Talk:SANS 164

This article is written in South African English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

What additional citations are needed?[edit]

@Nikolaiho: You added a global refimprove notice. Could you be more specific about which statements require references? I believe as of now every assertion in the article is backed by one of the included references. The coupling could perhaps be made tighter (some things are mentioned more than once, but only one is specifically cited), but I don't want to get into WP:OVERCITE territory. If you think the tag still applies, could you be more specific about the problems? Thank you! 68.235.53.187 (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compatibility with Schuko does define the CEE 7/17 plug[edit]

@FF-UK: "Compatibility with Schuko does not define this plug, it is also compatible with other sockets!" Er, excuse me? Yes, of course it is. It's an ungrounded variant of the CEE 7/7 plug, which is itself a hybrid designed for compatibility with CEE 7/1, CEE 7/3 (Schuko) and the French CEE 7/5 sockets. But of the three, the socket which most dominates its form is the Schuko. The required notches in the circular shied and protrusions in the socket correspond to the Schuko ground clips; there is no other standard with those features in that location. Likewise for the flats and tabs on the edge of the shield. CEE 7/1 imposes almost no constraints, and CEE 7/5 only requires one hole.

Ignoring for a moment the question of the truth of this statement, let's turn to the issue relevant to its inclusion on WP: its WP:Verifiability. In "SANS 164 standards: a working group perspective", the reference I relied on to support the summary of the SANS 146-6 plug, p. 68 describes the plug in relation to the Schuko standard. Likewise, the museum of plugs and socket describes the design as "Hybrid French - Schuko plugs". I think that's enough to justify describing the plug as Schuko-like.

The deciding factor for me is an editorial matter: it's useful to describe the plug in terms of something as many readers as possible have seen. The Schuko connectors are very common, more than the 7/1 and 7/5 ones, which is why it's the best of the three to use for comparison. This is further supported by the fact that Schuko is the main Wikipedia article describing all of these systems. Using "Schuko" as a descriptive term makes the article more informative and useful to readers, which is why I want it included.

68.235.53.187 (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP 68.235.53.187, you write that "The required notches in the circular shied (sic) and protrusions in the socket correspond to the Schuko ground clips; there is no other standard with those features in that location." which is correct to only a limited degree (in fact Schuko is a trade mark, not a standard, there are many national standards based on the CEE 7/3 socket and CEE 7/4 plug standard sheets). However, it is equally true that CEE 7/17 requires a hole to permit its insertion into a CEE 7/5 (French style) socket (there is also a permitted variant of CEE 7/17 with two holes which allows the plug to be inserted either way round in a CEE 7/6 socket) and the CEE 7/17 standard sheet makes specific reference to its use with CEE 7/1, CEE 7/3 and CEE 7/5 sockets.

You also make the false claim that in a referenced article "the summary of the SANS 146-6 plug, p. 68 describes the plug in relation to the Schuko standard", it does not! That article summary actually refers to Schuko only in the context that the Schuko plug is banned in South Africa, and accurately states that "The standard (SANS 146-6 plug) is taken from CEE 7/17".

You do, accurately, point out that The Museum of Plugs and Sockets describes the CEE 7/17 as a "Hybrid French - Schuko plug", well it would because it is a hybrid designed to fit multiple sockets, which is exactly the point!

It is completely wrong to clam that "Schuko is the main Wikipedia article describing all of these systems" because the main article describing CEE 7 plugs and sockets is actually AC power plugs and sockets!

Your final phrase "which is why I want it included" betrays your attitude as one of "ownership", I suggest that you refer to Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content, However, you should also take note of the fact that my most recent edit does include the word "Schuko" but not in isolation, it is important to not be misleading!

Compatibility with Schuko alone does NOT define this plug. FF-UK (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FF-UK: "betrays your attitude as one of "ownership","

Oh, nonsense. Are you inferring that from the words "I want"? I want to make wikipedia more informative to its readers. I want edits, made by anyone, which advance that goal. I do not want edits which are pedantically correct but obfuscate. "Legalese" i a justifiably pejorative term.

I am quite aware of the fact that Schuko is a registered trademark. I am also quite aware that it is a widely genericized trademark and commonly used to refer to plugs and sockets of that general form whether licensed by the trademark holder or not. I am further aware that most people are not familiar with the formal CEE 7/x names at all (in fact, they associate the name "CEE" with IEC 60309 plugs), and "Schuko" is the only name they know for CEE 7/4 plugs.

CEE 7/7 plugs are, the vast majority of the time, called "Schuko". Go have a look at https://www.google.com/search?q=Schuko+plug&tbm=isch and notice that at least half of them are CEE 7/7. When a layman hears the term "Schuko plug", that's what they think of.

Even CEE 7/6 sockets are sometimes inaccurately called Schuko.

Abusing the terminology even more, unearthed CEE 7/17 plugs of that shape are also commonly called "Schuko", because that's what people call all plugs with a 37 mm circular shield shaped to fit a CEE 7/4 socket, whether they actually have a Schutzkontakt or not.

If you place a CEE 7/16 Alternative II, and a CEE 7/17 plug in front of a layman and ask them to describe the difference, more than half the time they'll call one a Europlug and the other a Schuko plug.

This is, of course, formally incorrect, but it's a very common error to describe the entire family of plugs with a circular shield designed to fit into a CEE 7/4 recessed socket as "Schuko", and is therefore useful as a descriptive term. CEE 7/7 and CEE 7/17 are plugs "in the Schkuo family" even if the Schuko trademark association does not consider them legitimate.

Just as an example, here's a South African vendor selling a CEE 7/17 adapter as Schuko With Out Earth Pin". There are a zillion sellers of power tools "with Schuko plug" and I strongly suspect that many of them are double-insulated with a CEE 7/17 plug, but it's hard to find pictures which show the plug. this Dremel-like rotary tool seems to have an unearthed plug, but I can't see for sure.

"the main article describing CEE 7 plugs and sockets is actually AC power plugs and sockets!"

I do not want to get sidetracked into a debate over which of the two articles is the "main" one and I apologize for raising that red herring.

Rather, let me say that there is an article called Schuko, it describes several related CEE 7 standards, and those standards have no other mainspace articles of their own. This is the fact which I am using to support my claim that all of those standards are popularly understood to be "in the Schuko family".

The wording "unearthed Schuko type" which you removed was not, I think, grossly misleading, but you were right that it was formally incorrect. So I changed it to say that the plugs were "compatible with Schuko sockets." Which is both formally, pedantically correct and gives the lay reader a reasonable mental image of their general shape. (This is an informal description; Europlugs are also compatible with Schuko sockets, but a quite different shape.)

I can't think of a better way to describe a CEE 7/17 plug to a layman than "Schuko-shaped". To the best of my knowledge, there's nothing else commonly known which is that shape, and there's no other commonly known name for that shape. But if you have a better description, please propose it! I only ask that you propose an improved replacement; I object to deleting useful description on narrow pedantic grounds.

One thing you might know: is there an international standard or other non-South-Africa-specific name for a "CEE 7/17 socket" like SANS 164-6 defines? An unearthed socket designed to accept CEE 7/17 plugs and with features to prevent insertion of CEE 7/4, 7/6 or 7/7 plugs? I have a faint memory of some standard for unearthed CEE 7/17 power strips which defined that shape.

68.235.53.187 (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP 68.235.53.187, you wrote "I want to make wikipedia more informative to its readers." Yes! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and seeks to provide the truth, its function is not to reinforce ignorance by repeating common misconceptions. Why do you believe that the wording I used: "These plugs are the CEE-7/17 unearthed type, compatible with CEE 7/1 (unearthed), CEE 7/3 (Schuko), and CEE 7/5 (French style) sockets." is inferior to your version ""compatible with Schuko sockets.""? It is an incontrovertible fact that Schuko defines the CEE 7/3 socket and CEE 7/4 plug, it DOES NOT define any other CEE 7 connectors!

Please note what the The SCHUKO trademark association has to say on the subject: "It should be noted, that the so-called Euro plugs for 2,5 A (plugs with a flat design with two connection jacks and without an earthing connection) can be plugged harmlessly into a SCHUKO® socket, but they are not SCHUCKO® plugs, because of the missing earthing connection. The same applies for the so-called contour plug for 16 A (plug with the same connector face as the SCHUKO® with two connection jacks, but also without the earthing connection)." Do you want to claim that they too are wrong? FF-UK (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about SANS 164-6 socket-outlets?[edit]

According to the abstract of SANS 164-6 https://infostore.saiglobal.com/en-gb/Standards/SANS-164-6-Ed-1-03-2010--1451202/, it "Specifies the rating and dimensions of two-pole plugs and socket-outlets, rated at 16 A 250 V a.c., without earthing contact, for connection of class 2 equipment for household and similar purposes in South Africa."

This WP article describes only a plug, but what about the socket?

I note that the article referred to above, http://www.ee.co.za/wp-content/uploads/legacy/04%20G%20IT%20-%20SANS.pdf , mentions that "A two-pin (earthed and unearthed) socket is allowed in adaptors and also in fixed installations."

Is the two-pin unearthed socket described in SANS 164-6?

What standard defines the two-pin earthed socket?

Can someone please add pictures of these two-pin (earthed and unearthed) sockets? JimmiCheddar (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JimmiCheddar: Yes, that's a failing in the current article, something I realized when writing it and punted for future edits. Except for -5 (Europlug), all the parts define both plugs and sockets. Feel free to follow the links to the standard and improve the article if you want to get around to it before anyone else. 68.235.53.187 (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to the linked copy of SANS 164-6:2008 (which appears to be an unauthorised copy of a copyrighted document made available by a Chinese company!):

SANS 164-6:2008 defines (standard sheet 6.1) several alternative styles of socket described as "Two pole socket-outlet for class II equipment", the outlet appears to have no earth connection, but apparently defines ribs (presumably non-conductive) where the earthing clips would normally be present. The sockets appear to be designed to accept plugs having the outlines of CEE 7/4 (Schuko), CEE 7/7 (Hybrid), CEE 7/16 (Europlug) and CEE 7/17 (SANS 164-6)plugs, but not CEE 7/2 (unearthed) or CEE 7/6 (French) plugs. The specification includes the requirement that "It shall not be possible to insert a plug for class 0 or class 1 equipment into the socket-outlet (see gauge C4 in Annex D)." Gauge C4 appears to have the dimensions of a CEE 7/4 plug, but as I have already noted, the SANS 164-6 sockets appear to be designed to accept a CEE 7/4 plug, and it is difficult to imagine a socket which will accept a CEE 7/4 plug but not a CEE 7/17 plug! Of course, there have been two revision's of SANS 164-6 since that examined, and it may be that SANS 164-6 Ed. 1.03 (2010) has corrected this anomaly, or removed the definition of the SANS 164-6 socket, or changed its specification. However, the preview of the current version available on the SABS website states : "This part of SANS 164 covers the rating and dimensions of two-pole plugs and socket-outlets, rated at 16 A 250 V a.c., without earthing contact, for connection of class II equipment for household and similar purposes in South Africa." It also still shows the "Gauge C4" in the index.

Does anyone manufacture such sockets? Crabtree have told me that they do not manufacture any unearthed sockets. FF-UK (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FF-UK: "The sockets appear to be designed to accept plugs having the outlines of CEE 7/4 (Schuko), CEE 7/7 (Hybrid),"

Actually, the sockets appear to be designed to be deliberately incompatible with 7/4 and 7/7 plugs. Specifically, the nonconductive ribs protrude farther into the socket than the 7/4 contacts. This is clearest in the alternative which includes a circular "earth pin". The rib connects the outside of the socket to the earth pin, ensuring that a 7/7 plug cannot seat fully.

This all comes about because the 7/3 earth contacts are spring-loaded. 7/4 and 7/7 plugs are wider than the neutral position of those contacts, and push them back during insertion. 7/17 plugs have deeper notches so they do not touch the earth contacts at all.

The deliberately incompatibility is created by including a non-retractable "earth contact" which fits into the deeper 7/17 notches.

68.235.53.187 (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that explanation of the incompatibility mechanism. Do you know if such sockets are actually manufactured, and if so, by whom? FF-UK (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a number of "CEE 7/17 extension cord"s for sale on alibaba, e.g.:

So it looks like there are a non-zero number of sources. Of course, being for sale on alibaba doesn't mean it follows any particular specification or approval. 68.235.53.187 (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the examples (which provide useful pictures to show the socket arrangement), but those are all extension cables with a trailing socket at one end, and a CEE 7/17 plug at the other end, not wall sockets. An extension cable is clearly of no use unless there is a suitable socket to plug it into! Is anyone actually manufacturing the SANS 164-6 fixed socket-outlet? FF-UK (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]