Talk:IEC 60906-1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Are these plugs and sockets actually available?

or are they still basically on the drawing board? Plugwash 20:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

According to [1][2][3], Brazil decided in 2001 to replace its old mixture of Schuko, US, Italian and other plugs with IEC 906-1 as the new national standard (NBR 14136). Manufacturers are not allowed to sell equipment with any other plugs starting in 2009. So there will soon be a large market for IEC 906-1 plugs and sockets. Markus Kuhn 19:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Although I'm sure that the Brazilian wiring-device manufacturers will continue selling old-style replacement plugs and sockets (American and European types) for decades to come, just because of the large existing base of current devices and appliances. Stephanie Weil 20:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] all of the advantages of the BS 1363 system

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] brazil

did brazil make thier own national standard as part of choosing this plug type and if so does it have stricter requirements on anything? Plugwash 19:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] is is feasible

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

Yes, buy yourself three banana plugs and glue them together. -- 213.39.139.130 18:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. This thing is similar to the Swiss plug, which I've fitted on existing flexes before. It's also the same procedure as fitting an Italian plug. They're fiddly, however, because the insides are so cramped. Stephanie Weil 20:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Class 0 socket with protective earth connection

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

The standard neither explicitely forbids the sort of socket you describe, nor does it describe it. The full list of Class 0 sockets described in Annex A is:
  • Standard sheet A 1-1: 16 A 250 V two-pole fixed socket-outlet without earthing contact – flush-type socket-outlet
  • Standard sheet A 1-2: 16 A 250 V two-pole fixed socket-outlet without earthing contact – semi-flush and surface-type socket-outlet
  • Standard sheet A 1-3: 16 A 250 V two-pole portable socket-outlet without earthing contact
Instead of an earth contact, all these drawings provide for a "dummy hole, provided or not according to national wiring rules". So the philosophy of the standard could be interpreted as: "If you see a Class 0 socket, never expect a protective-earth connection." Encouraging the type of socket you describe could lead to complicated situations if countries migrate away from Class 0 simply by mandating from some point onwards an earth connection instead of a dummy hole in new sockets and outlaw new Class 0 appliances, but never move to the proper Class I/II sockets, thereby never gaining protection from equipment imported from Class 0 countries.
No doubt the best solution is to forget about the entire Class 0 idea, which I suspect was more a political rather than an engineering idea at the time. Note that IEC 60320 has no provisions for Class 0 plugs. Markus Kuhn 16:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Also it doesn't really protect against imported equipment anyway because users can always use adaptors or replace plugs and of course there is nothing stopping a national standard from saying it is acceptable to use class 2 plugs for class 0 devices. Plugwash (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IEC 60906-2 or 3?

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

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

If someone sponsors the purchase of these two documents (54+32 CHF [4]), I'd be happy to write the articles (I'm myself especially curious about part 3). So far, I've only received a donated copy of part 1 of this standard, which resulted in this article. IEC standards that have not been adopted as British Standards are unfortunately not commonly available in the UK via inter-library loan. Such IEC and ISO standards are generally a real pain to get hold of. Also high on the wishlist in that area would be a copy of IEC/TR 60083 (307 CHF [5]). Markus Kuhn 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] anyone else think it is a bit weired

that they would go to the trouble of making it easy to design transition sockets but then officially discourage the use of such sockets? Also many such safety issues exist with certain combinations of existing european plug/socket types (mainly beause of the weird earthing systems germany and france used to allow use of earthed plugs in non earthed sockets). Plugwash (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)