27 May
2015
27 May
'15
12:45 p.m.
On 2015-May-27, at 11:54 AM, Jules Richardson wrote:
On 05/27/2015 12:03 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
For my part, no, I've always replaced them (where doable) with the common IEC C14
chassis inlets. See the bottom of my web page. Yes it does require some cutting of the
original, so it depends on whether one wants to do that, and one's will and skill with
hand files.
I've never tried the C6 type as I rarely see them anyways. Note the C5/C6 has a
considerably lower current rating than the C13/C14, which is presumably why it was
introduced as an additional standard.
I keep around a box of C14s scavenged from discarded equipment for the purpose, but I also
replace fixed lines cords with C14s whenever I can, because I hate moving and storing
equipment with dangling power cords.
On 05/26/2015 08:28 PM, Brent Hilpert wrote:
Do you mean IEC 60320 type C5/6, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_60320#Appliance_couplers
?? That's the connector I was assuming you and wulfman were talking about using as a
replacement for the old 163 power connectors - not the common "PC type"
connector, because that's much larger and would mean cutting into the original
equipment panels so that it would fit.
I'm thinking it should be possible to drill the rivets holding the original 163
sockets, then make up mounting plates to hold an IEC C6-style socket and rivet/bolt those
in place. That's assuming that I don't lay my hands on some original 163-type
cables! Like wulfman and chuck and as described on my
page, I replace the
chassis inlet whenever I can, although occasionally it's not possible
due to proximity of other chassis elements as the IEC inlet is
slightly larger.
Right now, I'm cursing the guy who thought that the "cloverleaf" or
"mouseketeer" power receptacle was a good idea. I'm sitting here looking
at an HP ScanJet wondering if it would be worth the effort to replace it.