Talk:Schuko/Archive 1

Dimensions
If someone with an SVG editor (e.g. Inkscape) and some spare time wants to have a go at redrawing a diagram, here are the plug's dimensions. Markus Kuhn 21:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well anyone can download and use Inkscape, just incase you didn't realise... //Ae:æ 23:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But sadly you cannot download spare time ...

Schuko socket in US box?
A remodeling contractor recently told me that there is a version of the Schuko socket which will instlall in a US size electrical box. If anyone can find evidence (and better yet a photo) of this it would be well worth inclusion in the article. The only way I managed to do it was to buy an outlet in Germany, modify the heck out of it, cut an opening in a US size box blanking plate, and munge the whole mess together. With designer kitchens and a mobile public there are occurences now when people have a 240V European appliance which they want to use in a US kitchen. --StuffOfInterest 12:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes such an animal exists. South Korean wall sockets are both Schuko or standard non-grounded and are designed to fit in American-sized boxes. StephanieNYC 15:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd have thought you'd run into regs issues with a european socket in the USA, wouldn't it be simpler to just use a NEMA 6 and change the plug on the appliance? Plugwash 22:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not if you'll be going home again some day ;-). (Just speculating.)
 * Atlant 01:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the American standard for electrical installation boxes for sockets and switches, i.e. the U.S. equivalent of the German DIN 49073 and the British BS 4662 standards? Markus Kuhn 11:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's the National Electrical Code (US). But you'll need someone who knows it better than I do to determine exactly what it says about what "wiring devices" are acceptable to the code. And then there's the further problem that local government agencies (states, counties, cities, etc.) don't necessarily adopt the NEC in its entirety; sometimes they "tweak" its requirements for good or bad reasons, so the NEC isn't the absolutely final word on what's legal to install.
 * Atlant 11:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that answered my question. The National Electrical Code (US) defines safety requirements for electrical installations. It is the U.S. equivalent of the German DIN/VDE 0100 or the British BS 7671 wiring regulations. But it does not define the exact dimensions of particular products at a level that guarantees compatibility. German or British installation boxes may well fulfill the NEC safety requirements (e.g., minimum volumes and clearances, flamability tests, grounding requirements, etc.), but they still will be mechanically incompatible with the types of installation accessories most commonly sold in the U.S. (exact shape and dimensions, position and type of fixing screws, etc.). For these, there must be some other product-compatibility standard. Markus Kuhn 13:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that would be National Electrical Manufacturers Association? As in NEMA connectors? Atlant 13:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * ANSI/NEMA OS 1-2003: Sheet-Steel Outlet Boxes, Device Boxes, Covers, and Box Supports and NEMA OS 3-2002: Selection and Installation Guidelines for Electrical Outlet Boxes sound like plausible starting points. Sadly their PDF download mechanism seems broken for the NEMA OS-3 document. Markus Kuhn 14:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Back to the original question: It seems that International Configurations is a U.S. manufacturer of Schuko sockets that might have what you are looking for. Markus Kuhn 14:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, if they don't have it I doubt that anyone will. Thanks.  One thing that did jump out right away is that they have a plug adapter to take a Schuko (CEE7) plug to a US NEMA 6-15 receptacle (catalog page 117).  Mention of a product like this might make sense in the article as it shows the compatability between US and European standards. --StuffOfInterest 14:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Countries using Schuko plugs
I do not believe that shuko plugs are standardised for new installations in 40 countries. Could you please add list of such countries into the article? List of countries where shuko was used in the past (mentioned Ireland) would be interesting too. Probably there could be misunderstanding regarding the former Soviet republics they used very similar plugs but with smaller contacts although many of them changed to shuko recently. I have found that shuko is currently being used in Germany, Austria (probably often confused with Australia?), Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Portugal (?), Spain (?), South Korea. Links: --pabouk 07:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * http://users.pandora.be/worldstandards/electricity.htm (comprehensive but I do not beleive it much)
 * http://www.powercords.co.uk/standard.htm#GERMAN
 * http://www.stayonline.com/reference-international-plugs.aspx (Korea)
 * http://www.interpower.com/icl/Continental_Europe.htm (inaccurate)
 * http://www.interpower.com/icl/countryspec.htm


 * We have already List of countries with mains power plugs, voltages and frequencies, which lists even more countries, though I don't know how authoritative that list is and it may be difficult to get good data that meets your qualification "for new installations". IEC/TR 60083 might be the most comprehensive resource on this, but sadly I still don't have access to a copy and is a bit expensive. The Merlin-Gerin guide might also be a good source (quoted under the above list). Markus Kuhn 10:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice aspect
A nice aspect of Schuko sockets are the touchable ground / earth contacts. So if you want to have ground potential on your body, for example when working with static sensetive electronic devices such as ICs, you can touch the ground contacts on Schuko sockets easily. --Abdull 15:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. 84.48.202.181 (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Denmark
Denmark is in EU, but Schukos are unallowed. The country uses its own standard, just recently allowing a variation of the French/Belgian type. No actual installations (or availability of wall plugs) for the latter are currently known. Ref. discussion on DK electical power engineering website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andershl (talk • contribs) 16:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Male Earth Pin V's Side Earth
In France, Poland, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Slovakia (and possibly some other countries) they have an interesting variant of the German originated Schuko (CEE 7/4)socket which involves replacing the "Side Earth" contacts with a male earth pin on the sockets (most of the plugs are designed to be compatible with either system CEE 7/7). The apparent advantage of this system is that it is polorised. Is this system also known as "Schuko" or is there some other name (apart from CEE 7/5). Did Poland and Czech(/)Slovakia always use this system or did they previously use the (Soviet) GOST sockets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.87.162 (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I usually refer to them as "French Schuko", but as far as I know there's not an official name apart from the CEE designation.
 * Note that these plugs are not considered polarized, although they fit the socket only in one way. Both sockets and plugs are mostly wired randomly, so any assumption about polarity fails and is hazardous. Also, these plugs generally fit "German Schuko" sockets too, allowing polarity reversal. Consequently, appliance manufacturers are not allowed to make polarity assumptions. Jaho (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know any common name which would be used in CZ/SK. In old days, ČSR used what is now named as GOST (2pin ungrounded 6A), but it is originally Edison's system. In 1932 it was due to high number of injuries decided to introduce grounded system. The first proposal was Schuko, but it was covered with 11 patents, which was unacceptable. Then they withdraw demands based on these patents, but only for the area of Czechoslovakia, which also wasn't accepted and Czechoslovakia adopted French system (by adopting Belgian standard). Early after that Poland also adopted this standard. Germans realized, that their system won't succeed if it will be covered with patents, so they withdraw them and tried to force Czechoslovakia to use Schuko, but French system was already in use and it didn't seem the switch to have any significant advantage. --82.99.180.134 (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Illegal in South Africa?
I found this while looking for permanent Schuko sockets. As far as I understand it, it is now illegal to sell Schuko plugs and sockets in South Africa. I don't know why (and I am curious), and I don't know how this affects adaptors and extension leads, or devices that come fitted with Schuko plugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.85.150 (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Research on this topic led me to the article SANS 164 standards: a working group perspective. One page 3 middle column it states about the prohibition of the Schuko system: The main reason lies in the fact that many unearthed two-pin adaptors will accommodate an earthed plug, with potentially dangerous consequences.. --Paddy2706 (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

So, er... how large is the plug / the socket cut-out itself?
I think that is sort of critical information, seeing as something that's a half millimetre too big won't fit into the socket, and something that's more than a millimetre or two too small won't mate up to it in a safe and secure fashion ... but, there's no information given for that at all. All we get are the dimensions and relationship between the terminal pins themselves. As I'm not a european myself, can someone help? Either with reference to actual standards or even just breaking out a metal ruler and a nearby plug? There's no mention of this on the Europlug page, either, so that could do with a similar update. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

440V service
The sentence on 440 V service does not make sense. What is normally used is 400 V three phase, giving 230 V between each phase and neutral. And assuming an american system (two phases, 180 degrees apart, and neutral), one would expect the service to be 460 V. But as far as I know, no European country uses such a system? 85.228.28.99 (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * given that that content is both incoherent, uncited, inconsistant with my understanding of normal european practice and the edits were performed by an anon i'm undoing them. Plugwash (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * IIRC it's either 400 or 415V as the 3-phase standard in Europe; the phases are 120 degrees apart, which is why the net difference between each is indeed in the 220-240V range rather than 200-210. My fellow unregistered user may have written their argument rather badly but it doesn't mean that they're actually wrong. It's the first time I've heard of 440V also. In special cases there may be 480V 2-phase, but that's either uncommon or I've actually just dreamt it; IIRC if you have two phases coming in they'll prove to actually be an incomplete subset of the main 3-phase supply (...and as such you can still get ~230V by tapping between their offset 415V feeds). Something like that, anyway. I'm not enough of an expert to couch this in entirely correct terms, but feel free to look it up and see how much of what I've written bears water before rushing to slag them off. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Schuko or GOST
I have a few Schuko plugs in my toolbox. Some are marked "10-16/250" while others are marked "16/250". Am I correct in assuming the former are actually (10 amp) GOST plugs and only the latter are true (16 amp) Schuko plugs ? 80.229.222.48 20:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Answer: No, they were originally dual rated for both AC and DC. 10A applies to DC supplies (obsolete) and 16A applies to AC.
 * It's just an archaic marking that has hung around long after the close-down of DC distribution systems.


 * How much compatibility really exists between systems (like Schuko) with 4.8 mm pins and those (like GOST) with 4.0 mm pins. Surely even if it is possible to place a GOST plue in a Schuko socket the contact surface area will be insufficient and will result in overheating if anything more than a couple of amps is drawn ? 86.112.87.162 (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Presumably depends on how close together the springloaded internal contacts inside the plug itself sit when no plug is inserted. If they rest in a position less than 4mm apart, and are pushed open to either 4 or 4.8mm when the pins are inserted, then it shouldn't make so much difference other than for the 0.8mm difference itself (and, presumably, thinner gauge wiring in the cord). The cross-section difference between 4.8 and 4.0 works out to 1.44x, which means that if you're rounding off to certain standard current capacities, 10A for 4.0 and 16A for 4.8 is entirely possible (rather than 10.0/14.4, or 11.1/16.0 ...) 193.63.174.211 (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Polarization/Fusing
Why the sockets need to be polarized? What is the reason? Better write the answer in article or link it to other article which is answering my question.


 * The criticism-section says that "Schuko sockets are criticised for being unpolarized by design." I understand the safety aspect for using polarized AC-connectors, but in my (professional) opinion, this aspect is so slim (in some earthing system it's not ever there at all) that the convenience of both-way insertion outweighs it. Also, the firm connection between a Schuko-socket and plug is actually a really good feature in my opinion, and equipment that are plugged in and out frequently (like mobile phone chargers) generally use europlugs, which can be taken in and out of a Schuko-socket easily. 84.48.202.181 (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And also for being unfused, which to me makes it sound like someone arguing in favor of British plugs and sockets, not remarking on Schuko per se. The reference to IEC 60906-1 is interesting though, even if the article covering it states that "it was intended to become the common mains plug and socket standard [...]" (and that nothing has happened in 20+ years).  I really don't see much of actual criticism in this section; perhaps it could even be removed.  -- magetoo 12:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Of course the plugs are sometimes hard-to-insert and hard-to-remove, but this is actually a safety feature, because having a plug inserted basically prevents it from harming kids sticking forks in it. Also, I find the aspect of having fuses at a central place in your house a lot more convenient than having them in your outlets, but this is my very own opinion.91.65.91.190 (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Polarity does matter for some appliances (including electronic devices with some types of transformerless power supply) Its also an issue if plug or appliance fuses were to end up on the neutral side of the supply. How anyone could find it more convenient to have to go to a central place in your house in order to change to a different rated fuse everytime one decides to unplug an electric heater from a socket outlet and plug (say) a radio or small lamp in there is a bit of a mystery and what if one has large and small appliances on the same circuit ? In any case the fuses in BS1363 plugs are in addition to rather than an alternative to the fuse on the ring/branch circuit. (not a massive fan of BS1363 either. It's not without inherent flaws of its own)213.40.115.69 (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Years later: The DE Wikipedia article explains why Schuko plugs don't have a defined neutral; it seems that in the early days, distribution was three-phase 127/220 volts and to get 220 at the socket, two phases were used; both of whcih were above ground potential, neither phase being a neutral. WIsh I could find an English-language source for this, it would explain the lack of concern with neutrals in the CEE sockets. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That was the case in Italy too. Homes had two separate electric circuits: one at 220V (two live wires plus grounding) for large appliances, and one at 127V (live+neutral, usually without grounding) for lighting. Some parts of Rome retained this system until about the year 2000. This is also the historical reason why Italian plugs and sockets come in two different sizes, the smaller one being almost identical to Type C when non grounded, but allowed up to 10A instead of the Europlug's 2.5A limit. E.caberlotto (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Belarus
According to the map Belarus only uses 2.5 Amp (CEE7/6) Europlugs. So how do they connect up appliances/devices drawing more than 2.5 Amps ? 90.198.231.108 (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Map is incorrect, because they uses the Schuko of course. -Fruktazi (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

live vs. line
An edit altering "line"—"live" was reverted with the summary "Both pins are defined as live, but only one will be connected to the line!". Could anyone help suggest a wording that would be clearer and help avoid potential confusion? The paragraph appears to be discussing how the reader can identify the contact with the greatest potential to earth/ground potential. —Sladen (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have clarified the wording. FF-UK (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , thank you very much for taking the initiative with improving the wording. I've now been hunting around for possible cites for the word "line", and so far only came up with —though this is possibly influenced by the L1–N–L2 split 110v arrangement found in North America.  I haven't yet been able to find a good WP:RS citation for "line" being used for Schuko instead of "live".  (I did find the various copies of this Wikipedia article, before excluding them!).  Has anyone else been able to find a good cite for "line"?  —Sladen (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As the Schuko is incapable of distinguishing between line and neutral then the latter two terms are not often found in the same sentence as Schuko! The terms 'live', 'line' and 'neutral' are all well understood in relation to electrical wiring and have been standardized by the IEC.  Definitions are normally to be found in the preamble to both IEC and national electrical standards, but are most easily accessed on the IEC Electropedia website.


 * The IEC defines 'live' as "qualifies a conductive part intended to be energized in normal operation Note – A neutral conductor is considered as live"  See: http://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/display?openform&ievref=151-15-60


 * The IEC defines 'line conductor' as a "conductor which is energized in normal operation and capable of contributing to the transmission or distribution of electric energy but which is not a neutral or mid-point conductor". See: http://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/display?openform&ievref=195-02-08


 * The IEC defines 'neutral conductor' as "conductor electrically connected to the neutral point and capable of contributing to the distribution of electric energy". See: http://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/display?openform&ievref=195-02-06


 * You will also find a couple of book citations (both American and British) for 'live' here: AC_power_plugs_and_sockets I hope this helps. FF-UK (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for engaging; it is reassuring when discussion occurs rather than reverts. Most of the references to "line" at the IEC dictionary appear to note deprecation of the terms (if my reading is correct).  Perhaps, per WP:ENGVAR we can find a word that is less ambiguous in all contexts: perhaps "conductor"?
 * On a related note, I can see that the article a duplicated and WP:PIPED link to AC power plugs and sockets.  We usually seek to avoid duplication of links per WP:OVERLINK, and instead to provide prose rather than disjoint statements per WP:SEEALSO et al (an off-line reader may not have the benefit of immediately clicking.  Piping a link to a clashing link is also avoided per WP:EGG in order to avoid reader confusion.  Could we perhaps consider removing, moving, or rewording the  sentence from the lede and finding a way of bringing it into the style of policy that Wikipedia uses?
 * Please remember, I reverted you because you introduced a basic error into the article, I saw no need for discussion, simply correction (with explanation). You are now completely misreading the IEC reference!  The outdated terms phase conductor and pole conductor have been deprecated in favour of the accepted term line conductor.  We do not use the term conductor to refer to the current carrying parts of plugs and sockets, but the more specific term pin for the part in a plug, and contact for the mating part in the socket, so in most mains plugs and sockets we have a line pin and neutral pin etc.  However, because of the deficiency in the basic design of the Schuko we cannot ascribe those terms with any precision, hence the reason for the paragraph under discussion.  Your suggestion for reducing ambiguity would actually introduce one where currently there is no ambiguity!  I have not added a duplicate link, but a link to a specific section in the other article which is, effectively, an introduction to those in need of some explanation of the terms used.  I placed it in the lede because your intervention is an example of what happens when someone without an understanding of the terms leaps in without further thought.  The alternative is to copy the section from the main article.  I have also placed a hidden warning to editors, as has been used for several years in other related articles, in an attempt to discourage other editors doing what you did! FF-UK (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If something is repeatedly happening, it is likely an indication that the wording (over several years) remains sub-optimal. It would be beneficial to find an accurate way of fixing that sub-optimality, in way that does not confuse or risk making readers feel uncomfortable.  Adding a piped link  is fairly unusual and probably won't help (see WP:EGG); and duplication of content probably wouldn't help either (equivalent to using a Bigger Hammer).


 * What will likely help is perhaps expanding on such an explanation as we have the start of here. Perhaps the following would work "The outdated terms phase conductor and pole conductor have been deprecated in favour of the accepted term line conductor. In the context of the current carrying parts of plugs and sockets, the more specific term pin for the part in a plug (male), and contact for the mating part in the socket (female), so in most mains plugs and sockets there are one-of-more line pin and neutral pin, together being referred to as live pins (those carrying energy in normal conditions).  Because of lack of polarisation in the design of the Schuko sockets it is not possible to ascribe those terms with full precision."  —Sladen (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is utterly meaningless! As it is so clear that you really have no idea about the subject I suggest that you simply walk away before you do any further damage. FF-UK (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be constructive and useful to see the article improved, and your assistance in doing so would be appreciated—please try keep focused on the content (see WP:NPA). The text used as a starting point here is based on the explanation given just above, with the off-topic/personal comments removed.  If it is confusing for yourself to read, this could indicate why it could be hard for others to follow as-well.  Hence why it would be beneficial to improve the existing text.  Could you perhaps help by suggesting an alternative or better wording if this text is an unsuitable starting point?  —Sladen (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that the current wording, with the small modifications which I added, is just fine. I understand that you are having difficulty with some of the concepts, but this is an article about a specific plug and socket, not a general treatise on the subject.  FF-UK (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, lets try and keep this focused on improving the content and ensuring that claims and terminology being made are cited. This is where your assistance would be very useful.  Please try to ensure that the line/neutral/live terminology is fully backed by reference to a WP:RS, so that our readers have something to refer to.  Others can assist with wording and prose once good source material is found.   (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sladen You are the one who has elected to remove the link to the terminology section in the overarching article! FF-UK (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia cannot be a citation for itself. Inline WP:LINKs within WP:PROSE are used for helping the reader to find related articles; but we try not to WP:OVERLINK.  There is an option to use a WP:SEEALSO section, but ideally the See also section should be empty, because all relevant links are in the text itself.  In order for Wikipedia to be WP:VERifiable, the WP:CITEs themselves should be to reliable external sources (ie. books, academic journals).  We merely distill what is written, and point to it, along with the page number and metadata to allow re-finding it.  —Sladen (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet again, you completely fail to understand the point! We have an overarching article on the main subject, AC power plugs and sockets which includes a section on concepts and terminology which is properly supported by references to RS. The intention of this section was, I believe, to assist those who are not familiar with the subject (such as yourself) to understand the important underlying concepts.  Linking to this is not citing WP as source, it is an efficient way of directing the reader to information they may need in order to understand the article itself, which is not a function of 'see also'.  As I said earlier, an alternative would be to repeat that section in this article. FF-UK (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Pointing to another section in another article (even with an WP:EGG-compliant pipe) is unlikely to address, for the reader, how to describe the conductors in a Schuko socket. In a single-phase IEC 60309 socket we would have L1–N–PE (or L–N–E).  In a BS 1363 socket we would have L1–N–PE (or L–N–E).  So the question for the reader remains how to adequately and accurately address unpolarised Schuko/Italian sockets.  This is the question that is not addressed particularly well at the moment.  Assistance in doing this would be appreciated.  —Sladen (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Origins of Standard and proposed article rename.
"The Schuko system originated in Germany. It is believed to date from 1925 and is attributed to Albert Büttner, a Bavarian manufacturer of electrical accessories" The Standard may have originated in 1925 but its unearthed predecessor/variant CEE 7/1 would appear to have an even longer history according to this article. Interestingly most of continental Europe seems to have converged on a de-facto (unearthed) standard as early as 1900 according to this article. Only to diverge again (into the French, Danish, Swiss, Italian etc variants) in the mid 1920's -probably in order to avoid patent royalties on the Schuko design. Incidently given that the article deals extensively with these variants but only the "CEE 7/3" and "CEE 7/4" standards are true Schutzkontakt connectors should the article not be renamed to "Mains power plugs and sockets: Schuko and related types" ? I use the term "mains" rather than "AC" as Schuko was originally used on both AC and DC mains supplies. 2.123.240.251 (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)