![]() | 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 | Archive 2 |
Renamed and moved from "There's your definition" above.
the connector is a locking type and whether it is a plug (male connector) or the corresponding receptacle (female connector). Very concise, and not an advertisement for where to download IEC standards. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 21:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
(End of moved content.)
Wtshymanski, you wrote "not an advertisement for where to download IEC standards", this is a completely misleading statement as the text which you deleted contains no such thing! The link to the IEC is to the "Online Electrotechnical Vocabulary", a completely free online database. Before leaping in to delete stuff, perhaps you should actually read it!
Jeh, you wrote "My opinion re these two paragraphs has changed. Am I not allowed to do that?" Normally an opinion only changes when there is a change in the facts or circumstances on which the opinion is based, otherwise any such change suggests that either the original, or revised, opinion is frivolous and without a sound basis. You have not actually responded to my question to you "What has changed?" When you reverted the earlier deletion of this section, you did so with the comment "I disagree with this edit" and made it clear on the talk page that you agreed with the rationale for including the section. To now take the diametrically opposite position on the basis that your opinion has changed, with no explanation as to why, is not indicative of a responsible approach to WP.
The section which you have now removed does far more than define two terms, it makes the point that the terminology used in electrical standards is normally that which has been agreed by the international body responsible for such things, of which the US is a full member. However, US standards bodies are an exception to this norm and use non-standard terminology, in the context of NEMA standards this is a valid point worth making.
The origins of the use of "pin" to refer to the male contact of an electrical power connector can be traced back to the first known patent for such a connector, the 1882 British patent numbered 4162 in which the applicant, Thomas Tayler Smith, refers to "two hooks or pins of copper or other good conductor" which mate with "a pair of insulated metallic shoes or sockets formed to receive the hooks or pins". These hooked contacts which he called pins were shown in his accompanying diagrams as consisting of formed pieces of flat sheet metal, a similar construction method to that later used by Harvey Hubbell. In 1894, Chapter VI of the seventh edition of "Electric Light Installations, Volume II, Apparatus" by Sir David Salomons describes a number of power plugs and sockets and refers to the plug contacts as "pins" and sometimes the plugs themselves as "pin connectors". A variety of plugs and sockets are illustrated and most are similar to the two pin plug shown here. My personal copy of this book, the eighth edition published in 1901, has a title page showing that the publisher, Whittaker & Co., had an office on Fifth Avenue, New York. We may safely assume that the book was available in the US by that time. (Additional info has now come to hand, the Fifth edition of the book was reviewed in March 1890 in "Science", the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The review indicates that the book was published in America by Van Nostrand of New York. A quick check of this edition includes pictures of a "wall connector" and its mating plug, and refers to the "plug pins". Thus, there can be no doubt that the knowledge of power plugs and sockets as invented in Britain was readily available in the US at least 14 years before Hubbell patented his device.)
Despite these earlier precedents, Harvey Hubbell's original patent 1904 for a separable connector, U.S. Patent 774,250, refers to the pins (which were of round construction) as "contact-posts". In his follow up design of a plug with coplanar flat contacts, U.S. Patent 774,250, he describes those contacts as "knife-blade contacts". In the description of this latter connector, published in the 1904 Hubbell catalog, he refers to the contacts as being "on the knife switch principal", so I guess this is the origin of the term "blade" for an American plug contact. In the 1916 Hubbell patent US 1,179,728 for a three-pin plug, the contact pins are again referred to as "knife-blade contacts", but the modern Australian standard AS/NZS 3112, which is based on the 1916 Hubbell design, calls them pins in accordance with standard international practice.
It should also be noted that the flat plug contacts of the modern British plug are also called "pins" in BS 1363.
Jeh, you also wrote "These are everyday words used in all varieties of English, used here in a fashion not at all incongruous with their usual meanings", that is completely disingenuous. "Blade" is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "the flat cutting edge of a knife, saw, or other tool or weapon" there is no reference relating to electrical contacts. "Receptacle" is defined in the OED as "a hollow object used to contain something", with a reference to North American usage as "an electrical socket". Neither word would be recognized by a non-American speaker of English as having anything to do with electrical connectors (unless that person had direct experience of American practice). By contrast, "pin" is commonly used by Americans as a word relating to plugs of various kinds, including the American "pin and sleeve" connectors. Likewise, "socket" is a common term for a power outlet, as I know from personal research among American friends (some of whom did not relate to "receptacle" at all), and references to wall sockets are common in American literature of both a technical and non-technical variety. (A few examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The situation regarding these words is far from symmetrical!
The Terminology section (as you previously seemed to understand) is actually far more than a couple of definitions.
Finally, I would remind you that, although you have both been associated with editing this article for some years ( Wtshymanski for 11 years and Jeh for 4 years) neither of you bothered to clean up the mess that it was in. That task was left to this British editor when earlier this year I did a major clean-up to improve accuracy and consistency. That clean-up involved many replacements of non-standard (often British English) terms with the appropriate American terms! It was in the same edit that I added the terminology section because it was then I realized how badly it was needed! I welcome the fact that at least one American editor, Reify-tech, appreciated my work! FF-UK ( talk) 21:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
You wrote...
No argument there. The question is whether the "far more" belongs in this article, particularly in such a prominent position. Rather than in, say, a footnote.
The points that are worth making are made entirely sufficiently by the footnotes I added: a) There are other words commonly used for these things, and some of those "other words" are supported by the IEC "vocabulary", which is linked.
Much that of the deleted "terminology" section that goes beyond the current footnotes smacks of chiding, finger-wagging, and NNPOV. If you really want to make the point about how awful it is that NEMA does not follow IEC terminology then it should probably go in an article entitled "Comparison of electrical connector standards" or some such. But here? It is completely improper to interrupt the flow of this article, right after the lede, to tell the reader that the NEMA terminology is somehow "abnormal English"! That will not help the readers' understanding of NEMA connectors. Articles should be about their subject. The subject here is "NEMA connectors". Not "things Americans do wrong".
Your extensive exposition here about the "pin" terminology has nothing to do with the question of inclusion of this section. However, the nature of your response to my little offhand remark about the word "pin" is interesting. You responded to a single sentence with about 500 words that do nothing whatsoever to defend the presence of the Terminology section. (It doesn't really contradict the notion that NEMA's contacts' non-round cross section has discouraged calling its male contacts "pins", either.) Did you think that overwhelming me with the history of the terms "pins" and "blades" would encourage me to go away? As in "Oh, he knows a lot, I should withdraw"? Whatever. The fact remains that in general usage, "pins" are generally things with a round cross-section, though of course there are exceptions.
(I suppose you're now going to write 1200 words that you think prove that I'm wrong about that. By all means go ahead - it's your time to waste and I will simply be bemused.)
Here's a definition from the OED for you: "Disingenuous: not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does." I don't see how the second part applies at all, and as for the first part, I am completely sincere in my expressed belief. Please don't call me dishonest again. I have done nothing to deserve such an accusation.
And another: "Incongruous: Not in harmony or keeping with the surroundings or other aspects of something." It doesn't mean "not the same as" or "not interchangeable with". The shape of the prongs of the typical NEMA plugs is "not incongruous" with the shapes of other things called "blades". And "receptacles" are things you put things in. Is that really incongruous with the function and use of a female electrical connector? I don't think so. You put the "blades" in the hollow things, do you not? I cannot imagine that anyone of even moderate intelligence and reasoning ability would puzzle over these terms in this article for any significant time. Humans do have the ability to intuit meaning of unfamiliar words from context; that's how most of us learned our native language.
And if the reader still is uncertain, or wants more information, we do have the footnotes.
Your previous work on the article in harmonizing terminology, etc., was certainly appreciated here. (And your implication that only one person appreciated it is just silly.) But it doesn't give you a pass in subsequent discussions.
Yes, it certainly was. That was the problem. The question I would like you, FF-UK, to answer is: What useful purpose in terms of the subject of this article is not served by the existing footnotes? Jeh ( talk) 06:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I can't imagine much that you could have written that would have more thoroughly convinced me that your support for the (at the moment deleted) "Terminology" section is based almost entirely in your desire to rub Americans' noses in what you see as their hand-wringingly horrible mistakes. The section was slightly NNPOV and argumentative. Your position as expressed here is grossly argumentative and NNPOV. Do I really need to state that expressing such opinions is not the purpose of this article? Jeh ( talk) 06:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
A plea to all, please stop this edit war. I have reverted to the original version of the text which achieved a consensus. 81.128.173.187 ( talk) 09:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is a majority view that the terminology section (which is a common feature of other WP articles on mains connectors) is a useful section, and is not to be confused with nomenclature, which refers to the various NEMA style sheets, as opposed to the terminology of connector standards. The reference to NEMA not using the international standard terminology is a valid point. Perhaps those objecting to it are acting on behalf of NEMA (either officially or unofficially)? I will reinstate the section and hope that those attempting censorship will cease. 216.227.27.175 ( talk) 13:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Jeh Once again I have to apologise for the delay in replying. My illness can be very debilitating, and while I am usually able to follow talk pages, I am not always well enough to respond.
I am going to refer to the history of the IEC and provide here a few extracts on the IEC's work in establishing standard electrical terms.
On 15 September 1904, delegates to the International Electrical Congress, being held in St. Louis, USA, adopted a report that included the following words: "…steps should be taken to secure the co-operation of the technical societies of the world, by the appointment of a representative Commission to consider the question of the standardization of the nomenclature and ratings of electrical apparatus and machinery."
By 1914 the IEC had formed four technical committees to deal with Nomenclature, Symbols, Rating of Electrical Machinery, and Prime Movers. The Commission had also issued a first list of terms and definitions covering electrical machinery and apparatus.
From these extracts I think we can see that using common definitions has always been an important purpose of the IEC as testified by the very first Technical Committee (TC1) being devoted to it.
In an earlier response you referred to "the IEC's establishment of the ridiculous term 'socket-outlet' ". I do not know when that term was agreed by the IEC members (although we can be certain that both the US and the UK, as the major English speaking members, agreed to it). What I do know is that it was in use in the US between 1915 and 1931 as these references show: 1915, 1917, 1921a, 1921b, 1921c (penultimate sentence under the heading "Pull socket current taps"), 1921d (third paragraph of main body of the ad copy), 1931
I am not aware of the use of "socket-outlet" in the UK before 1934. The term used in all British Standards for mains sockets, starting with BS 73 in 1915 (the first national standard anywhere for such items) until BS 372 in 1930, was simply "sockets". In 1934 the first edition of BS 546 was called "Two-Pole and Earthing-Pin Plugs and Socket Outlets", this is an indication that the IEC terminology had been established by then, and it is probable that it was an acceptance of existing US terminology. To treat this term in the derisory way that you do is not NPOV.
You have asserted that "Not very many people go around using the IEV's term, "socket-outlet", either!" , but I would point out that (as far as I am aware) all English language standards for plugs and sockets, other than NEMA, use that term. Noting that this NEMA standard uses terminology which differs from international norms is a perfectly valid thing to do when describing the standard.
NEMA representatives are very active as part of the US representation on IEC committees. There is nothing unreasonable in stating that the US is a full member of the IEC, as the IEC itself clearly indicates that it is here. Independent support for that statement is provided in this recent book (page 175, second paragraph of section 5.7.3.2). If the concept of the US being a member of the IEC troubles you, then suitable alternative language would be: "published by the International Electrotechnical Commission (of which the US National Committee (USNC) is a full member)." citing this NEMA page as a reference. (Please note, that NEMA page also links to a document which details the extent of NEMA involvement, note particularly the entries for "IEC TC 23/SC 23BSC 23B - Plugs, Socket-Outlets and Switches" and "IEC TC 23/SC 23CSC 23C - World-Wide Plug and Socket-Outlet Systems", both of which committees have several NEMA delegates.) That reference also includes the statement "NEMA is very supportive to promoting the adoption of relevant IEC/ISO standards on a sector-by-sector basis as US and North American standards." However, despite that stated intention, it is a fact that although the NEMA 5-15 type is the basis for IEC 60906-2 (originally published 25 years ago in 1992), that standard has still not been adopted as a US standard.
I note that you are still very unhappy with the words "however the normal English term used in connection with mains plugs is pin", perhaps you would find the following more acceptable: "however the internationally standardized English term used in connection with mains plugs is pin"?
Given the position of NEMA, it is a perfectly reasonable thing to state that this standard uses non-standard terminology. This is information which is specifically relevant to ANSI/NEMA WD-6 and therefore belongs in this article, not some other article.
Jeh, the Terminology section that was original added to the article in February 2017, with your approval, remains the most appropriate way to provide this relevant information to readers in a form which is consistent with similar WP articles. But, as I mention above, there are a couple of language tweaks which should answer your specific language objections. FF-UK ( talk) 17:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I am looking for the ANSI/NEMA standard that utilizes a power cord with 2 Black wires and 1 green w/yellow safetyy gnd. The Black wires are faintly labeled 1 and 2. Which goes on the Hot and which goes on the neutral in a standard US 120VAC application? 40.137.115.234 ( talk) 14:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know, NEMA 6, 10, and 14 series connectors can be used on either 120/240 circuits, or two phases of 120/208 circuits. Most appliances that use these connectors are designed to work either way, though heating appliances will run at a lower power. (Electric dryers, stoves, and ovens are common for the larger ones.) Larger buildings are commonly supplied with 120/208, especially ones that are not individually metered, such as industry, dorms, and hotels. Smaller motels might be 120/240, though. I changed a recent edit to allow for both, but would be interested to know about other opinions or references. Gah4 ( talk) 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, charging stations for electric cars, both at home and away from home, are getting more popular. Some might be directly wired, but many use plugs. I am not so sure where the outlets and plugs used should be discussed, though. Gah4 ( talk) 03:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia section on "NEMA 14" (non-locking) it says the L-shaped prong is neutral. In the Wikipedia section on "NEMA L14" it does not mention the nature of the L-shaped prong. According to the drawing in the Wikipedia section "NEMA Nomenclature" the L-shaped prong is neutral also in L14. (The prong across from the L-shaped prong is green, ground.)
However, according to http://www.stayonline.com/reference-nema-locking.aspx the L-shaped prong in L14-30 is G (Green, Ground) while the prong across from it is W (Neutral).
I checked with Hubbell. They confirmed: The L shaped prong (they call it the dogleg prong) in L14-30 IS Ground, and is ground in all NEMA L14-30 plugs etc.
So that means that Wikipedia is wrong.
I did not check whether the error extends to other plugs, like other locking and non-locking plugs etc. I suspect it does.
Teun Ott ( talk) 19:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Teun Ott
The NEMA 14 section is wrong, confusing, and dangerous for anyone that might look at it and rely on it to wire something. The NEMA 14 section tells what the pins are, "The 14-30 has a rating of 30 A, and an L-shaped neutral blade.", and shows a diagram of a 14-30 and a 14-50 (I was concerned with the 14-30), and you click to see the diagram and it says, "Clockwise from the top of each, the pin designations are: neutral, live, ground, live." Well, look at the diagram, top is up on your screen, and it's hard to talk about "clockwise" if a clock can be upside down, and the L-shaped blade is not at the top, but what is at the top is being called neutral. I really don't want to ground my machines to the neutral line by accident.
208.127.8.7 (
talk)
17:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
After looking at several newly manufactured 14-30 dryer and 14-50 oven cables, which are clearly designed to put the ground pin on top, I just reoriented the few remaining ground-down receptacles in my NEMA_simplified_pins image so every receptacle is shown with the ground pin on the top side of the receptacle. The NEC appears silent on this issue.
I realize most residential 5-15 receptacles are installed using the traditional ground pin down orientation, but I've been reading about how electrical practice is moving more toward ground-up installations, and this is required in some healthcare and commercial installations, so hopefully depicting 5-15 with ground up isn't going to start an edit war here! Olawlor ( talk) 00:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Recently a large deletion was made with the summary: articles are about their subject. While articles are about their subject makes some sense, it is nice to have context for articles. What came before, and what (might) come after. Much of the deletion is the development of the NEMA 1 connector, before NEMA got to it. But maybe that should have its own article. Some is about connectors in common use that people might expect to be NEMA connectors, but for some reason aren't. It would seem reasonable to at least have enough to link to the right article. Gah4 ( talk) 20:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
According to the article, and according to nema.org, I should be able to create an account and download WD-6. I filled out the account form, but never get an e-mail to verify it with. Gah4 ( talk) 01:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
In describing polarized NEMA-1, it says: neutral blade is 5⁄16 in or 7.938 mm wide, 1⁄16 in or 1.588 mm. The metric values seem to have more digits than is necessary, but if the standard actually specifies those digits, then they should probably stay. I suspect, though, that someone converted 5/16 inch with too many digits. Is there a tolerance on the inch value? Gah4 ( talk) 11:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The article mentions (un)safety of the NEMA-10, in that the neutral could break or become loose. Since they were common for many years, and I believe grandfathered in current use, it would be interesting to know if anyone was ever electrocuted through this process. Gah4 ( talk) 23:07, 16 June 2020 (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 | Archive 2 |
Renamed and moved from "There's your definition" above.
the connector is a locking type and whether it is a plug (male connector) or the corresponding receptacle (female connector). Very concise, and not an advertisement for where to download IEC standards. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 21:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
(End of moved content.)
Wtshymanski, you wrote "not an advertisement for where to download IEC standards", this is a completely misleading statement as the text which you deleted contains no such thing! The link to the IEC is to the "Online Electrotechnical Vocabulary", a completely free online database. Before leaping in to delete stuff, perhaps you should actually read it!
Jeh, you wrote "My opinion re these two paragraphs has changed. Am I not allowed to do that?" Normally an opinion only changes when there is a change in the facts or circumstances on which the opinion is based, otherwise any such change suggests that either the original, or revised, opinion is frivolous and without a sound basis. You have not actually responded to my question to you "What has changed?" When you reverted the earlier deletion of this section, you did so with the comment "I disagree with this edit" and made it clear on the talk page that you agreed with the rationale for including the section. To now take the diametrically opposite position on the basis that your opinion has changed, with no explanation as to why, is not indicative of a responsible approach to WP.
The section which you have now removed does far more than define two terms, it makes the point that the terminology used in electrical standards is normally that which has been agreed by the international body responsible for such things, of which the US is a full member. However, US standards bodies are an exception to this norm and use non-standard terminology, in the context of NEMA standards this is a valid point worth making.
The origins of the use of "pin" to refer to the male contact of an electrical power connector can be traced back to the first known patent for such a connector, the 1882 British patent numbered 4162 in which the applicant, Thomas Tayler Smith, refers to "two hooks or pins of copper or other good conductor" which mate with "a pair of insulated metallic shoes or sockets formed to receive the hooks or pins". These hooked contacts which he called pins were shown in his accompanying diagrams as consisting of formed pieces of flat sheet metal, a similar construction method to that later used by Harvey Hubbell. In 1894, Chapter VI of the seventh edition of "Electric Light Installations, Volume II, Apparatus" by Sir David Salomons describes a number of power plugs and sockets and refers to the plug contacts as "pins" and sometimes the plugs themselves as "pin connectors". A variety of plugs and sockets are illustrated and most are similar to the two pin plug shown here. My personal copy of this book, the eighth edition published in 1901, has a title page showing that the publisher, Whittaker & Co., had an office on Fifth Avenue, New York. We may safely assume that the book was available in the US by that time. (Additional info has now come to hand, the Fifth edition of the book was reviewed in March 1890 in "Science", the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The review indicates that the book was published in America by Van Nostrand of New York. A quick check of this edition includes pictures of a "wall connector" and its mating plug, and refers to the "plug pins". Thus, there can be no doubt that the knowledge of power plugs and sockets as invented in Britain was readily available in the US at least 14 years before Hubbell patented his device.)
Despite these earlier precedents, Harvey Hubbell's original patent 1904 for a separable connector, U.S. Patent 774,250, refers to the pins (which were of round construction) as "contact-posts". In his follow up design of a plug with coplanar flat contacts, U.S. Patent 774,250, he describes those contacts as "knife-blade contacts". In the description of this latter connector, published in the 1904 Hubbell catalog, he refers to the contacts as being "on the knife switch principal", so I guess this is the origin of the term "blade" for an American plug contact. In the 1916 Hubbell patent US 1,179,728 for a three-pin plug, the contact pins are again referred to as "knife-blade contacts", but the modern Australian standard AS/NZS 3112, which is based on the 1916 Hubbell design, calls them pins in accordance with standard international practice.
It should also be noted that the flat plug contacts of the modern British plug are also called "pins" in BS 1363.
Jeh, you also wrote "These are everyday words used in all varieties of English, used here in a fashion not at all incongruous with their usual meanings", that is completely disingenuous. "Blade" is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "the flat cutting edge of a knife, saw, or other tool or weapon" there is no reference relating to electrical contacts. "Receptacle" is defined in the OED as "a hollow object used to contain something", with a reference to North American usage as "an electrical socket". Neither word would be recognized by a non-American speaker of English as having anything to do with electrical connectors (unless that person had direct experience of American practice). By contrast, "pin" is commonly used by Americans as a word relating to plugs of various kinds, including the American "pin and sleeve" connectors. Likewise, "socket" is a common term for a power outlet, as I know from personal research among American friends (some of whom did not relate to "receptacle" at all), and references to wall sockets are common in American literature of both a technical and non-technical variety. (A few examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The situation regarding these words is far from symmetrical!
The Terminology section (as you previously seemed to understand) is actually far more than a couple of definitions.
Finally, I would remind you that, although you have both been associated with editing this article for some years ( Wtshymanski for 11 years and Jeh for 4 years) neither of you bothered to clean up the mess that it was in. That task was left to this British editor when earlier this year I did a major clean-up to improve accuracy and consistency. That clean-up involved many replacements of non-standard (often British English) terms with the appropriate American terms! It was in the same edit that I added the terminology section because it was then I realized how badly it was needed! I welcome the fact that at least one American editor, Reify-tech, appreciated my work! FF-UK ( talk) 21:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
You wrote...
No argument there. The question is whether the "far more" belongs in this article, particularly in such a prominent position. Rather than in, say, a footnote.
The points that are worth making are made entirely sufficiently by the footnotes I added: a) There are other words commonly used for these things, and some of those "other words" are supported by the IEC "vocabulary", which is linked.
Much that of the deleted "terminology" section that goes beyond the current footnotes smacks of chiding, finger-wagging, and NNPOV. If you really want to make the point about how awful it is that NEMA does not follow IEC terminology then it should probably go in an article entitled "Comparison of electrical connector standards" or some such. But here? It is completely improper to interrupt the flow of this article, right after the lede, to tell the reader that the NEMA terminology is somehow "abnormal English"! That will not help the readers' understanding of NEMA connectors. Articles should be about their subject. The subject here is "NEMA connectors". Not "things Americans do wrong".
Your extensive exposition here about the "pin" terminology has nothing to do with the question of inclusion of this section. However, the nature of your response to my little offhand remark about the word "pin" is interesting. You responded to a single sentence with about 500 words that do nothing whatsoever to defend the presence of the Terminology section. (It doesn't really contradict the notion that NEMA's contacts' non-round cross section has discouraged calling its male contacts "pins", either.) Did you think that overwhelming me with the history of the terms "pins" and "blades" would encourage me to go away? As in "Oh, he knows a lot, I should withdraw"? Whatever. The fact remains that in general usage, "pins" are generally things with a round cross-section, though of course there are exceptions.
(I suppose you're now going to write 1200 words that you think prove that I'm wrong about that. By all means go ahead - it's your time to waste and I will simply be bemused.)
Here's a definition from the OED for you: "Disingenuous: not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does." I don't see how the second part applies at all, and as for the first part, I am completely sincere in my expressed belief. Please don't call me dishonest again. I have done nothing to deserve such an accusation.
And another: "Incongruous: Not in harmony or keeping with the surroundings or other aspects of something." It doesn't mean "not the same as" or "not interchangeable with". The shape of the prongs of the typical NEMA plugs is "not incongruous" with the shapes of other things called "blades". And "receptacles" are things you put things in. Is that really incongruous with the function and use of a female electrical connector? I don't think so. You put the "blades" in the hollow things, do you not? I cannot imagine that anyone of even moderate intelligence and reasoning ability would puzzle over these terms in this article for any significant time. Humans do have the ability to intuit meaning of unfamiliar words from context; that's how most of us learned our native language.
And if the reader still is uncertain, or wants more information, we do have the footnotes.
Your previous work on the article in harmonizing terminology, etc., was certainly appreciated here. (And your implication that only one person appreciated it is just silly.) But it doesn't give you a pass in subsequent discussions.
Yes, it certainly was. That was the problem. The question I would like you, FF-UK, to answer is: What useful purpose in terms of the subject of this article is not served by the existing footnotes? Jeh ( talk) 06:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I can't imagine much that you could have written that would have more thoroughly convinced me that your support for the (at the moment deleted) "Terminology" section is based almost entirely in your desire to rub Americans' noses in what you see as their hand-wringingly horrible mistakes. The section was slightly NNPOV and argumentative. Your position as expressed here is grossly argumentative and NNPOV. Do I really need to state that expressing such opinions is not the purpose of this article? Jeh ( talk) 06:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
A plea to all, please stop this edit war. I have reverted to the original version of the text which achieved a consensus. 81.128.173.187 ( talk) 09:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is a majority view that the terminology section (which is a common feature of other WP articles on mains connectors) is a useful section, and is not to be confused with nomenclature, which refers to the various NEMA style sheets, as opposed to the terminology of connector standards. The reference to NEMA not using the international standard terminology is a valid point. Perhaps those objecting to it are acting on behalf of NEMA (either officially or unofficially)? I will reinstate the section and hope that those attempting censorship will cease. 216.227.27.175 ( talk) 13:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Jeh Once again I have to apologise for the delay in replying. My illness can be very debilitating, and while I am usually able to follow talk pages, I am not always well enough to respond.
I am going to refer to the history of the IEC and provide here a few extracts on the IEC's work in establishing standard electrical terms.
On 15 September 1904, delegates to the International Electrical Congress, being held in St. Louis, USA, adopted a report that included the following words: "…steps should be taken to secure the co-operation of the technical societies of the world, by the appointment of a representative Commission to consider the question of the standardization of the nomenclature and ratings of electrical apparatus and machinery."
By 1914 the IEC had formed four technical committees to deal with Nomenclature, Symbols, Rating of Electrical Machinery, and Prime Movers. The Commission had also issued a first list of terms and definitions covering electrical machinery and apparatus.
From these extracts I think we can see that using common definitions has always been an important purpose of the IEC as testified by the very first Technical Committee (TC1) being devoted to it.
In an earlier response you referred to "the IEC's establishment of the ridiculous term 'socket-outlet' ". I do not know when that term was agreed by the IEC members (although we can be certain that both the US and the UK, as the major English speaking members, agreed to it). What I do know is that it was in use in the US between 1915 and 1931 as these references show: 1915, 1917, 1921a, 1921b, 1921c (penultimate sentence under the heading "Pull socket current taps"), 1921d (third paragraph of main body of the ad copy), 1931
I am not aware of the use of "socket-outlet" in the UK before 1934. The term used in all British Standards for mains sockets, starting with BS 73 in 1915 (the first national standard anywhere for such items) until BS 372 in 1930, was simply "sockets". In 1934 the first edition of BS 546 was called "Two-Pole and Earthing-Pin Plugs and Socket Outlets", this is an indication that the IEC terminology had been established by then, and it is probable that it was an acceptance of existing US terminology. To treat this term in the derisory way that you do is not NPOV.
You have asserted that "Not very many people go around using the IEV's term, "socket-outlet", either!" , but I would point out that (as far as I am aware) all English language standards for plugs and sockets, other than NEMA, use that term. Noting that this NEMA standard uses terminology which differs from international norms is a perfectly valid thing to do when describing the standard.
NEMA representatives are very active as part of the US representation on IEC committees. There is nothing unreasonable in stating that the US is a full member of the IEC, as the IEC itself clearly indicates that it is here. Independent support for that statement is provided in this recent book (page 175, second paragraph of section 5.7.3.2). If the concept of the US being a member of the IEC troubles you, then suitable alternative language would be: "published by the International Electrotechnical Commission (of which the US National Committee (USNC) is a full member)." citing this NEMA page as a reference. (Please note, that NEMA page also links to a document which details the extent of NEMA involvement, note particularly the entries for "IEC TC 23/SC 23BSC 23B - Plugs, Socket-Outlets and Switches" and "IEC TC 23/SC 23CSC 23C - World-Wide Plug and Socket-Outlet Systems", both of which committees have several NEMA delegates.) That reference also includes the statement "NEMA is very supportive to promoting the adoption of relevant IEC/ISO standards on a sector-by-sector basis as US and North American standards." However, despite that stated intention, it is a fact that although the NEMA 5-15 type is the basis for IEC 60906-2 (originally published 25 years ago in 1992), that standard has still not been adopted as a US standard.
I note that you are still very unhappy with the words "however the normal English term used in connection with mains plugs is pin", perhaps you would find the following more acceptable: "however the internationally standardized English term used in connection with mains plugs is pin"?
Given the position of NEMA, it is a perfectly reasonable thing to state that this standard uses non-standard terminology. This is information which is specifically relevant to ANSI/NEMA WD-6 and therefore belongs in this article, not some other article.
Jeh, the Terminology section that was original added to the article in February 2017, with your approval, remains the most appropriate way to provide this relevant information to readers in a form which is consistent with similar WP articles. But, as I mention above, there are a couple of language tweaks which should answer your specific language objections. FF-UK ( talk) 17:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I am looking for the ANSI/NEMA standard that utilizes a power cord with 2 Black wires and 1 green w/yellow safetyy gnd. The Black wires are faintly labeled 1 and 2. Which goes on the Hot and which goes on the neutral in a standard US 120VAC application? 40.137.115.234 ( talk) 14:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know, NEMA 6, 10, and 14 series connectors can be used on either 120/240 circuits, or two phases of 120/208 circuits. Most appliances that use these connectors are designed to work either way, though heating appliances will run at a lower power. (Electric dryers, stoves, and ovens are common for the larger ones.) Larger buildings are commonly supplied with 120/208, especially ones that are not individually metered, such as industry, dorms, and hotels. Smaller motels might be 120/240, though. I changed a recent edit to allow for both, but would be interested to know about other opinions or references. Gah4 ( talk) 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, charging stations for electric cars, both at home and away from home, are getting more popular. Some might be directly wired, but many use plugs. I am not so sure where the outlets and plugs used should be discussed, though. Gah4 ( talk) 03:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia section on "NEMA 14" (non-locking) it says the L-shaped prong is neutral. In the Wikipedia section on "NEMA L14" it does not mention the nature of the L-shaped prong. According to the drawing in the Wikipedia section "NEMA Nomenclature" the L-shaped prong is neutral also in L14. (The prong across from the L-shaped prong is green, ground.)
However, according to http://www.stayonline.com/reference-nema-locking.aspx the L-shaped prong in L14-30 is G (Green, Ground) while the prong across from it is W (Neutral).
I checked with Hubbell. They confirmed: The L shaped prong (they call it the dogleg prong) in L14-30 IS Ground, and is ground in all NEMA L14-30 plugs etc.
So that means that Wikipedia is wrong.
I did not check whether the error extends to other plugs, like other locking and non-locking plugs etc. I suspect it does.
Teun Ott ( talk) 19:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Teun Ott
The NEMA 14 section is wrong, confusing, and dangerous for anyone that might look at it and rely on it to wire something. The NEMA 14 section tells what the pins are, "The 14-30 has a rating of 30 A, and an L-shaped neutral blade.", and shows a diagram of a 14-30 and a 14-50 (I was concerned with the 14-30), and you click to see the diagram and it says, "Clockwise from the top of each, the pin designations are: neutral, live, ground, live." Well, look at the diagram, top is up on your screen, and it's hard to talk about "clockwise" if a clock can be upside down, and the L-shaped blade is not at the top, but what is at the top is being called neutral. I really don't want to ground my machines to the neutral line by accident.
208.127.8.7 (
talk)
17:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
After looking at several newly manufactured 14-30 dryer and 14-50 oven cables, which are clearly designed to put the ground pin on top, I just reoriented the few remaining ground-down receptacles in my NEMA_simplified_pins image so every receptacle is shown with the ground pin on the top side of the receptacle. The NEC appears silent on this issue.
I realize most residential 5-15 receptacles are installed using the traditional ground pin down orientation, but I've been reading about how electrical practice is moving more toward ground-up installations, and this is required in some healthcare and commercial installations, so hopefully depicting 5-15 with ground up isn't going to start an edit war here! Olawlor ( talk) 00:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Recently a large deletion was made with the summary: articles are about their subject. While articles are about their subject makes some sense, it is nice to have context for articles. What came before, and what (might) come after. Much of the deletion is the development of the NEMA 1 connector, before NEMA got to it. But maybe that should have its own article. Some is about connectors in common use that people might expect to be NEMA connectors, but for some reason aren't. It would seem reasonable to at least have enough to link to the right article. Gah4 ( talk) 20:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
According to the article, and according to nema.org, I should be able to create an account and download WD-6. I filled out the account form, but never get an e-mail to verify it with. Gah4 ( talk) 01:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
In describing polarized NEMA-1, it says: neutral blade is 5⁄16 in or 7.938 mm wide, 1⁄16 in or 1.588 mm. The metric values seem to have more digits than is necessary, but if the standard actually specifies those digits, then they should probably stay. I suspect, though, that someone converted 5/16 inch with too many digits. Is there a tolerance on the inch value? Gah4 ( talk) 11:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The article mentions (un)safety of the NEMA-10, in that the neutral could break or become loose. Since they were common for many years, and I believe grandfathered in current use, it would be interesting to know if anyone was ever electrocuted through this process. Gah4 ( talk) 23:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)