Difference between revisions of "Talk:Cable Sizes"

From DIYWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(deletion)
Line 40: Line 40:
 
The CPC sizes have not been moved over yet. I think thats all thats left. I might have done it if I had a clue how to code those tables.
 
The CPC sizes have not been moved over yet. I think thats all thats left. I might have done it if I had a clue how to code those tables.
 
[[User:NT|NT]] 22:56, 23 May 2007 (BST)
 
[[User:NT|NT]] 22:56, 23 May 2007 (BST)
 +
 +
They have, just I tricked you by putting them in the first column along with the conductor sizes rather than leaving them stuck out on the end. ;-)
 +
 +
--[[User:John Rumm|John Rumm]] 23:20, 23 May 2007 (BST)

Revision as of 22:20, 23 May 2007

Buried column

I was not sure what the intention of the "buried" column was going to be. Since BS7671 has a number of versions of buried that could be used:

Method 2 : Buried direct in building materials - this is treated as method 1 (clipped direct)

Method 6 : In conduit in thermally insulating wall with one side in contact with a thermally conductive surface

Method 7 : cables in conduit in masonry

and then there is cable in insulating material which seems to have no "method", but counts for a 50% de-rating straight off.

Methods 1 and 2 are the most likely to be met during DIY I would guess, followed by 7

Any thoughts? Or scrap the column and point em at BS7671 or the OSG?


--John Rumm 03:33, 17 May 2007 (BST)


Could do. Or you could add a column or more, might be more informative. Upto you. NT 08:25, 17 May 2007 (BST)

I suggest deleting this article

Copied the information into the main cables one now. There is now not much need for this one IMHO.

--John Rumm 01:09, 23 May 2007 (BST)


There is still info here not in the other article, so I suggest waiting until that has been sorted out. NT 11:08, 23 May 2007 (BST)

What info did you have in mind? The only bits I could see that were not in the other one was a comment about current ratings being continuous and about cable sizes varying for a given conductor size which I have added. The comment about cable diameter I have replaced with a "(h x w)" legend in the table heading which makes more sense than talking about a diameter for a flat cable.

--John Rumm 13:39, 23 May 2007 (BST)


The CPC sizes have not been moved over yet. I think thats all thats left. I might have done it if I had a clue how to code those tables. NT 22:56, 23 May 2007 (BST)

They have, just I tricked you by putting them in the first column along with the conductor sizes rather than leaving them stuck out on the end. ;-)

--John Rumm 23:20, 23 May 2007 (BST)