Elizabeth, You've named many of my concerns on this issue. Yes, many have worked on this but the mere fact that I began this thread means, "At least to me". That the work is indeed not completed. And simply because many may now produce cabling which at least "Partially" addresses the issues therein but cannot, "Yes, I did mean (Cannot), instead of Will not".
-
Cannot explain in full the how and why of the results. Meaning that it is so poorly understood that at this time we are guessing and hoping WAY more than ever doing any true engineering in the design phase of production. "Whether DIY or Proffessionally"!
As far as re-hashing old arguments? Life is too short so please "Everyone", do not bring them here!
And to anyone thinking I am just trying to; "Build a better mouse trap".
AND, to anyone with the thought that "Really", "We know everything already, just go look it up. So do not waste any more of our time".
A quarter of a century ago I was given a proposal to look over. "By the way, All of this is in the public domain including pics". They were finalizing the plans to redo the entire trunk power system in NYC. And the industry standard, "Which is STILL the same today!" Was basically to bury groupings of 1000KCmill, (1 Inch thick), solid/stranded copper calculated for the requisite load per the NEC and Mr. Ohm's "Law".
Why was I looking it over? I was sent the proposal and one of the bids.
Just the one bid. Because Instead of using 1000kcmil copper, "The smallest of runs possible would contain a minimum of 25 pieces of the "1 inch thick", insulated copper cables". There was a bid which would instead "On those small runs and then scale up from there", Use five, "5", flat ribbons. Each approx. 5/8 inch wide and 1/16 inch thick! And the cost of the entire installation, "Including all materials and labor", was less than that of simply the "material" cost of the copper for the standard installation involving the standard copper cabling!
And 'No", There were NO special installation requirements involved "With the exception of security". Again; All of this? Is in the public domain.
All I can say is, The math worked, And that installation was completed.
So, in my mind that is enough to resolve the understanding that, "We", know just enough to get ourselves in trouble when it comes to "Lectric".
Hee hee, And Jeff? Good start with those three. But you may be missing ….something?
Now, To that "Chocalatier", "Willie", I agree with nearly everything you've said. I have always believed that the larger AWG are indeed better for most applications, "Not-withstanding the point at which a cables capacitance becomes an issue." But there are times when that doesn't seem to be the best choice. Like the 1:6 ratio used for interconnects. And that ratio is still used regardless of shielding or insulation type, density or effectiveness and etc.". And not because someone "Forgot" to add that variable/s into the mix. But I do not know "Why".
And until I do...…..
-
Cannot explain in full the how and why of the results. Meaning that it is so poorly understood that at this time we are guessing and hoping WAY more than ever doing any true engineering in the design phase of production. "Whether DIY or Proffessionally"!
As far as re-hashing old arguments? Life is too short so please "Everyone", do not bring them here!
And to anyone thinking I am just trying to; "Build a better mouse trap".
AND, to anyone with the thought that "Really", "We know everything already, just go look it up. So do not waste any more of our time".
A quarter of a century ago I was given a proposal to look over. "By the way, All of this is in the public domain including pics". They were finalizing the plans to redo the entire trunk power system in NYC. And the industry standard, "Which is STILL the same today!" Was basically to bury groupings of 1000KCmill, (1 Inch thick), solid/stranded copper calculated for the requisite load per the NEC and Mr. Ohm's "Law".
Why was I looking it over? I was sent the proposal and one of the bids.
Just the one bid. Because Instead of using 1000kcmil copper, "The smallest of runs possible would contain a minimum of 25 pieces of the "1 inch thick", insulated copper cables". There was a bid which would instead "On those small runs and then scale up from there", Use five, "5", flat ribbons. Each approx. 5/8 inch wide and 1/16 inch thick! And the cost of the entire installation, "Including all materials and labor", was less than that of simply the "material" cost of the copper for the standard installation involving the standard copper cabling!
And 'No", There were NO special installation requirements involved "With the exception of security". Again; All of this? Is in the public domain.
All I can say is, The math worked, And that installation was completed.
So, in my mind that is enough to resolve the understanding that, "We", know just enough to get ourselves in trouble when it comes to "Lectric".
Hee hee, And Jeff? Good start with those three. But you may be missing ….something?
Now, To that "Chocalatier", "Willie", I agree with nearly everything you've said. I have always believed that the larger AWG are indeed better for most applications, "Not-withstanding the point at which a cables capacitance becomes an issue." But there are times when that doesn't seem to be the best choice. Like the 1:6 ratio used for interconnects. And that ratio is still used regardless of shielding or insulation type, density or effectiveness and etc.". And not because someone "Forgot" to add that variable/s into the mix. But I do not know "Why".
And until I do...…..