Talk:Wire/Archive 1

Strands

"For applications with constant repeated movement, such as assembly robots and headphone wires, 70 to 100 is mandatory."

70 to 100 strands for headphone cable would make for a very thick cable, unless using very specialized wire. "mandatory" is too strong a word here. "recommended for best, but unproven, results" might be better. -- thanks, AllanMarcus

Untitled

Any insight onto how wires can get tangled up by themselves into knots? This bothers me -- Eaton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.175.66 (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Research entanglement in ropes and knotology.

I always assumed Wire were from New Zealand originally. Is that the case? -- 165.121.112.xxx

No, they're from London, England. -- Paul Drye

Wire cross-section

Why are wires usually cylindrical? Why don't we use wires with a square or triangular cross-section?--195.229.242.83 19:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Noreen[reply]

I believe it is because it is easier to make a round hole in hard die materials than any other shape. 11:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, strength, I would think. Squares and triangles have corners which will be locations of stress concentration if the wire is bent; in other words, they are weak spots. Also the round cross section gives you more flexibility for a given cross-sectional area. If you wanted a stiff wire, a non-round cross section would be better.--Ong saluri (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Square wire is sometimes used for winding coils, to get a denser coil.

Shaped copper wire is often used in HV power cables, as above to increase conductive cross-section with no impact on diameter/size. Non-circular stranded conductors are fairly common-place too. Also in certain types of steel wire rope, their profile being created either pre- or post-form - mostly to enhance rope stability or to present a better wear surface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.42.76 (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Kiszka Andrzej kiszka 09:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrzej kiszka (talk • contribs)

wire-to-wire

What is 'wire-to-wire' victory in sports games?

stranded wire

I believe that the statement that stranded wire is worse than solid wire due to the inclusion of gaps is incorrect. It is no better than solid wire but no worse on account of the gaps. Here is the argument, and a reference to an authoritative source:

Since, at any particular frequency, the ratio of AC resistance to DC resistance of a cylindrical wire depends only on its diameter divided by the square-root of its resistivity, and since, because of the gaps among the strands, the average resistivity of a stranded wire as compared to a solid wire with the same cross-sectional conductor area is proportional to the square of the diameter, the effects of the stranded wire's greater diameter and greater average resistivity exactly cancel each other. Stranded wire of a particular gauge therefore has virtually the same resistance as solid wire of the same gauge for AC as well as DC currents, except that heating due to imperfect contact among the strands may further raise the resistance somewhat at high frequencies. [National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, Circular C74, Radio Instruments and Measurements, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1937, pp. 300 and 306-307]

Yes agreed. I think the original editor probably meant that the resistance of stranded is greater because the density of copper is lower, but has then gone on to confuse this with skin effect which has nothing to do with it. I have reworked the section to clarify while trying to keep the original point being made. SpinningSpark 07:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stranded wire material (most typically copper) and effect of corrosion

While imperfect contact among strands may have a minor effect in theory, the practical effect of oxidation upon stranded wire made of reactive metals is the formation of corrosion deposits. Copper oxide is insulative, while silver oxide is conductive, so it would appear that silver (or silver plated) wire is less subject to corrosion-related changes caused by the interaction among strands. This is likely one of the reasons that silver plated wire is a recognized standard for critical (i.e. military) applications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beltway (talk • contribs) 14:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Cable" versus "wire"

I think there is a problem with the intro. It seems to be suggesting that in electrical work stranded wire is referred to as cable, but in my experience it is just called wire or stranded wire. Cable, in electrical or electronic terminology, means multi-conductor; a cable consists of two or more wires electrically isolated from each other. (The individual wires in the cable could be solid or stranded wires.) In mechanical terminology though, cable means multi-strand. --Ong saluri (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is one of the loose use of terminology, by non-specialists. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And different usage in different fields: electrical vs. electronic vs. utility, manufacturers of different things.Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Shouldn't wire redirect to the disambiguation page? I doubt anyone typing in wire is uninformed about actual wire, most likely they are looking for the punk band or The Wire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.13.30 (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems like the most common type of wire. If you asked me what else "wire" might refer to, I wouldn't have any other clue. Wizard191 (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to convert this to a dismabiguation page (which seems to be what is suggested). Wire is a common commodity and should have an article of its own. Those looking for other (derivative) subjects can follow the link to a disambiguation page provided in a capnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be ? Is or are ?

Just a small point: in the section "Uses", last sentence, should "could be" be replaced by "are" ? This "could be" makes the words sound like speculation rather than fact ! I see this error in many articles. Is there a bot that could sort it out ? Darkman101 (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Wizard191 (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about separating

In some langauges wire (metal rope) and wire (electric conductor) are 2 different words, better do divide electric wire and wires for rope into 2 different articles. Example, I'm clicking from ruwiki провод to enwiki link, it redirects me here, but ruwiki link directs me to article about rope. 90.191.190.76 (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea a lot. This article ought to split, and any overlap between the contents at electrical wiring ought to be merged into the new article wire (electric conductor). Moreover, I think this title space should redirect to wire (disambiguation). Wizard191 (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the large table listing different types of electrical wire is a worthwhile addition (what is the source?), but it forces the issue on splitting the article. I was neutral on the issue before, but now lean towards splitting. In spite of coming to this topic from the electrical side, I think that the mechanical side has historic priority, and the material on wire fabrication naturally belongs there. The electrical/electronic usage is a subset of the applications of wire, albeit a very important one. I think the clincher is the different usage of the term "cable" in electrical vs. mechanical vocabulary, plus the reported split in terminology in other languages. Reify-tech (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Separation yes, but I don't see the need for a new article. Just move appropriate material to the already existing Wire rope article, with a hatnote here. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metal wire has a long history, pre-dating both wire rope and electrical uses. I'd like to see that covered, probably under wire and displacing some of the existing wire content to wire (electrical). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wire used mechanically is not the same as wire rope. The wire article appears to be its home, with wire used electrically mentioned here in a section but mostly split to its own article. Wire is sometimes used both mechanically and electrically at the same time. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am being persuaded. The majority of the present article is electrical, a highly important topic but one that should not dominate the article. On the other hand neither the history section of this article nor chain mail mentions that mail has sometimes been the principal consumer of wire, and presumably other important matters are being scanted. We already have a wiring article but it doesn't look to me like the proper home for our valuable section on how wire is finished and jacketed. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chain mail wasn't made from wire in the main period of its use. Mail was made from wrought iron, strips sheared from the edges of thin plate. Wire developed from goldsmith & silversmith's jewellery work, as these more ductile metals could be drawn into wire. The first industrial use of wire was for brass, which is also relatively ductile (although Tudor latten brass was less so than Champion's brass). The industrial demand for this was carding combs for the Tudor woolen industry. At this time wrought iron was nowhere near ductile enough (in small diameters) to be wire drawn, and it didn't become so until around the 18th century and the development of Sheffield. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Thanks. Good thing I only made a fool of myself in the talk page instead of being daring enough to put it in an article. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all metal wires other than wires used for electricity are made into wire rope, which is what this split proposal seems to be suggesting. There's fence wire (including barbed wire), music wire, wire wheels, baling wire, chicken wire, wire mesh,and things like Kirschner wire, too. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not at all what the proposal is. Please don't mis-represent it just to construct a straw man. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that this article be split into articles titled Wire (electrical conductor) and Wire (metal rope), accessible from a disambiguation page.

And the suggested target article Wire (metal rope) is a redirect to Wire rope. Where are we going to talk about wires that aren't for conducting electricity and that aren't part of wire ropes, Andy? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge from tinsel wire to wire

At the Tinsel wire page, a suggestion for merging to Wire has been put forward. I think the tinsel wire page has useful content and should remain a separate article. Other opinions? Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This was only put forward by Wtshymanski out of sheer spite. Despite agreeing that it's a worthy topic and even expanding it slightly, we then get a merge with the edit summary "AD hates me anyway, may as well make the logical suggestion; suggest merge" Andy Dingley (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will remove the merge proposal per WP:POINT. Grrr. Binksternet (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AD is attributing a spiteful motive to me. He is mistaken. I don't see why the merge discussion cannot be seriously carried out. It's only 3 paragraphs, and the properties and usage of tinsel wire could usefully be compared and contrasted with other wire types in the Wire article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The tinsel wire article has good information and can be expanded. It is useful to have a separate article. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Tinsel wire article should stand by itself. Topic is too specialized for general wire article. Glrx (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's very little information in this article and it could certainly be replaced with a paragraph or two in the Wire article. Discussion of the various types of wire and comparing and contrasting their properties is best done in an inclusive overview article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strands

"The lowest number of strands is 7: one in the middle, 6 surrounding it."

This is an odd claim, plenty of household twin cable was been produced in the 1960s with just 3 strands. Tabby (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Varieties

The wire varieties listed don't tally with standard British usage. MI is the US term for what we Brits call MICC, there are various US specific cable types listed, and our most common cable type, T&E, isn't listed. If its an America specific table, it needs retitling to reflect that. I'd do it if I knew where the listed abbreviations come from (NEC would be my best wild guess). Tabby (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: "Bell wire usually low voltage, usually of 18awg. No rubber used, just 2 layers of cotton twisted in opposite directions."

Maybe it was at one time, or is somewhere. Today bell wire is 2 conductor copper cable with pvc insulation, rated 50v 1A, with a tracer line moulded on one side of the pvc. Tabby (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The crucial point about bell wire, and the consistent one over time, has been that it was intended for low-voltage use (and also low power). This only requires a simple single-layer insulation (Class 0), usually limited by safety regulations to no more than 50V. Insulation for use at main voltage has for many years required two layers of sheathing and Class 0 isn't generally permissible. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understood "bell wire" not to be for electricity at all, but to make a mechanical connection via ducts and pulleys between a room where a master or mistress was sitting and the kitchen where their servants were: by operating the bell pull, a bell was rung in the kitchen, summoning a servant to that room. There was a board next to the bell, which indicated which room the servant should go to, which the servant would reset after observing whence the summons came. I remember being taken to see my great aunts in the 1950s and being stricly told that I was not to operate the bell pull (to prevent an unnecessary summons). When it was tea time, I may have been allowed to do, so that my great aunt could tell her servant to serve tea. This was system commonly installed in middle-class houses where servants were employed. The house in which I was brought up still had one or two bell pulls and my father told me that the pulleys were still there in the attic, but the rest of the system had been removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digressions about mechanical bell systems aside, the whole chart is unsourced and seems dated in many ways. It seems to be historical UL/NEMA/NEC designations. Some sources for up to date info: [1] and [2]

Obsolete, yes but as a boy in the 1950s I was using single-strand, plastic insulated (hadn't heard of PVC) "bell wire" to connect toy electric motors. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Table of varieties

I've removed the table of varieties that was added here. It's completely unreferenced, and it contained some rather promotional statements (see the TPE entry, for example). It seemed pretty indiscriminate, and with no references it appears to violate WP:OR. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False assertion.

'...The metals suitable for wire, possessing almost equal ductility, are platinum, silver, iron, copper, aluminium and gold; and it is only from these and certain of their alloys with other metals, principally brass and bronze, that wire is prepared ...' . The preceding statement found in the article is incorrect. The metals listed do not have 'almost equal ductility'. Aluminum, Iron and Gold have vastly different values of ductility. 70.185.109.98 (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC) bgriffin[reply]

Link to German Wikipedia

The link for German Language is https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_(Messenger) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.111.173 (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Copper wire.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]