Talk:IEC 60906-1

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, 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)
 * Fours years on and this is not the case, american style plugs are impossible to find right now and if you buy a new house or an appliance like an UPS, you are going to have to change to the new standard yourself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.67.241.160 (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I found this link with a picture of the plug.--70.241.22.218 (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I found another picture of an IEC 60906-1 plug along with an europlug.--76.31.205.97 (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see 3 plugs, but none is IEC 60906-1. --Robertiki (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

https://www.crabtree.co.za/ Receptacles are in the "Switches and Sockets" menu. Plugs are named Slimline and at the bottom of the "Domestic Range " menu. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

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)


 * The article is very confusing.
 * the introduced standard has a pin diameter of 4mm for the 10A plug and 4.8mm for the 20A plug, while the original standard has a single pin diameter of 4.5mm and a maximum current of 16A.[1] ..... However, their (pin) diameter is 4.5mm, unlike the Schuko and the Class I-lookalike Brazilian 20-amp NBR 14136 plug, which both have 4.8mm pin diameter, while the 10A Brazilian plug has a diameter of 4mm


 * {| class="wikitable"

!Socket Type !Pin Diameter (mm) !Current Rating (Amps) !Remarks
 * bgcolor=green|Schuko||	bgcolor=yellow|4.8||	bgcolor=red|16 	||10 Amps on DC systems
 * bgcolor=green|GOST 7396||	bgcolor=yellow|4.8||	bgcolor=red|10	||Old Soviet Version of Schuko
 * bgcolor=green|GOST 7396||	bgcolor=yellow|4.0||	bgcolor=red|6	||Old Soviet Version of Schuko
 * bgcolor=green|BS 546 -Type M||	bgcolor=yellow|7.06||	bgcolor=red|15	||Earth pin 8.71mm (Used in South Africa and India)
 * bgcolor=green|BS 546 -Type D||	bgcolor=yellow|5.08||	bgcolor=red|5	||Earth pin 7.06mm
 * bgcolor=green|BS 546||	bgcolor=yellow|3.56 ||	bgcolor=red|2	||Earth pin 5.08mm
 * bgcolor=green|"IEC 60906-1"||	bgcolor=yellow|4.0||	bgcolor=red|10 	||Variant adopted in Brazil
 * bgcolor=green|IEC 60906-1||	bgcolor=yellow|4.5||	bgcolor=red|16 	||Originally envisaged standard
 * bgcolor=green|NBR 14136||	bgcolor=yellow|4.8||	bgcolor=red|20 	||Another variant adopted in Brazil
 * }
 * bgcolor=green|BS 546||	bgcolor=yellow|3.56 ||	bgcolor=red|2	||Earth pin 5.08mm
 * bgcolor=green|"IEC 60906-1"||	bgcolor=yellow|4.0||	bgcolor=red|10 	||Variant adopted in Brazil
 * bgcolor=green|IEC 60906-1||	bgcolor=yellow|4.5||	bgcolor=red|16 	||Originally envisaged standard
 * bgcolor=green|NBR 14136||	bgcolor=yellow|4.8||	bgcolor=red|20 	||Another variant adopted in Brazil
 * }
 * bgcolor=green|IEC 60906-1||	bgcolor=yellow|4.5||	bgcolor=red|16 	||Originally envisaged standard
 * bgcolor=green|NBR 14136||	bgcolor=yellow|4.8||	bgcolor=red|20 	||Another variant adopted in Brazil
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }


 * So Basically Brazil haven't adopted the IEC 60906-1 standard at all but dreamt up not just one but two variants of their own. 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 4.8 mm pin diameter necessary to carry 16 amps of mains current while the IEC 60906-1 designers think they can get away with 4.5mm ? Similarly how does one explain the disparity between the pin diameters/currents ratings between the BS546 and IEC 60906-1 systems used in South Africa ? 89.242.207.184 (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed the article is pretty confusing on this point. Indeed it is debatable whether the stuff about Brazilian plugs is relevant to an article about IEC60906-1 given that the standards (sic) are seemingly completely incompatible. Will a IEC60906-1 (16amp) plug work in the 20amp version of the Brazilian socket ? The article doesn't state. 82.132.243.205 (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I've put a relevance tag on the section about Brazil NBR 14136 as it is (at best) only loosely based on IEC 60906. 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 60906 can be clarified the relevance between the two remains highly doubtful. 81.141.224.109 (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This article cannot comment on the compatibility between "a IEC60906-1 (16amp) plug" and "the 20amp version of the Brazilian socket" unless a valid reference source for that information can be found. 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 14136 is based on IEC 60906-1.  I have added a relevant passage together with a properly sourced reference.  FF-UK (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Based on" /=/ "The same as" IEC60906 itself is "based on" CEE7 series plugs/sockets but it's not the same standard. 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. but no mention about accepting 16A (IEC 60906-1) plugs. Will a 10 A plug fit in a 16A socket and will a 16 A plug fit in a 20 A socket ? 86.174.216.244 (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So what is your point, as far as this article is concerned? We have a clear statement from the Brazilian authorities that the NBR 14136 is "based on the draft international standard IEC 60906-01".  We also know that the IEC themselves classify both the Brazilian and the South African plugs as "Type N", see Plug Type N on the IEC website.  I know of no source for claiming that "IEC60906 itself is "based on" CEE7 series plugs/sockets".  Quite clearly there are very significant differences between Schuko and IEC 60906, not just different pin sizes, but also Schuko's lack of polarization and its completely different earthing method, as well as a complete lack of interchangeability between the two types.  It is also unclear why you link to CEE7 (a series of connectors which does NOT include the IEC 60906 connector type) when referring to Schuko which is the trade name of the CEE 7/3 socket and CEE 7/4 plug only.  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?" that sounds like the sort of question you might ask on an electrical forum, but as this is WP:NOTAFORUM it is not appropriate here.  FF-UK (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * IEC60906 is (loosely) based on" CEE7 in the sense that it uses the same 19 mm pin spacing as most existing European systems (Schuko, etc.) and is specifically designed to be compatable with Europlugs but its not the same standard. By the same token NBR 14136 is (even more loosely) based on IEC60906 but is not the same standard either and its inclusion in an article about IEC60906 is at best irrelevent and at worsst misleading. The questions regarding compatability are to establish is there is any relevence at all. 86.174.216.244 (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We have a proper reference for the statement that NBR 14136 is "based on the draft international standard IEC 60906-01". Do you have a source for your highly improbable claim that "IEC60906 is (loosely) based on" CEE 7?  Pin spacing alone (apart from being WP:OR) is obviously insufficient! FF-UK (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would add that a IEC 60906-1 plug fits easily in a NBR 14136 20A socket, if that is not compatibility, what is it ? --Robertiki (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It may be that an IEC 60906-1 plug fits an NBR 14136 20A socket, and it may also be that an NBR 14136 10A plug fits an IEC 60906-1 socket. 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.  FF-UK (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was answering to the statement "seemingly completely incompatible". Anyway, above "possible physical compatibility", could you give an example of a incompatibility feature between the two standards (physical aspect aside) ? --Robertiki (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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)
 * Its a strange one alright ! Surely transition sockets are a better (and safer) solution than faffing around with adaptors (often of dubious quality/design) and would be more likely to drive acceptance of the standard globally. 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 BS1363 style ring circuits was never explored (or if it was explored and rejected what the reasoning was) 81.141.224.109 (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

REFIT Platform Opinion
About the revert, the REFIT Platform Opinion is not a report and neither represents the EU. --Robertiki (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The report referred to is titled as an "Opinion" but is published by the European Commission as "REFIT Platform Recommendations – Internal Market: XII.24.a - “Plugs and sockets”" I have reverted your changes but modified my original language to refer to the report as "recommendations".  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." https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/refit-making-eu-law-simpler-and-less-costly/refit-platform_en    "The REFIT Platform was set up by the May 2015 Better Regulation Communication to advise the Commission on how to make EU regulation more efficient and effective while reducing burden and without undermining policy objectives. It consists of a Government Group, with one seat per Member State and a Stakeholder Group with 18 members and two representatives from the European Social and Economic Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Platform members' work includes reviewing suggestions received via the online 'Lighten the load - Have your say' form and making recommendations to the Commission." https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/refit-making-eu-law-simpler-and-less-costly/refit-platform/role-structure-and-working-methods-refit-platform_en  It is unnecessary in this article to go into partial details on minority views amongst the participants. FF-UK (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The REFIT Platform advises the Commission, but does not represent EU. 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.
 * which should be made evident to highlight how it misses the point. 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. --Robertiki (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Robertiki, nothing is being concealed, there is a reference to the full recommendations for anyone who wishes to read them. 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 1995 abortive result of the CENELEC exercise on harmonization was in some way "more reputable!  The estimated cost of harmonization back in 1995 was, according to the NY Times, estimated at 125 billion dollars, the cost in 2017 quoted by REFIT was 100 billion Euro.  (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/12/style/12iht-post.t.html ) FF-UK (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel that all the information should be bought at the reader and not only to who wishes to read them. My idea of a encyclopedia is to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; alright, I am kidding, but not much :-) That is, that there should not be made choices between critical information and less critical. 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 ? The REFIT panel is only a consultative body, without any EU representation. It happens often that consultative body recommendations are simply ignored by the executive power, so a recommendation from REFIT is only a REFIT recommendation and no more. 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). And I feel that I may not be the only one, so the reasons should be put in the article, letting any reader make his opinion, without having, first, to suspect that something doesn't feel good, and so follow a wish to read more. About the CENELEC excercise (your words), I feel it has the same weight as the REFIT recommendation and therefore should be put in the article. Don't you agree ? 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 ?" --Robertiki (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added a mention of the 1990s abortive attempt by CENELEC to achieve a common standard. FF-UK (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You understand that the CENELEC proposal was not that of the IEC 60906-1 ? Therefore, what are you doing ? And you continue to conceal the IEC porposal and critique. If you can't understand my points, I suppose we need a third opinion. Are we at a standstill ? --Robertiki (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Robertiki, you seem to be very confused about this subject. Please consider the facts:

FF-UK (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is about the international standard IEC 60906-1, it is NOT about various European suggestions that there might be advantages in having a harmonised domestic plug and socket in Europe.
 * Following consideration of an Italian citizen's suggestion that there be an EU standard plug and socket, the REFIT Platform (an EU body set up "to advise the Commission on how to make EU regulation more efficient and effective while reducing burden and without undermining policy objectives") did not support the suggestion. 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."
 * In your first edit of the article itself, you made a completely false claim in your edit comment that the REFIT Platform opinion on the subject (as published by the EU at https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/refit-platform-recommendations-internal-market-xii24a-plugs-and-sockets_en ) is "Not EU but a lobby)"!
 * 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". In fact the REFIT Platform has 48 members, of whom only 8 represent industry bodies.
 * 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 REFIT Platform opinion has nothing to say on IEC 60906, other than to acknowledge its existence. 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.
 * The IEC editorial now linked from the article says "CENELEC took as its starting point the IEC standard of 1986 and spent thousands of man-hours undertaking the almost impossible task of modifying the design with the aim of ensuring 100% risk-free operation of the system when used in conjunction with all the existing plug types in Europe. 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." So, CENELEC were attempting to see if a modified IEC 60906-1 would meet the harmonisation requirement.  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 IEC has offered a standard, IEC 60906-1, which is certainly not concealed!  It is not the place of the IEC to makes proposals as to who should accept its standards, that is up to individual national standards bodies and/or governments.
 * 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 250V and 125V 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." In fact, only South Africa has adopted IEC 60906-1.  Brazil used it only as the basis for their own, modified, standard which differs from IEC 60906-1 not only dimensionally and in current ratings, but more importantly it allows a plug connected to a 127V appliance to be inserted into a 220V socket which goes against clause 9.2 of IEC 60884-1 which states "It shall not be possible, within a given system, to engage a plug with – a socket-outlet having a higher voltage rating."

Paraguay
According to several news articles (and the INTN itself) I found and translated, Paraguay might be on the path to introducing IEC 60906-1.

The national version/translation of the standard has been developed by the government's institute for technology INTN.

I have to say, my Spanish is not good enough to understand whether the standard is really on it's way or whether this is just a vague annoucement. Maybe a Spanish speaking native can shed light onto the matter?

Sources:

https://www.intn.gov.py/index.php/noticias/lanzamiento-de-la-norma-pnaiec-60906-de-fichas-y-tomacorrientes

https://www.lanacion.com.py/tendencias/2022/11/17/anuncian-cambios-en-fichas-y-tomacorrientes/

https://amigocamionero.com.py/intn-presento-norma-de-los-nuevos-tomacorrientes-que-deberan-utilizarse-en-paraguay/

-- Xolani (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)