Talk:AC power plugs and sockets/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Discussion re overuse of "socket-outlet" in the article

I am taking the small liberty of copying DieSwartzPunkt's comment (which, as of this writing, was the last thing in the "general discussion re article title" subsection) to this new subsection, because it provides a jumping-off point for a new discussion branch... as follows: Jeh (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment:Common sense seems to have taken flight here. While I have no particular view either way whether the article is called "AC power plugs and sockets" or "AC power plugs and socket-outlets", all it requires is a note in the opening lede as to the alternative usages. The continuing use of 'socket-outlet' throughout the article is both unnecessary and cumbersome. Pick one term and stick with it. Since the article is written in British English the term 'socket' would be prefereble. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I more or less agree. I do obviously have a particular view re the article title (that's the "less" part), but I'll relent on that... but I think the use of "socket-outlet" throughout the article is hugely cumbersome, smacks of tendentious editing, and is not supported by sources: Even the IEC does not use this term in their usual prose (a point that Mautby has never addressed). Neither did Mautby on WP talk pages before he started promoting this term. What to replace it with? I support the use of "socket" in most places in the article. (That's the "more agree" part.) Heck, even given "British English", "socket" is widely understood in the US. And this seems to me to be a reasonable compromise. Of course there should be text either in the lede or the very first section after that describes the various terms (plug, socket, receptacle, connector, inlet, outlet, etc.). Jeh (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

To reiterate my point above (which has become somewhat lost in the noise), it is hard to argue for one title or the other given that whichever is chosen, references can be produced which support that particular term (and in Wikipedia, references are king). As the article has but one title, this does not pose a problem worth getting excited about. However, I completely agree about avoiding the long winded version throughout the rrrrrest of the article. My vote is "socket" as I believe that it is the word most universally understood. Of course, the alternative uses should be mentioned somewhere (the lead would be best) for completeness. I B Wright (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It should be "Socket". Per WP:ENVAR this is not actually even open to debate. Roger (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I assume that you meant WP:ENGVAR as the relevant policy. 86.166.71.0 (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Socket - mention somewhere early on that in standards-ese, the prolix call them "socket outlets" because they don't speak the same variety of English we do, then get rid of all the wearisome repetiton of the redundant "outlet". --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

In spite of the recent changes (from 'socket-outlet' to 'socket'), the article was still full of a mixture of British English and American English terms often even in the same sentence or paragraph. One paragraph in particular used 'socket', 'outlet' and 'receptacle'. I suppose this is the product of mixed nationality editing. I have now gone through the article and rationalised the terms to the Britsh English terms in accordance with WP:ENGVAR. I don't think I have broken anything, but I don't claim to be perfect. I have had to leave a couple of references to 'receptacle' because "NEMA 1-15 style 5-socket socket" didn't scan right. 86.166.71.0 (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR is part of the MOS, which is a style guide, not absolute. Furthermore it refers more to words in everyday usage like color/colour, trunk/boot, etc., than to technical terms, and notes that articles covering subjects of some definite national association should use the ENGVAR of that nation, regardless of who wrote them. So in article sections pertaining to national standards (which are, after all, this article's main sources) that use a particular term, at least some deference should be paid to the terminology used in those standards; ENGVAR is not an excuse to be exclusionary. I have no objection to defaulting to "socket" but the American term of "receptacle" should not be given such short shrift within the NEMA section. I notice also that "socket-outlet" has been excised completely except in the titles of the standards that use it, and this seems to me to be excessive, particularly within the section covering British standards. Jeh (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeh's point is well made. I too find it very strange to read about American outlets in terms from my native British English rather than American English, inexcusable cultural imperialism! The same applies to the excision of "ground" in favour of "earth". I think that the American terms should be used in the section dealing with NEMA sockets. SSHamilton (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This may be a valid point. The problem that I was attempting to fix was the use of two different terms in the same paragraph, or even many sentences, where two (and occassionally three) differing terms are used giving an appearance to the uninitiated that they are different concepts. 86.166.71.0 (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Jeh and SSHamilton on use of American terminology in NEMA section. Mautby (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: I in no way am objecting to IP 86.166.71.0's fixing the uses of multiple terms for the same thing in close proximity to one another; that effort gets a "thank you" from me. I just think... well, I already said what I think. :) Jeh (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. However, it was observed above that the term 'socket' is understood by our American readers so is it actually worth anyone's time substituting one understood term for another? Having said that, if you want to invest the time, I shall not lodge any objection given that the US standards do not generally use the word 'socket'. I B Wright (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can fix it. I was just asking to see if anyone objected. Jeh (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

New "Concepts and teminology" section

I moved the last three grafs of the lede into this section as they were accumulating a lot of info that isn't really discussed elsewhere in the article - particularly the terminology.

I am thinking that this new section could also contain a paragraph or so briefly describing the terms "line", "neutral", and "earth" ("ground"). These concepts are important in understanding many aspects of the article but they're not explained here at all. Jeh (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Good move - a vast improvement. I have added the requested paragraph. Feel free to maul or improve as appropriate. I B Wright (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

BS546 - how many pins?

According to the extract, BS 546 (1950) covers "Three-pin plugs and sockets of the round-pin type, as used in domestic premises, offices, etc., for standard ratings of 2, 5, 15 and 30 amperes. Interchangeability, safety , materials, construction, dimensions. Supplement No. 2 (AMD 5809) gives additional requirements for switched socket-outlets, for use in a.c. circuits only. " The *title* is "BS 546:1950 : Specification. Two-pole and earthing-pin plugs, socket-outlets and socket-outlet adaptors" which sounds like it defines 2-pole plugs (two pins) and earthing plugs (3 pins), but the abstract says it only talks about 3 pin plugs. This is very confusing to this wild colonial boy, but they invented the language and must know what they are saying.

So, what are the 2-pin plugs talked about in our table? They aren't BS 546 and "Type D" is not very helpful. I'm not about to buy the standard, our office subscription says it costs $241.78 US! Pretty steep for a photocopy of a 60+-year-old document. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think 2 pole refers to the fact the plugs carry AC power through two pins, the third (earth) pin is additional but compulsory. It should be read as "plugs with two-pole connection and an earthing-pin". Not as "two pole plugs and earthing-pin plugs". (Two pole is a dated way of saying AC electricity). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.113.163 (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Physical protection of line and neutral in sockets

It's obvious why the contact that goes to the "hot" supply conductor needs to be shrouded. But why the "neutral" conductor? Since neutral is connected to ground at some point, you can't get shocked by touching neutral and some other grounding point.

I know that in the early days little attention was paid to preserving hot vs. neutral polarity - look at the early two-blade North American standard, they were not polarized. And even today one still sometimes finds sockets where hot and neutral have been reversed inside the walls. My suspicion is that protecting both the hot and neutral contacts is to maintain this safety aspect even if this sort of miswiring has been done. Does anyone have any sources for this, or any other explanation? Jeh (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There are a variety of fault conditions, failures as well as miswiring, which can cause the potential of the neutral contact to rise to a dangerous level. A couple of examples, a high impedance earth connection or a disconnected neutral can both cause the neutral contact on a socket to be at or near line potential. All live parts, whether line or neutral, should be protected Mautby (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks also for the additions to the C&T section. Jeh (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Europlugs and UK shaver sockets

Mautby, it might be of assistance to the article if you ceased editing on areas that you clearly know nothing about. You recently reverted an edit of mine claiming that BS 4573 sockets do not accept Europlugs. A short trawl with Google found no shortage of BS 4573 sockets that do accept Europlugs and in some cases Australian shaver plugs as well. In fact, I failed to find a single example of a BS 4573 socket that did not accept a Europlug (though that does not mean that such does not exist). The claim [Europlugs fit] "most UK shaver supply units meeting BS EN 61558-2-5 or BS 4573." is thus proven. A single example (now cited) is all that is required to prove your claim of, "...but not the older BS 4573 shaver sockets" wrong. It is unnecessary and overkill for me to add references to the other three that I found. 86.166.71.0 (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

IP 86.166.71.0, I see where you are coming from, and what you are trying to say, but that socket-outlet cannot be described as simply a BS 4573 socket as there is nothing in BS 4573 which permits insertion of anything but BS 4573 plugs. The hybrid socket you are referencing clearly accepts plugs to three different standards, and the technical data for it references IEC 83: 1975 Standard C5 and AS C112 as well as BS 4573. However, the question is, how do you word it to make clear that such capability is not a feature of a BS 4573 socket-outlet per se. I suggest that you come up with a form of words which does that, because what you have currently written is not a true statement. Mautby (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

First, you need to provide evidence that a socket conforming to BS 4573 is specifically forbidden from accepting anything other than a BS 4573 plug (the burden of proof for your claim is on you - WP:BURDEN). I have provided evidence to support my claim. Even if such evidence is found (and I don't believe it will be), as noted above, standards are not always rigourously adhered to. The socket cited claims conformance to BS 4573 yet accepts alternate plugs and one example is enough to defeat the claim. 86.166.71.0 (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This anonymous editor is making a completely pointless argument. Mautby has acknowledged the point that there are shaver sockets without transformers, therefore not meeting BS EN 61558-2-5, but which will accept Europlugs. Those sockets are hybrids which may not accurately be described as simply BS 4573 sockets. The solution is simple, so in the absence of action from the complainer I have implemented a change of wording which describes the de facto situation and avoids false descriptions. SSHamilton (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not think he was making a pointles argument and apparently neither do you. Mautby edited in (twice?) that a BS 4573 socket positively did not accept a Europlug. Your edit clearly concedes that they do, so you have agreed with the IP editor's point. Just as well, because I think you will find it very hard to find a socket conforming to BS 4573 that does not accept a Europlug as well. I B Wright (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it not completely reasonable to say that BS 4573 doesn't require or prohibit BS 4573-compliant sockets from accepting other plugs? Jeh (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

BS4573 is entirely silent on the point. The point was, I believe, that Mautby was claiming that BS 4573 sockets explicitly did not accept europlugs which is not true. I B Wright (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I B Wright, you really must stop distorting the words of others! I did not claim that BS 4573 sockets explicitly did not accept europlugs. An earlier version of this section stated that a europlug could be inserted into a variety of sockets "as well as BS 4573 UK shaver sockets", I had changed that (20Feb13) to read "and most UK shaver supply units meeting BS EN 61558-2-5 (but not the older BS 4573 shaver sockets)". The latter is perfectly true, as you rightly say there is no indication of accepting any other plug in BS 4573, and older sockets complying with BS 4573 (unlike modern hybrid shaver sockets) did not have that provision. On 26 February I reverted a change which removed the "older" qualification, which prompted this talk section. If you care to read my post above you will see that I acknowledged the fact that there are some current hybrid sockets which meet both BS 4573 and other standards, and suggested that the anonymous editor re-word the sentence to reflect this but "to make clear that such capability is not a feature of a BS 4573 socket-outlet per se". The other editor chose to continue the argument which SSHamilton describes as pointless. I am content that SSHamilton's subsequent edit provided an appropriate rewording. Mautby (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Which way are you arguing this? Are saying that you did not claim that "BS4573 sockets explicitly did not accept europlugs" are are you claiming that you did state in an edit that shaver sockets accept europlugs "but not the older BS 4573 shaver sockets". One is the logical inverse of the other. You cannot argue the point both ways and hope that no one notices. You are still showing a lack of understanding as to how standards work. If a hybrid socket accepts europlugs and claims compliance with BS4573, it can only do so provided BS4573 does not explicitly forbid the ability to accept connection of europlugs. If BS4573 did forbid such connection then the socket could not officially claim compliance with that standard. Whether the ability to accept europlugs (or any other plug come to that) may not necessarily be a specified feature of a BS4573 socket, it is totally immaterial and irrelevent. If BS4573 does not explicitly forbid the connection of other plugs (which it does not AFAICT), then a socket accepting BS4573 plugs; europlugs, Australian plugs or even plugs as used on the planet Vulcan can still be fully compliant with BS4573 provided all the specific requirements are met. The bottom line is that you cannot claim that BS4573 sockets do not accept europlugs - which you did in this edit. The current article wording is not controversial on the point. I B Wright (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of clarification I will provide some information which is stated in the (BSI prepared) sheet GB 7 of IEC 60083. Sheet GB 7 describes BS EN 50075 - the British National version of the Europlug standard. The notes on that sheet state:

1. Allowed on appliances intended for use through a Shaver Supply Unit complying with BS EN 61558-2-3

2. Forbidden for general use in domestic installations.

Mautby (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of Plugs - OR - Comparison of Sockets - OR - Comparison of Plugs and Sockets?

In December 2012 user WTShymanski changed the table headed Comparison of Sockets to become Comparison of Plugs. An anonymous user has now added a new column to the table Europlug (Type C) Compatible, as it stands this does not make sense as plugs cannot be compatible with other plugs, only with sockets. I am not saying there is anything wrong with the concept of the column, but only if it is part of a table comparing sockets. We need a consensus as to what this table actually is, a Comparison of Plugs OR a Comparison of Sockets OR a Comparison of Plugs and Sockets? Mautby (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think "plugs cannot be compatible with plugs" is a bit pedantic; everyone knows what's meant. But "Comparison of plugs and sockets" works. Heck, just "Comparison" would be adequate, given the article title: every other section isn't titled e.g. "NEMA 5-15 plug and socket", this doesn't need to be either. Or if that seems a little terse, "Comparison of standard types"... particularly given that we seem intent on not permitting mention of actual products' capabilities, only those expressly described in standards. Jeh (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

"Comparison of standard types" sounds good to me, change done. Mautby (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)