Talk:Copper conductor

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical 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.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dubious[edit]

In overhead electrical transmission, an higher cross section increases the wind load on the cable but on the other side, it increases the surface area and therefore improves cooling, hence possibly allowing for an higher ampacity for the same cable resistance per unit length.

189.251.139.20 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English Wikipedia[edit]

I made the Simple English version of this article. Please improve mine. I did not do mine well.

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Copper conductor. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conductor current rating[edit]

There is no table of conductor current ratings in the article, not even a link ! Please would someone knowledgeable add this ? Many thanks ! Darkman101 (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What a conductor is rated to carry depends on a lot of factors, such as allowable temperature rise, installation conditions (free air vs. cable tray vs. direct buried, bare, insulated, etc.), and which agency is doing the rating. There's an NEC ampacity table at American wire gauge but no one has contributed a table for UK or other standards. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Copper conductor. 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/20130720000331/http://www.copperinfo.co.uk/alloys/copper/ to http://www.copperinfo.co.uk/alloys/copper/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://dow-futures.net/historical-copper-prices-history/

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) 00:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

recent change by IP[edit]

With an explanation of "Trim marketing waffle", the IP changed the meaning of the sentence from "improved conductivity performance" to "less conductivity"... So I checked the reference. The reference and the WP page on the conductivity of copper use 2 different scales, but once I converted the 14.1 Ω⋅cmil/ft into nΩ.m it turns out to be 23.44 nΩ.m, which is worse than 16.78 nΩ.m for pure copper. So the IP was correct to make the change, it is indeed a less conductive material. Dhrm77 (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]