Talk:Electrical cable

Vandalism
I don't condioone teh banana incident, but the latest proper edit to the first sentence is equally ridiculous:

"A cable is one or more strands of any number of chemical substances which are solid and bound together to form a larger strand shape. "

Surely "A cable is two or more continuous strands bound together to form a larger strand" would be better?

You can't have a cable with one strand and they have to be continuous so as to exclude single strands of bound, short, fibres (such as 1-ply wool).

But the page is a bit of a mess isn't it?

The Yowser (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Extensible? CBA?
This sentence at the end of the second paragraph may need help: "Tight lays during stranding makes the cable extensible (CBA - as in telephone handset cords)". I am only aware of the term extensible in the context of computer programs being open to extending its capabilities. I have no idea what "CBA" means here. Can someone redo this sentence so it makes more sense to the lay person? Balfa 13:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Extendable telephone cords are made so by coiling. I'm unclear how a tight lay comes into that.

I suggest deleting this sentence. Using uncommon abbreviations and terms will only confuse readers.Nikonoff (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Other
what are the names of these cables?

http://www.chantalcurrid.com/Remote/Images/PWires.jpg

"twin-coax"?

http://doityourself.com/ori/200x200/1271105.jpg


 * First one is twin screened. Second image not found.

Tabby (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

propose change to classifications
At the moment, cable constructions fall randomly under two headings: Basic and Construction. I propose that these headings are removed and all the descriptions then fall under a single "Type" heading. I view this as an improvement because classifications are generally by type (eg. coax, twinax, twisted pair, single wire,......) rather than by "basic" or "construction" then by subtype!

Lippjd 13:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Cables can be sorted into several categories and types. Generally it can by sorted into two main groups, structural and informatic." Shouldnt power be added? Or does it somehow come under one of those 2? Tabby (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Computer cables
Here's what I want to know. You know how a lot of computer cables (e.g. monitor and printer cables) have those little screws on the side that attach it to the computer so that they don't fall out accidentally? Why don't computer power cables have those? I would think that's the cable that you would least want to have fall out accidentally (e.g. if you move the computer while it's on). Is it because there might be some kind of fire or something, in which you would want to unplug it really quickly without reaching your hand close to the computer for prolonged periods of time in order to unscrew that cable? Captain Zyrain 21:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's my guess: The plug and jack on the power cable are pretty rugged – just three large pins – and probably don't need the additional mechanical support. The monitor cable has tiny, weak, pins and closer tolerances, so they give you the screws. --Ong saluri (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Aren't socket part pins for monitor/printer cable thin and soldered - aren't those screws connected to that metal bar instead (something more sturdy than solder to bare the constant weight of cable and mechanical influences on it) so the solder and pins don't damage? Isn't that the main reason rather than keeping cable from falling out of socket, and only then as the second reason to keep it from falling out of socket (sure, cause everywhere they say plugging/unplugging cables while the thing is in operation can electronically damage it - they mention voltage spikes on plugging-in first contact)? Aren't there some speaker brands that are notorious for having that problem (solder on pins breaking off due to too much cable plugging/unplugging/moving around)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.176.133 (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Article focus
You can't just willy-nilly jam together electrical, fiber optic, and mechanical cables in a pile and call it an article. This needs careful refactoring and will likely turn into a disambiguation page.

If this level of organization becomes typical of Wikipedia articles, we'll ultimately have only one article called Stuff. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Rename
Since this article is only about electrical cables, how about calling it Cable (electrical) ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: (as a first step) 'Cable' is too vague for a single article. Also then we could move cable (disambiguation) to plain 'Cable' ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

CVVS control cables
During a discustion on Foundation Fieldbus Technology the term for an existing cable came up of CVVS-1.25 mm2. What does CVVS stand for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.203.111.12 (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Health hazards
This article totally lacks informations in regard to cable related health hazards (mainly for people who work in cable factories but also for the end user). What is the situation beyond theory. Different manufacturers (certainly some of them "cheap Chinese") use different PVC/plastics formulas (and quality-wise different products) for outer/inner insulation - so - for example: at what concentrations chemical evaporations off those plastics in their form during manufacturing can cause issues with health - maybe even cancer? What is the life expectancy of a person who works in a cable manufacturing factory, what are the recomendations regarding home use (or generally in enclosed spaces where chemical evaporations (especially near hot objects etc.) may accumulate over time). Also there surely are safety issues regarding cables as far as electrical, magnetic fields, cable material integrity, operation temperatures and other issues are concerned... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.217.97 (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 25 May 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved as clear consensus has been established. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  21:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

– User:Wtshymanski has proposed that this article should be moved and refined to distinguish cable as used in electrical engineering from cable as used in wire rope. Given the broad number of meanings, including those not involving physical cables, I am inclined to agree. bd2412 T 21:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Cable → Cable (electrical)
 * Cable (disambiguation) → Cable


 * Support --Zac67 (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Electrical cable, please, per WP:NATURAL. It should not have redirected to electrical wiring anyway, and I've just fixed that. No such user (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support (with move to electrical cable). Not at all clear that electrical cables are the primary topic. Plantdrew (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Cabling" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cabling&redirect=no Cabling] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. fgnievinski (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)