Jump to content

Talk:IEC 60269

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 77.215.46.17 (talk) at 19:40, 13 August 2012 (Added plea not to loose material that was removed due to not being in the right article.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconEngineering Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Clean and tidy up of Miniature and micro fuses section considering it was moved away from the main article on fuses.

I have re-done this section so it makes more sense in terms of the markings on the end cap of a miniature and micro fuse, and what they actually mean and relate to.Wjoea (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This aren't fuses according to IEC 60269 and don't belong here, as well as British BS 1362 fuses don't belong here. -- Jjeka (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "Miniature and micro fuses (G-fuses)" section, not specified in IEC 60269 (while BS 1362 is).
-- Jjeka (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind putting the removed material in another article, as they are still fuses, just not IEC 269 fuses. 77.215.46.17 (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some tables/data missing

The text of this article indicates that it should include tables of the identifying dimensions that prevent inserting fuses ("fuse links") with the wrong ampage in circuits rated for a lower ampage, but those tables are currently missing. I have access to manufacturer data for a particular brand, but it would be better if someone with access to the standard itself would add the correct numbers, rather than me adding potentially incorrect brand specific numbers. 77.215.46.17 (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]