Talk:PowerCon

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Stagecraft Stub‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stagecraft, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.StagecraftWikipedia:WikiProject StagecraftTemplate:WikiProject StagecraftStagecraft articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Why is this marked as an advertisement? It sounds nothing like an ad. Ultrafez (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I agree, this is not an advertisement. I will add an image as requested above. HenryHayes (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not under load[edit]

the statement "unsuitability for connection/disconnection under load" needs an explanation why Back ache (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a proprietary connector I doubt the internal details are published. The manufacturer says it's not suitable for connection and disconnection under load and users who want it to operate safely should respect that.

In general connection and disconnection under load is stressful on connectors. Some part of the contact will always end up mating first and demating last and therefore taking the brunt of the current in a very small space. Arcs may also form as the contacts disconnect. Most mains connectors are designed to tolerate connection and disconnection under load but some like the powercon aren't (which is probablly why the powercon can offer such a high current capacity for it's size). ~~80.0.68.41 (talk)~~ Plugwash (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the article was edited in response to my post above. All we know for sure is that neutrik say the connector is not designed for connection and disconnection under load. While the stress on small contacts from breaking under load is probablly the reason. In the absence of a reliable source saying so we probablly shouldn't assert that in the article. Plugwash (talk)

powercon true 1[edit]

I can't find anything about this on neutrik's site, the link in the article says "Entry not found". I can find a load of news updates but none of them has any links to technical info on the product.

I notice that at least according to the news articles the powercon true1 only has a current rating of 16A and doesn't look intermatable with any other powercon products. Plugwash (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: found a working link to "neutrik updates" describing the product but still no links to datasheets etc. Plugwash (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this is really weird, if I follow the link from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-e5hR2j2g_MJ:www.neutrik.com/+neutrik+powercon+true+1&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=iceweasel-a&source=www.google.com then I get the article fine and the link I put on wikipedia works for a while too. But if I wait a while the link on wikipedia stops working until I use the link from the google cache of neutriks homepage again. Plugwash (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

32A powercon[edit]

Does anyone know of any official info on whether this is supposed to be used as an inlet, an outlet or both? I've certainly found a product using one as an inlet and websites describing it as an outlet (but I haven't yet found any products using it as such). Neutrik's website and catalogue seem strangely silent on the issue (which is weird because they make a big deal of inlets vs outlets with the 20A powercon). Plugwash (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plug and socket mislabled[edit]

The photos of the plug and socket are labeled the wrong way round. It appears that Neutrik call the cable mounted end a socket and the chassis mounted connector a plug. See Female and Male. JP Godfrey (Talk to me) 16:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]