Talk:ACCC conductor

Trademark
Thanks for double-checking my edit. The reason I emphasized the trademark status was to make clear that, unlike similar terms like AAC and ACSR, the name is not generic, and is a brand name for a single-source product. I still want to make that clear. Any suggestions as to a good way to do that? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you notice, the articles IBM, Dell, nor iPhone mentions "trademarked". I do not believe there is a law which requires that a third party add ® to every instance of a trademarked name. The Feds don't arrest granny for improper use of iPhone® in her email. You can find the policy here: MOS:TMRULES about midway under the heading General rules. I'm sure companies would appreciate it if Wikipedia did use ® . Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but those names are widely understood to be proper names (IBM and Dell) or brand names (iPhone). It's more like Viagra, where I want the reader to understand that the equivalent from sources other than Pfizer will be called something else.  (And since there's no regulatory agency requiring it, there's no generic name at all, which increases the confusion.)  My reason for including it was emphatically not for the benefit of the claimant, but quite the opposite: to warn the reader that searching for the term on the web turns up a lot of puffery.
 * As I said, it's because similar terms, particularly ACSR, are generic. This confused me while researching, and I wanted to avoid anyone else having the same problem.  I don't much care how, but I want to explain to the reader that e.g. VTEC is a trademark of Honda and it's pointless to ask other manufacturers for it.  Even after any patents expire, it'll be like Firewire: only Apple has that; other people call it IEEE 1394.
 * I can use the word "trademark", or "brand name", or something else. I can take it out of the lead and create an "intellectual property" section.  Since you had an opinion on the subject, I wanted to discuss it before choosing the form to put back some information you deleted.
 * If you really think the information doesn't belong in the article at all, I'm willing to discuss that, too, but I want to make my rationale clear.  71.41.210.146 (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see "trademark" used much. "brand name" and "trade name" are used on many pharmaceutical articles: Viagra is a brand of or . Perhaps Aluminium Conductor Composite Core or ACCC is a type of "high-temperature low-sag" (HTLS) overhead power line conductor, a trade name of [Composite Technology Corporation? Or, something along those lines. I don't see many uses of "trademark" in Wikipedia. On the first three citations, the articles do not use "trademark". I think it is primarily required to by added to literature by the trademark holder so they don't loose the rights. Jim1138 (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "not used much" is itself a reason why something shouldn't be done; to me it only suggests that one should look for a reason why it's uncommon, and see if that reason applies here as well.
 * However, I think I have a solution: I put a note about the single source into the "Disadvantages" section. That achieves what I wanted; does it meet with your approval? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That hyphen...
More of the quote from WP:HYPHEN than I could fit in the edit comment: "Exception: use a hyphen even for standard -ly adverbs if it improves clarity. This is most often the case when a -ly adverb and a participle form a compound adjective that is juxtaposed with one or more additional adjectives:" Since "softer" is an additional adjective and "annealed" is a participle, I think that applies. In this case, the goal is to clarify the fact that "fully" applies to "annealed" Ie. "(fully annealed) aluminium", and not "fully (annealed aluminium)".

But that's clearer to me; this is something of a judgement call. If you really think it's more intelligible the other way, I'm willing to go back. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not notice back in July that the "use a hyphen even for standard -ly adverbs if it improves clarity" business was added to the MoS. It was done without discussion, and I plan to get consensus to remove it. Do you think adding a hyphen to "a strongly recommended new best practice" adds any clarity? I sure don't think so, and the example cannot be found in Wikipedia anyway. That addition was one editor's solution to a problem that does not exist, as far as I can tell. If "softer fully annealed aluminium" needs any punctuation, it needs a comma after "softer": try "softer, fully annealed aluminium". Chris the speller   yack  06:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, boy, I really don't want to start conducting textual criticism on the MoS.
 * The exception is really just a special case of WP:IAR, so it applies whether explicitly included in that section or not. I like the MoS as a guide, but scriptural debates about the wording of its proscriptions get annoying.  The goal is clarity of exposition; the MoS is valuable (only) to the extent that it achieves that goal.  (And consistent style is an important part of that; an unusual style may help in one location but detract from the work as a whole, so think carefully before deviating from the MoS.  I just mean don't treat it as gospel and prosecute deviations as heresy.)
 * I don't like over-hyphenation, and have cleaned a lot of it out of other people's writing (outside of WP; "the king looked-down on his subjects", ugh), so I completely agree with the general principle. I just didn't think of a better solution when I first wrote that.
 * I recall I fought with the wording a bit, and it took some massaging to come up with something even good enough. The fact that it's part of a list, so has to be consistent with the sentence structure of the surrounding entries, constrains it further.
 * You're definitely right about the comma, but that causes issues with the fact that it's already a comma-separated parenthetical phrase. So again the grouping becomes hard to follow: "Because (reasons), softer, fully annealed aluminium can be used, which has about 3% greater electrical conductivity."  (Because commas are used for so many things in English, they are very tricky and firm rules are in short supply.  Eats, Shoots & Leaves has a lot to say on the subject.)
 * I see the hyphen like using semicolons as "super-commas" in a list: avoid in general, but it's a cromulent technique which can be used if needs must.
 * I overhauled the sentence, splitting it in two so a comma can be used. How about that?
 * I'm still curious if there's a better solution if the original sentence structure were to be maintained. Would you like to talk about that a bit to improve my orthography skills, or drop the whole issue as moot now? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I couldn't come up with a better solution than your two-sentence overhaul. In a single-sentence form, I think the comma after "softer" is the best choice. BTW, I am glad to find another editor who cringes when he sees a hyphen jammed into a phrasal verb. I am sort of glad you reverted my edit as it brought my attention to the MoS change; the sooner that piece of overkill gets challenged, the easier it will be to remove. I have yet to see a single case where adding a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb actually adds clarity or is the best solution. Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  15:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Er, well, there I disagree with you. I'm willing to have my mind changed, but at the moment I prefer the hyphen to the comma in the single-sentence form.  In isolation, the comma works, but with the surrounding parenthetical commas it just makes a mess; that's why I changed the form.  So I actually agree with the current MoS: the hyphen is to be avoided, but sometimes there's no better way to indicate the grouping.
 * Here's an example of a case where avoiding the hyphen is a challenge:
 * He cultivates slowly-growing heirloom varieties.
 * Without the hyphen, it might be thought that the cultivation is slow rather than the growth ("he cultivates slowly, growing heirloom varieties"), but I don't see a way to use a comma to force the hyphenated form. ("He cultivates, slowly growing heirloom varieties" is obviously wrong.)
 * Some useful discussion points. All agree that adjectives ending in -ly in compound adjectives should by hyphenated, as should some common adverbs not ending in -ly ("well-known", "much-needed").  The basic logic is that the adverb is obviously modifying the following adjective (and not the following noun phrase), so there's no need for disambiguation.  But in the special case of -ly adverb + participle, there are a few dissenters.
 * Daily writing tips: adverbs and hyphens (against)
 * Use of hyphens Gives an example: "clearly-labeled stand-alone tutorial", discusses the comma alternative "clearly labeled, stand-alone tutorial". Interesting stuff, definitely worth reading.
 * Using hyphens in compound adjectives (against)
 * Compound Adjectives and -ly Adverbs ("never", emphasis in original)
 * Compound adjectives Recommends hyphens in the "adverb+past participle" case: "brightly-lit room", "densely-populated city"
 * Hyphen With Noun, Adjective Or Adverb And Present Participle says it's a British/American english distinction, and British consistently hyphenates. (Something definitely worth researching before enshrining a regional preference in the MoS.)
 * Guardian and Observer style guide says no, with participle examples, casting doubt on the preceding. "Do not use hyphens after adverbs ending in -ly, eg a hotly disputed penalty, a constantly evolving newspaper, genetically modified food, etc, but hyphens are needed with short and common adverbs, eg ever-forgiving family, much-loved character, well-established principle of style (note, however, that in the construction "the principles of style are well established" there is no need to hyphenate)."
 * Fowler's Modern English Usage gives an interesting example: "our newly-issued Budget Tax Facts Cards". Although they don't pass judgement on it, to my reading, without the hyphen one might think the budget was newly issued rather than the card.
 * Should I use a hyphen after -ly when modifying a verb in the past participle verb?
 * Adverbs+participles Do noy hyphenate adverbs, but to always hyphenate adjectives ending in -ly ("friendly-sounding voice", "motherly-looking woman")
 * Hyphens and their usage Dislikes, but acknowledges usage such as "intensely-debated legislation" and "legally-binding document". (Also dislikes the hanging hyphen "All the part- and full-time workers went on strike", which is something I quite like.)
 * ‘much-needed’ or ‘much needed’? When to hyphenate adverbs+participle/adjective (against)
 * Compound Adjectives in English Recommends "brightly-lit street" (!).
 * Do you over-hyphenate says an appropriately-red bridal gown and a completely-confused groom are errors in American English but commonly hyphenated in British.
 * How to Style Compounds After the Noun (never hyphenate)
 * Chicago Manual of Style Never hyphenate.
 * National geographic style manual Generally do not hyphenate, but there is an exception: "A three-word modifier, the first of which is an adverb ending in -ly, need not be hyphenated unless ambiguity results:"
 * American Geophysical Union style guide Never
 * http://www.tedmontgomery.com/punctuation/hyphen-b.html : Avoid but may be used in rare cases where ambiguity would result. This is where I got the inspiration for the example above.
 * That should be enough to get started with. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I only checked a few of these. The last is fairly comical, as the whole web site is a collection of ramblings by a very opinionated person who has no more qualification than you or me to make pronouncements about hyphenation. The sites you mention are all over the map on hyphenation, which is probably why WP has its chosen its own style. At any rate, I am done watching this page, as I have brought the subject up on WT:MOS. See you there. Chris the speller   yack  22:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible ‘typo’ on the current capacity ? Needs checking ?
Hiya,

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACCC_conductor?wprov=sfti1

In the paragraphs in the WIKI page, I’m curious if there’s a typo where it says: ‘but has about 3% less electrical conductivity’

However, in the following paragraphs, it claims 30% and then 31% differences in conductivity.

Is this correct or should the 3% be 30% ?

I just thought it’s weird that the paragraphs seem to offer contradictory information.

I can be reached at: Email: gto3deuces@gmail.com OR Text: (610) 842-7905

Thanks to anyone who understands this engineering !

WIKI article referenced text: Softer, fully annealed aluminium can be used for the conductors. ACSR cable uses stronger non-annealed commercially pure aluminium which contributes to the cable's tensile strength and improves sag and pull-out under ice load, but has about 3% less electrical conductivity and limits the maximum operating temperature.[4]:12

It has a much lower coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) (1.6 ppm/°C) than ACSR (11.6 ppm/°C).[5]:23 This lets the cable be operated at a significantly higher temperature without excessive sag between poles.

The first two factors result in roughly 30% greater conductivity than an equivalent ACSR conductor, allowing 14% more current to be carried at equal temperature. For example, 1.107 in (28.1 mm) diameter ACCC "Drake" conductor at 75 °C has an AC resistance of 106 mΩ/mile,[6] while equivalent ACSR conductor has an AC resistance of 139 mΩ/mile,[7] 31% higher. GTO3DEUCES (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Advertising
This article is entirely an advertisement for a product. The article was mostly written by the manufacturer. It should be rewritten completely by an editor with no obvious COI, or be removed. A type of cabinet (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)