Surely this defeats the whole purpose? And given that current rating is related to pin diameter how come the designers of the Schuko standard regarded a 4. Indeed it is debatable whether the stuff about Brazilian plugs is relevant to an article about IEC given that the standards sic are seemingly completely incompatible. Will a IEC 16amp plug work in the 20amp version of the Brazilian socket?
|Published (Last):||8 June 2015|
|PDF File Size:||4.83 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.16 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Surely this defeats the whole purpose? And given that current rating is related to pin diameter how come the designers of the Schuko standard regarded a 4.
Indeed it is debatable whether the stuff about Brazilian plugs is relevant to an article about IEC given that the standards sic are seemingly completely incompatible. Will a IEC 16amp plug work in the 20amp version of the Brazilian socket? Basically for reasons best known to themselves the authorities in Brazil appear not to have being happy with what was supposed to be an attempt at a global standard and their solution was to come up with one, two, three new non- standards of their own?
Until the situation regarding relationship to and compatibility or lack thereof with IEC can be clarified the relevance between the two remains highly doubtful. We do, however, know without question that the Brazilian standard is relevant to the article as the Brazilian authorities have made it very clear that NBR is based on IEC I have added a relevant passage together with a properly sourced reference.
The question of compatibility or lack thereof needs to be determined in order to establish to what degree the standards are related and therefore how relevant it is.
The article states The 10 A socket will accept only 10 A plugs, and Europlugs, while the 20 A socket will accept both 10 A and 20 A plugs, plus Europlugs.
Will a 10 A plug fit in a 16A socket and will a 16 A plug fit in a 20 A socket? We have a clear statement from the Brazilian authorities that the NBR is "based on the draft international standard IEC ". As for your question; "Will a 10 A plug fit in a 16A socket and will a 16 A plug fit in a 20 A socket? By the same token NBR is even more loosely based on IEC but is not the same standard either and its inclusion in an article about IEC is at best irrelevent and at worsst misleading.
The questions regarding compatability are to establish is there is any relevence at all. Pin spacing alone apart from being WP:OR is obviously insufficient! However, that is not compatibility between systems, it is only a possible physical compatibility between some elements of each system, and would need a valid cited reference before such a claim were made in the article. Anyway, above "possible physical compatibility", could you give an example of a incompatibility feature between the two standards physical aspect aside?
Would any South African readers care to give us a picture on how the transition is going or not there and how they deal with the inconvenience of different sockets in older buildings or even within the same building? Its also seems odd that the question of fusing and compatibility with BS style ring circuits was never explored or if it was explored and rejected what the reasoning was I have also changed the cited reference from the actual document to the European Commission page which publishes the recommendations.
It is completely false to claim that it does not represent the EU as the "REFIT Platform brings together the Commission, national authorities and other stakeholders in regular meetings to improve existing EU legislation. Read once more what you have just quoted. And for that simple, but fundamental reason, going into partial details on minority views is critical information that should not be allowed to be concealed.
I would add that the Panel composition is also relevant, with 9 members of 20 representing industrial and entrepreneurs associations or chambers. I would also add the declared justification behind the recommendation: The Stakeholder group, noting the above analysis, does not recommend to introduce a legislative proposal to harmonise the plugs and socket-outlet systems in Europe, due to: o - the strong social and economic impact on the citizens without evident benefits in terms of safety, even in the case of heavy investments by the EU and Member States to ensure a faster transition, o - the fact that the EU and Member States may currently have other legislative and investment priorities.
I will not discuss the matter, because it is not our task, but I will oppose any attempt to conceal the lack of substance of the recommendation, done by quoting only a scanty statement of presumption that the EU had taken a position. It should also be added a more reputable on the technical side opinion , starting after the The universal plug and socket system section.
If you like, I will leave to you to expand the wording as suggested above, adding also the political nonsense as exposed by the last source. Contrary to your claim, the critical information is that "The REFIT Platform does not recommend harmonising the plugs and socket-outlet systems in Europe".
You also attempt to mislead by suggesting that the recommendation from this EU body which is, in effect, to maintain the status quo within the EU does not represent the EU! You further misrepresent the position by implying that the REFIT platform members consist only of the 20 members of the stakeholder group, while ignoring the 28 members of the government group!
You top this off by going on to claim that the abortive result of the CENELEC exercise on harmonization was in some way "more reputable! The estimated cost of harmonization back in was, according to the NY Times, estimated at billion dollars, the cost in quoted by REFIT was billion Euro. All information should be given. And I repeat, the recommendation does not represent the EU you appear to have, let us say, a particular notion of what is representation I know that there are also 28 political members, but what expertise do they bring about the recommendation?
Could you describe it? Is it a political recommendation or of a technical and economic nature? What you put in the lede makes it appear as that the EU at a Parliament, or at least at a Commission level has taken a decision, and on sound and proven reasonings.
That is not the case, what I read in the recommendation, in my humble opinion, appears as weasel arguments Brazil experience teaches us a different story. I understand that you are in no mood to expand the article content as I suggested, so I am asking you: "Are you to revert my edits if I insert che IEC summary and comments, as given from the source? Therefore, what are you doing?
And you continue to conceal the IEC porposal and critique. Are we at a standstill? Please consider the facts: This article is about the international standard IEC , it is NOT about various European suggestions that there might be advantages in having a harmonised domestic plug and socket in Europe.
The REFIT Platform did "not recommend harmonising the plugs and socket-outlet systems in Europe, due to i the strong social and economic impact on the citizens without evident benefits in terms of safety and ii the fact that the EU and Member States may currently have other legislative and investment priorities.
You also made a false claim above that the REFIT Platform consists of 20 members of whom 9 represent "industrial and entrepreneurs associations or chambers". When it was pointed out to you above that the REFIT Platform also includes 28 members of the government group you responded with the false claim that these were "political members" when in fact the majority are senior civil servants, and therefore non-political. My purpose in mentioning the recent EU publication in this article is simply that it demonstrates that the problems which countries must face to change their plugs and sockets are far from insignificant in terms of cost, inconvenience and implementation time.
The opinion relates to the practicalities of harmonisation, not any particular form of possible harmonisation. None of the government group who issued an opinion was in favour of full harmonisation. There is nothing in the published opinion to suggest that any of the stakeholder group members were in favour of full harmonisation. Naturally, apart from the technical difficulties, there was the clash of the many vested commercial and political interests and it was not surprising that, after much work and many meetings, CENELEC had to admit defeat and abandon its efforts, much to the chagrin of the Commission.
The important point is that they found that harmonisation was not practical. You write that "you continue to conceal the IEC porposal sic and critique" What on earth does that mean? The final paragraph of the IEC editorial is highly misleading, it says that "However, as the IEC continues to point out, internationally agreed standards for domestic plugs and sockets for the V and V ranges DO exist and are, even today, available to any country that cares to implement them.
However, so far only Brazil and South Africa have adopted them. Brazil used it only as the basis for their own, modified, standard which differs from IEC not only dimensionally and in current ratings, but more importantly it allows a plug connected to a V appliance to be inserted into a V socket which goes against clause 9.
Modern injection moulding technology enables robust and safe plugs to be smaller than the Schuko and BS systems, which were designed in the early and mid 20th century respectively. BS [ edit ] The IEC and BS systems have some common safety features in that plugs and sockets are polarized, and that sockets are required to have shutters for the line and neutral pins. An advantage of the IEC plug types is smaller physical sizes. The live pins are in contact while exposed.