise, C13/C14 is normally used up to 15A in North America, but that's a much smaller discrepancy.) 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 22:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
An IP is persistently adding this section, and a registered user is deleting it. Per WP:BRD and WP:EW, please discuss here, not in edit summaries. Please be aware that continuing to edit disputed text is considered edit-warring, even if you haven't reached the "three revert rule". Jeh ( talk) 02:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations to IP 71.41.210.146 for all the research you have put into the subject of non-standard appliance connectors, I hope that you manage to reveal the logic behind this seemingly widespread American disregard for the IEC Standard (Both the US and Canada are full members of the IEC).
Perhaps, to avoid confusion, would it be better to place the non-standard content in a separate article, linked from this article? FF-UK ( talk) 14:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay; I had posted this in the wrong talk page. D'oh!
In this edit, with the above edit comment, User:Wtshymanski removed a prefatory comment I included in the "North American ratings" section I created:
Because mains electricity in North America is at half the voltage (120 V) used in other parts of the world, power cords in that region need to carry twice the current to supply the same electrical power. To facilitate this,
I'm of two minds. On the one hand, it's unsourced editorializing (even though I think it is verifiable if I went to a library and dug deep enough).
On the other hand, I think it is an issue sometimes. I agree it's uncommon, but definitely not rare; there are plenty of products that depend on the uprating. Computer power supplies more than 880 W, assuming they are 80% efficient and operating from 110 V (it's worse in Japan) mains power, will draw 10 A (1100 W) from the wall. But power supplies up to 1200W use C14 inlets.
And there are 300 W power supplies with C6 and C8 inlets. Less common, because of the popularity of the C14 inlet, but they exist. A 2.5A limit would make that impossible.
Basically, a 125V/5A and 250V/2.5A lets products use smaller C6 and C8 inlets up to 5×110 = 2.5×220 = 550 W input power.
(Oh, I might mention: no appliance is technically limited by its input power cord, at least not after the design phase, as the safety rule is that the appliance must do the limiting for the power cord to ensure the latter is not overloaded.)
I'll try to add something else, but just wanted tp start discussion here. Maybe I'm just attached to it because I spent a long time agonizing over it (multiple drafts are visible in the edit history). Do people think any such comment is useful? 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 01:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Lots of little blue numbers in a Wikipedia article doesn't guarantee that it's free of original research either. Is there something in particular we're concerned about, perhaps tagging a section or paragraph is a more useful guide to places that references need to be improved? There's not much I suspect of being "original" here, even if it doesn't have little blue numbers after it. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 16:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This sentence is wrong: 'In some countries these cables are sometimes referred to as a "kettle cord" or "kettle lead", but the C13/14 connectors are only rated for 70 °C; a device such as a kettle requires the C15/16 connector, rated for 120 °C.' In the UK, we use the C13 as a kettle cord, not the C15; that is why we refer to it as a kettle lead.-- Jcvamp ( talk) 23:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Please add better diagrams with complete dimensions, such as pin diameters. Until then, please add a working link to such!- 96.233.20.34 ( talk) 21:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
They are basically the inverted versions of each other. This can not be seen in the drawings and should be clarified. Check out interpower.com/ic/images/IEC_60320_sheet-print.pdf for a drawing which clarifies how the connectors are actually build. Adius ( talk) 16:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)