Talk:Cable Sizes

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)

Ahh :)

That leaves one last question. Since over time I expect we will see cable sizes for other types as well, eg buried swa, micc, etc, plus info on taking the various other factors into account, why use 1.5 vs 1.0 etc.... do we want all those tables & other info in the main article about cable types, or do we want them as a separate article? NT 23:53, 23 May 2007 (BST)

I can't see any harm in having them all in one article. We will probably only end up with size tables for a few of the entries anyway (SWA, perhaps singles) - the historic cable stuff will not need them.

--John Rumm 01:53, 24 May 2007 (BST)