Talk:Coaxial power connector

5.5/1.7mm plug

This otherwise excellent survey excludes the 5.5/1.7mm plug required for some Acer models, as supplied for example by this company http://www.screambuy.com/for-acer-19v-342a-65w-plug-5517-5521-5525-p-1575.html 86.144.54.173 (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

6.3/2.5mm plug

I have a new ISP router/modem that uses this kind of plug/connector and I was wondering what standard this is, as it's not in the list. Searching the Internet I found only receptors, but no plugs. It is using standard 12V DC (+ on inner one). Does anyone know this standard or is this completely custom? --80.219.22.22 (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I added it to the big list, but I would still know what standard it is. --80.219.22.22 (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Plug and Jack OD/ID clearance dimensions

For coaxial power connectors, it is very hard to locate dimension details for mating plugs and jacks (male and female) connectors, to find out typical clearances on the OD and ID mating surfaces.

Vendors of EIAJ RC-5320A types 1-3 connectors make the jack pins 0.05mm smaller than the nominal ID, and the jack holes are 0.4 mm larger than the nominal OD. See http://www.westside-supplies.co.uk/pdf/cats/PowerJacks.pdf

But that may not be the end of the story. That vendor seems to make their plugs to the nominal OD/ID dimensions. But another vendor makes the plug holes 0.05mm larger and the plug OD also 0.05mm larger than the nominal OD/ID dimensions! Resulting in a full 0.1mm clearance on the ID. See http://www.smk.co.jp/p_file/DC_PJe_20080919.pdf

What is the full truth about dimensions and clearances? It seems reasonable that the design clearance for the ID would be about 0.1mm. Something along those lines should probably appear in the article, but it would be nice to have a good source to reference.-96.237.15.180 (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Extensive rewrite and general cleanup

Tried to clarify explanations and to clean up lots of glitches during the past several days as time allowed. Remaining work: Add/cleanup more links to sources (e.g. 5 or so "blank" dead links in "References" section). Now that the reference table is cleaned up a bit, I'm going to use it. May not get back to this for a while. Reify-tech (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Did a lot more cleanup, fixed broken links, added more links, further cleanup of reference table.Reify-tech (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Style in "Connector Sizes" Section

• Changed title from "Many different sizes" to "Connector Sizes" in order to sound more professional. Showeropera (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Removed phrases and facts that sounded vague and uncorroborated Showeropera (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • e.g. removed: "(and probably less than 1 A in practice) "

More photos needed

Some more closeup pictures of connectors would really clarify what the article is talking about, especially in the section on "Locking and retention features". I'm still new at this, don't feel up to doing my own photos, don't know about using photos from manufacturer's catalogs. Anybody want to help?Reify-tech (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Found one more relevant photo in Wikimedia, and added it. We really need some closeup shots of the "Locking and retention features", and could do with some photos of connectors in use to power equipment (might be able to find latter in Wikimedia).

About to prune "Universal power supplies" section

Having successfully moved all the content of this section to the Wikipedia article AC adapter, and having already expanded and developed it further there, I now plan to sharply trim or possibly delete the redundant coverage from this article. I don't think that coverage of power adapter selection belongs here, and there's plenty of other material to cover under the topic of "Coaxial power connector" already.

I will of course leave pointers to the other article as appropriate.Reify-tech (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What is JSBP?

A couple of places in the article mention JSBP.

• EIAJ-04 for 10.5–13.5 V (also called JSBP 4)
• EIAJ-05 for 13.5–18 V (also called JSBP 5)

I've tried Google but no luck in figuring out what "JSBP" stands for in this context.

I found this Japanese page that lists

• JSAP 1 - DC PLUG　(0.7φ×2.35φmm)
• JSAP 2 - DC PLUG　(1.7φ×4φmm)
• JSBP 3 - DC PLUG　(1.7φ×4.75φmm)
• JSBP 4 - DC PLUG　(3.3φ×5.5φmm Center pin : 1φmm)
• JSBP 5 - DC PLUG　(4.3φ×6.5φmm Center pin : 1.4φmm)

--Marc Kupper|talk 20:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The Dimensions not found in IEC

Sorry, in IEC 60130-10 of 1971 I couldn't find the dimensions given in the article. In IEC 60130-10 of 1971 I only found 2.00 mm for Inner diameter and 5.0 mm for Outer diameter in table 1 on page 8. Hakris 11:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I also looked at the actual standard IEC 60130-10:1971 and could not find the different Types given in the article. It looks like @PetesGuide: added these Types. Where do these Types come from? Ga Rick Lee (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Dell

The Dell reference appears to be wrong - the internal dimension is 5.08mm or something crazy like that. The 7.4/5.5mm plugs won't fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.201.132.241 (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Dell may have used more than one size of connector on different models. Perhaps the entry should be modified to say "some Dell". Reify-tech (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Dell also - around 2011? - used an octagonal barrel connector. It worked quite well, as it gave good retention without needing a super-strong clip, but it was of course unique and hard to replace. 17:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hollow Connectors, only

In the entry paragraph there is no word about the requirement of a hole in the female plug. Also the pictures ('Common DC power connectors', 'Some common DC power connectors') show hollow and solid plugs. But the described requirements under 'Female (plug)' narrow the concept to hollow connectors. Since phone connectors are also shown on the pictures, since they are also sometimes used as power supply connectors and since there will be for sure other cylindrical power connectors, following changes should be made: We should add in the entry paragraph the requirement of hollow plugs and we should either change the pictures or write in the caption, that there are two (or more?) other connector types (e.g. phone connector). This helps to distinguish between all these connector types. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.250.197.169 (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The only "solid plugs" I can see there are 3.5mm jack (TRS) plugs. These are solid and don't need a hollow for a pin because their connectors are spaced axially, not concentrically. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley Axial spacing would be distance from the axis which would be exactly the same as concentric. 'Along' the axis describes separation of a 3 or 4 conductor wired headset jack.

Notwithstanding, this all is 7-13 years underwater as far as laptop power connectors, which afford a sense wire as primitive auth! (Yes, screaming inside very much today, thanks!) See the Reddit with modern barrel OD and ID stuff, but a G15 Zephyrus ain't one, and that has the pin in the plug, half size. The socket has a cute phosphor steel case (marked DE25E ...ooh, Denso part?) so I have few cues on why it won't lever up on the back part of the top near a plastic materiel to let me see if prongs can be released to better contact the barrel, or maybe my sense wire just oxidized etc. Concentric, yet not freaking coming up at Digi-Key. 2600:1700:18B6:7D80:65EB:AD96:39D7:899F (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

'Along' the axis describes separation of a 3 or 4 conductor wired headset jack.

Yes, axially. Like a TRS plug. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Connector construction and terminology

Male and Female are the wrong way around in this article.

The female jack/receptacle has the pin. The male (plug) has the outer conductor and goes inside the female jack.

if it seems confusing when looking at them on their own, consider a power connector on a laptop. You would never consider the receptacle on the back of your laptop as the "male". Or another way of looking at it: when it's connected, the part which has the insulation on the outside is probably going to be the female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.48.8.21 (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

We should lose the terms male and female altogether. They are undefined for barrel connectors and users are evenly split as to which is male and which female. Plug vs {receptacle / socket / jack} is defined, but male and female are not.

There's also the problem of "3.3mm" connectors where the plug has a narrow centre pin as well [1]. As these are obviously male (on both counts), does that make the more conventional 2.1mm versions "male" (they're both plugs) or "female" (the male part is where the pin is). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Performed some minor edits and added several additional lines in this block to (hopefully) illuminate the fact that all similar hardware already has gender terminology standards in place (both formal and informal). Assuming we use electrical engineering norms and the international standards for similar higher-voltage plugs as our guidelines, there's no really discussion in regards to what the gender terms "should" be, but sadly we have no official guidance from IEEE or IEC yet, but given the ever-increasing proliferation of these connectors, I would assume that standardization is on some committees To-Do List. They're slow, but they're not that slow.Roy D Anderson (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Checked out some more of the article today and noticed the final paragraph under this category begins with: "Power is generally supplied by a plug to a receptacle..." Before I edit this part, I'm doing a sanity check to make sure I'm not misinterpreting the context of what someone wrote. It does not take an electrician to know that electricity flows from a receptacle (such as a wall outlet) to a plug. Am I misunderstanding the original contributor? Roy D Anderson (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a logical fallacy. There is nothing inherent in "plugs and sockets" that receptacles either supply or receive current. There is some good practice that supplies should not have exposed pins, for risk of short circuit when disconnected and placed on a conductor.

For mains plugs, wall sockets supply power. However this is merely an observation about one type of power connector, with fixed wall mounted supplies, and there is no reason why such an observation should transfer to other types. In fact, for mains supplies with the now ubiquitous IEC appliance connector and a removable lead, these are supplied by a plug to a receptacle on the appliance.

The statement given here is correct. For coaxial connectors with low voltage supplies (AC or DC) then the majority use a plug on a cable to supply a receptacle on an appliance. For some applications where the appliance is inherently a cable (christmas lights is an obvious one), then the plug remains on the cable and the is a receptacle on the PSU, thus supplying from a receptacle to a plug (panel mounted plugs are pretty much unheard of). Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I didn't understand what you were saying either, but then it finally clicked what's going on. The article (and us) are using differing definitions for some of these terms. I've also come to think that there actually must be a standard for this kind of connector (it's just frequently being ignored probably). The connector is just way too commonplace for a standard not to exist. Remember that standards (even IEEE and IEC) are voluntary. Regardless, at the very least, there are norms and conventions in place. Over the weekend, I'll try to dig around and see if I can find official sources online to confirm this. Roy D Anderson (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Centre contact sprung in plug or socket

There seem to be two separate standards for applying pressure to the centre contact. One has a split pin and a rigid plug (as shown here), the other has a pair of (presumably flexible) contacts in the plug and a solid pin in the socket (eg., second from the right, here). I don't suppose one is expected to plug a solid plug into a solid socket, because the contact wouldn't be under compression (other than possibly through the weight of the cable). Shouldn't there be some discussion of this, and ideally identification of the relevant standards? --73.93.124.14 (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

They're both compatible. One sprung component is needed, out of all four metal connectors surfaces involved. There are three different designs out there.

• Plastic-moulded sockets (US: jacks), either PCB mounted or panel mounted from the front of the panel. These use a sprung leaf contact in the socket pressing on the side of the barrel. This also forms part of a break-on-insertion switch to disconnect batteries when on external power etc. A rigid pin and unsprung centre contact there is acceptable, as the radial force from the outer contact and the clearance between components of the centre contact still gives an adequate contact force across both contacts.
• Turned metal sockets, intended for assembly from behind a panel. As these have a rigid shell, they began by using a bifurcated centre pin in the socket to give the force for the centre contact. This was also supposed to give an adequate contact on the outer barrel - it doesn't, as the bifurcated pin gives a fairly symmetrical force on the plug barrel. Later versions (all current ones) use the same external spring contact as the moulded plastic ones - in addition to the sprung centre pin. If you should happen to find old stock with a break-on-insertion switch, avoid them: they give a poor contact to the barrel.
• EIAJ plugs, with the yellow tips. These were part of the standard from the outset that they would have a sprung centre contact in the plug, in addition to the external leaf. In practice, this limits the contact area and can make them less robust after abuse, if the contacts get splayed. I'm not a fan of this type.

So overall, mix and match happily. It all works. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Male and female type error.

In first picture is indicate that left connector is male and right is female and this is wrong because is inside-out. I change this but someone revert to wrong version so I just put "citation needed" for someone demostrates it. --95.121.179.246 (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC).

There is no clear definition of this, for barrel connectors. Common knowledge amongst pedants of electronics is that "maleness" is defined by the shape of the smallest concentric pin. In which case, barrel connectors have male receptacles, as this article currently has it. Which is at obvious variance to the majority of everyday users.

Then there's the "3.3mm" variant, mostly used on laptops to stop incompatible PSUs being used experimentally, which has a plug with a tiny male pin within it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Who determines the gender is the fact which of the two sockets is inside the other. In the case of the connectors of the image is clear that, when connected, the left one is on the outside and on the right is inside, this is the left one envelops the right, independently of who has the central pin. What you have in mind about the gender in DC connectors is the outermost external connection in each pair of connectors. --95.121.179.246 (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

The outer shape defines plug vs. socket. For single connectors and 1/4" jacks where the connectors are arranged axially, then their gender is the same and plugs are male. For multi-pin connectors though, the arrangement is usually pins within a tube, again an obviously male plug. With barrel connectors though, the pin s now on the socket, not the plug. So which one is now male? If it's the pins, then that means the socket is now male, not the plug.

If you can find some official pronouncement for barrel connectors, then I'd be interested to see it, but I can't find one. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I said that the central pin isn't who decides what is male or female. The problem is that you consider the gender by the central pin and not by plug/socket. In DC connectors all sockets (with or without central pins) are female and all plugs (with or without central pins) are male. In piture, the left DC connector is a socket and for this reason is female as in the second picture all DC connectors are male because all are plugs.

As there aren't references for this then there are two posibilities: or the type mentions (male or female) be deleted or is used the most used form. If you search the sentence "male DC connector" in google or other web browser and by pictures then you will see that the most repeated or common for male DC connector is the plug and not the socket. --95.121.179.246 (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC).

C15 mains connector

So what's this common mains connector? Male or female? Plug or socket? To me it's a female plug, same as we find for the LV barrel connectors. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

But we are talking about DC connectors and not others. As the original DC connector designer didn't explain what is female and what is male (or the oficial citation doesn't exist) I suggest that type mentions be deleted and I will delete the two "citation needed". --88.8.216.10 (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC).

I just discover this and now I know what is the usual rule. So I just removed the "citation needed". However the sections 1.1 "Plug (Female)" and 1.2 "Receptacle (Male)" have to be modify because as it is said here in electrical and electronic the plug can be male or female, as the jack can be male or female, and plug isn't the same that jack. In the second picture the first two DC connectors are male plugs and the rest (four) are female plugs, this is, not all plugs are female. --88.8.216.10 (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Coaxial power connector. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004183310/http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3807936 to http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3807936
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726155256/http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3780266 to http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3780266
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101012074539/http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3780267 to http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3780267
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726155332/http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3780268 to http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3780268
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004183330/http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3870005 to http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3870005
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004183401/http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3875411 to http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3875411
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004183305/http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3807935 to http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3807935
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004183335/http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3870006 to http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3870006
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004183340/http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3870007 to http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3870007
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004183325/http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3870004 to http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3870004
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004183315/http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3807937 to http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3807937
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101018142056/http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3807938 to http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3807938
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101104064946/http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3807939 to http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3807939
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004183320/http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3807940 to http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3807940
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929025840/http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3780269 to http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3780269
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004183300/http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3802153 to http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3802153
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004183255/http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3780270 to http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3780270
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004183411/http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3912655 to http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3912655
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004183345/http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3875405 to http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3875405
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004183350/http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3875406 to http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3875406
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004183356/http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3875407 to http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3875407

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

OD / ID confusion in conflicting use of ID which does not align with engineering.

In pure engineering terms, any pipe or round tube will always have an outside diameter and an inside diameter, the difference being the wall thickness. E.g Type A: 5.5 mm OD, 2.5 mm ID (with optional screw lock), the barrel has its own 4.5mm ID, without which it would be impossible to make. In the wider subject of engineering, since the steam age, the abbreviated terms OD and ID have always belonged to the pipe shaped component. However in this article (and the industry that sells these items), ID is used in a non-standard way from an engineering perspective. Where the abbrv. ID is used to mean the (outside diameter) of a central coaxial pin. Can a clarification point be added? CarbonPepper (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Gender discussion removed

I have removed the small chunk of text on gender. Besides being questionably cited with some citations not even relevant to the topic under discussion, it came across as more of an internet argument than useful encyclopedic content. Further, these terms are well defined in industry already for the topic of barrel power connectors (i.e. "plug" and "socket") and adding gender labels only confuses the issue without adding anything useful. The remaining text (which fairly accurately represents connector terminology) unfortunately still needs citations. Ianboggs (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Polarity???

Nothing about polarity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.5.43.127 (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)