Talk:IEC 60320

Archives

Discussions that haven't been active for some time have been archived. Check the archive for previous discussions and description of how the article arrived at its present state. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

C19/C20 example use seems unclear or implausible

"Common on Enterprise-class servers and datacenter rack-mounted power distribution units, Late 2005 PowerMac G5, Cisco 6500 Series Power Supplies, Cisco UCS 5108 Chassis, Nexus 7000 Series Core Router Power Supplies, Also used in Cisco MDS9700 series rack-mounted SAN switches."

Refers to a number of PDUs and power supplies. When one thinks "PDU" one might immediately think of the multiple power outlets that may look like this connector, but those outlets would be to sheet J spec, mating to a cable via sheet I spec connector. Should it be clarified, that this (C19/C20) is used as the power inlet of these devices/appliances? (I'm not familiar with these devices specifically, but to understand this spec, you'd have to understand that this only would refer to the power inlet to the PDU/power supply/device, not any outlet sockets.)

RobimusPrime (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

As a user of such PDUs, I can confirm that they exist and often use a C20 inlet with an array of F ("C13") outlets, sometimes with 10A circuit breakers builtin. But for higher power PDUs, transfer switches etc., it is also common with C20 inlets and J ("C19") outlets. See for example this PDU from Eaton: EFLXI3000R-PDU1UIEC (1 C20 inlet, 1 J ("C19") outlet and two fused groups of 6 F ("C13") outlets). 2A01:4F0:4018:F0:FABC:12FF:FE78:9014 (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a version of the UK 3 pin power plug with the pins turned 90 degrees for use with clean/filtered power circuits. I suspect the same rationale applies to the C19 and above variants: the rotated pins mean that it is not possible to plug everyday devices (kettles, desk fans etc) into the clean power supply and therefore it avoids sending spikes & glitches etc through to sensitive equipment such as IT equipment. 217.67.52.83 (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The above is baseless speculation which has no place here. C19 connectors are rated for a higher current and are therefore designed to be incompatible with lower current connectors. FF-UK (talk) 11:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IEC 60320. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070727234316/http://www.nema.org/stds/c84-1.cfm to http://www.nema.org/stds/c84-1.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed in the article, the page was moved, not gone. Unfortunately the redirection script on their server said "file not found" instead of "moved" but still redirected.

2A01:4F0:4018:F0:FABC:12FF:FE78:9014 (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Gender references

Male and female gender references for connectors actually refer only to the contacts, not the complete connectors. "Male" refers to a pin contact and "female" to a socket contact. Although the male and female terms are often incorrectly used to refer to connector assemblies which contain pins and socket contacts, this is not a standardized term and leads to much confusion. The article on connector gender which was linked from this article has no references to actually support the use of the male and female terms in the manner it describes, and is a complete mess.

This article is quite specifically about the IEC 60320 series of standards, and nowhere in those standards will you find mention of male or female connectors. The different types of connectors are called: Connector, Appliance inlet, Plug connector and Appliance outlet. "Connectors" and "appliance outlets" are fitted with socket contacts, and "appliance inlets" and "plug connectors" are fitted with pin contacts.

I have edited the article to remove references to male and female connectors, but added descriptions of the terms which are actually used. It is not the function of WP to reinforce or promulgate errors in terminology! FF-UK (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

New clause, 9.5, in standard.

A recent edit added a reference to clause 9.5 which was new in the latest update of the standard, IEC 60320-1:2015. However, the added content was not in a form which is compatible with the actual content of the clause, it also synthesized conclusions which we are not permitted to draw by WP:SYNTHESIS. I have replaced that reference by an uncommented quotation of part of clause 9.5. FF-UK (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Clarification regarding C13/C14 coupler

Under the section "C13/C14 coupler" the max amperage is listed as 15A, however, under the section "Appliance couplers" the same coupler has a max amperage of 10A. I've seen other conflicting information on these couplers. Can anyone verify which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flintb (talk • contribs) 20:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The 15A claim is simply wrong and I have removed it. IEC 60320 specifies a maximum current of 10A for C13/C14. FF-UK (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

As discussed elsewhere in the article the IEC rating is 10A, but the likes of UL seem prepared to approve IEC 320 connectors at higher current ratings than the IEC standard. Plugwash (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

E interconnection connector

A cable consisting of a C13 and an E interconnection connector is commonly mislabeled as an "extension cord", as although that is not the intended purpose, it can be used as such. They are also commonly mislabeled as C14 instead of E.

Anyone have a reference for this? 678Dave (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Earthing

Nowhere is specified what contact the earthing is. Probably the one in the middle. But one shouldn't have to guess. 92.184.107.43 (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

IEC C13/C14 vs C19/C20

I wonder if it should be made clearer that a common reason in more domestic situations for use of C19/C20 may be to provide universal compatibility. Especially with computer PSUs since many of these accept both North America/Japan ~120V and most of RoW ~230V, the 10A limit of an IEC C13/C14 is rarely a problem at ~230V hence the high temperature C15/C16 is used for kettles with 2000W but significantly lower wattage power supplies may use C19/C20. I suspect, but don't know this is the case for many of the "enterprise-class servers, UPSes, datacenter rack-mounted power-distribution units" that our article mentions too. The article mentions how North American rating agencies allow high current for these connectors which is sometimes used but I suspect there are a lot of times where manufacturers decide not to do it and just follow IEC standards. Nil Einne (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Diagram scale

I've changed diff the diagrams in the table to match the scale using the dimension data from[1]:

	connector width, mm	pixels: width / 28mm * 100px
C1	14	50
C3, C5	17.4	62
C7	16	57
C9, C11	20	71
C13, C15, C17	23	82
C19, C23	28	100

--M5 (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

See also - PowerCon

I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerCon deffintly deserves a space under "See also" section, foor beeing a succesor/replacement for C13/C14 and C19/C20, that is basicly better in everyway (especially PowerCon True1). Buchholzni (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)