Hello,

I must admit that until I read here, I never knew these existed or
what they meant (copper coated aluminium, copper coated steel). I made
the mistake of buying some cable from cpc, either not seeing or not
understanding the three tiny letters at the end of the description.

Is there ever a time when using CCA or CCS is as good as or better
than using solid copper. I ask because I have found out after the
event, that my bell wire for my doorbell is CC something.

I am looking to buy some telephone cable to run a socket upstairs and
Tool station sell two varieties; you've guess it: one is CCA and the
other is CCS.

Perhaps I'm just being a copper snob but I'd like my cables to be
copper through and through.

Is there a reason for this? Is it a coincidence that these cables are
both small strand sizes and are not copper?

Thanks,
Stephen.

"Stephen" wrote in message
news
Hello,

I must admit that until I read here, I never knew these existed or
what they meant (copper coated aluminium, copper coated steel). I made
the mistake of buying some cable from cpc, either not seeing or not
understanding the three tiny letters at the end of the description.

Is there ever a time when using CCA or CCS is as good as or better
than using solid copper. I ask because I have found out after the
event, that my bell wire for my doorbell is CC something.

I am looking to buy some telephone cable to run a socket upstairs and
Tool station sell two varieties; you've guess it: one is CCA and the
other is CCS.

Perhaps I'm just being a copper snob but I'd like my cables to be
copper through and through.

Is there a reason for this?

Yep, its cheaper.

Is it a coincidence that these cables are
both small strand sizes and are not copper?

En el artículo , Stephen
escribió:

Is there ever a time when using CCA or CCS is as good as or better
than using solid copper. I ask because I have found out after the
event, that my bell wire for my doorbell is CC something.

It's fine for things like doorbells and phone extensions.

I am looking to buy some telephone cable to run a socket upstairs and
Tool station sell two varieties; you've guess it: one is CCA and the
other is CCS.

Perhaps I'm just being a copper snob but I'd like my cables to be
copper through and through.

It's only really desirable for data transmission (Ethernet
installations, for example.) You do want 100% copper for that.

If you buy a reel to fix your doorbell, you may as well go for 100%
copper. Any cable you have left over can then be used for Ethernet
installation.

Is there a reason for this?

Cost. There should be little difference nowadays because the cost of
copper has plummeted. If a stockist still shows a large price margin
between CCA/CCS and solid copper, it's because they bought stock when
the price of copper was high and are unwilling or unable to absorb the
difference.

Also watch that the cable is usually sold in 100m and 300m lengths -
make sure you're comparing like-for-like.

Is it a coincidence that these cables are
both small strand sizes and are not copper?

Yes. The strand size doesn't matter, what does matter are the
characteristic impedance and capacitance of the able, plus the number of
twists. This is defined in the Cat5 / Cat5e / Cat 6 / Cat 6a cable
spec.

CCA and CCS are more brittle than pure copper, and more prone to
fracturing if handled roughly during installation. This can lead to
frustratingly intermittent faults. They are completely unsuitable for
making up patch leads.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

On 09/11/2015 08:41, Stephen wrote:
Hello,

I must admit that until I read here, I never knew these existed or
what they meant (copper coated aluminium, copper coated steel). I made
the mistake of buying some cable from cpc, either not seeing or not
understanding the three tiny letters at the end of the description.

Is there ever a time when using CCA or CCS is as good as or better
than using solid copper. I ask because I have found out after the
event, that my bell wire for my doorbell is CC something.

It depends on what you are doing with it... the general answer to the
question is "no", but how much worse it will be varies with application.
With a doorbell its likely to work fine. You may get less reliability
with age, but that is debatable.

I am looking to buy some telephone cable to run a socket upstairs and
Tool station sell two varieties; you've guess it: one is CCA and the
other is CCS.

So order elsewhere.

Perhaps I'm just being a copper snob but I'd like my cables to be
copper through and through.

Is there a reason for this? Is it a coincidence that these cables are
both small strand sizes and are not copper?

For datacomms applications, its doubtful if many of the CCA or CCS
cables even meet the required standards to be CAT5e etc. So you are wise
to be wary. Also for any flexible cable application (especially at small
cross sections) they will prove less durable.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 09/11/2015 08:41, Stephen wrote:
Hello,

I must admit that until I read here, I never knew these existed or
what they meant (copper coated aluminium, copper coated steel). I made
the mistake of buying some cable from cpc, either not seeing or not
understanding the three tiny letters at the end of the description.

Is there ever a time when using CCA or CCS is as good as or better
than using solid copper. I ask because I have found out after the
event, that my bell wire for my doorbell is CC something.

I am looking to buy some telephone cable to run a socket upstairs and
Tool station sell two varieties; you've guess it: one is CCA and the
other is CCS.

Perhaps I'm just being a copper snob but I'd like my cables to be
copper through and through.

Is there a reason for this? Is it a coincidence that these cables are
both small strand sizes and are not copper?

Thanks,
Stephen.

Thin strand CCS makes impressive showers of sparks. Wire a couple of
inches into a bayonet connector and put in place of a mains bulb.

Of course it's unsafe, a shock hazard, a fire risk etc. But it's fun.

Cheers
--
Syd

On Monday, 9 November 2015 08:41:16 UTC, Stephen wrote:
Hello,

I must admit that until I read here, I never knew these existed or
what they meant (copper coated aluminium, copper coated steel). I made
the mistake of buying some cable from cpc, either not seeing or not
understanding the three tiny letters at the end of the description.

Is there ever a time when using CCA or CCS is as good as or better
than using solid copper. I ask because I have found out after the
event, that my bell wire for my doorbell is CC something.

I am looking to buy some telephone cable to run a socket upstairs and
Tool station sell two varieties; you've guess it: one is CCA and the
other is CCS.

Perhaps I'm just being a copper snob but I'd like my cables to be
copper through and through.

Is there a reason for this? Is it a coincidence that these cables are
both small strand sizes and are not copper?

Thanks,
Stephen.

They're cheaper, but CCA is liable to fracture if bent repeatedly. CCS is much stronger, hence is used outdoors for phone wiring. Either is fine for bell wiring, but if there's any possibility of putting broadband down phone wiring then avoid CCA/CCS.


NT

On 09/11/2015 11:36, wrote:
On Monday, 9 November 2015 08:41:16 UTC, Stephen wrote:
Hello,

I must admit that until I read here, I never knew these existed or
what they meant (copper coated aluminium, copper coated steel). I
made the mistake of buying some cable from cpc, either not seeing
or not understanding the three tiny letters at the end of the
description.

Is there ever a time when using CCA or CCS is as good as or better
than using solid copper. I ask because I have found out after the
event, that my bell wire for my doorbell is CC something.

I am looking to buy some telephone cable to run a socket upstairs
and Tool station sell two varieties; you've guess it: one is CCA
and the other is CCS.

Perhaps I'm just being a copper snob but I'd like my cables to be
copper through and through.

Is there a reason for this? Is it a coincidence that these cables
are both small strand sizes and are not copper?

Thanks, Stephen.

They're cheaper, but CCA is liable to fracture if bent repeatedly.
CCS is much stronger, hence is used outdoors for phone wiring. Either
is fine for bell wiring, but if there's any possibility of putting
broadband down phone wiring then avoid CCA/CCS.

CCA gets its reputation for being unreliable because BT used it. It gets
a lot of rough handling in the CAB and breaks.
In a normal household where the cable isn't moved about a lot it should
be fine.
CCS probably gets its reputation from the same place but I don't know of
BT using it.

On Monday, 9 November 2015 08:41:16 UTC, Stephen wrote:
I am looking to buy some telephone cable to run a socket upstairs and
Tool station sell two varieties; you've guess it: one is CCA and the
other is CCS.

CCA or CCS do not comply with Category 5 / 5e data cable standards, or BT CW1308 internal premises cable standards. Those standards specify copper.

The strand size, and hardness, is fairly critical as all these use IDC connections and rely on the core - to - connector blade interface to make a secure connection.

Owain

Also of course if you want to use wire for wire aerials as you might if you
were a ham, then ccs can be a bit less prone to stretch and cheaper than
hard drawn copper.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Stephen" wrote in message
news
Hello,

I must admit that until I read here, I never knew these existed or
what they meant (copper coated aluminium, copper coated steel). I made
the mistake of buying some cable from cpc, either not seeing or not
understanding the three tiny letters at the end of the description.

Is there ever a time when using CCA or CCS is as good as or better
than using solid copper. I ask because I have found out after the
event, that my bell wire for my doorbell is CC something.

I am looking to buy some telephone cable to run a socket upstairs and
Tool station sell two varieties; you've guess it: one is CCA and the
other is CCS.

Perhaps I'm just being a copper snob but I'd like my cables to be
copper through and through.

Is there a reason for this?

Yep, its cheaper.

Is it a coincidence that these cables are
both small strand sizes and are not copper?

In article . com,
dennis@home writes:
On 09/11/2015 11:36, wrote:
On Monday, 9 November 2015 08:41:16 UTC, Stephen wrote:
Hello,

I must admit that until I read here, I never knew these existed or
what they meant (copper coated aluminium, copper coated steel). I
made the mistake of buying some cable from cpc, either not seeing
or not understanding the three tiny letters at the end of the
description.

Is there ever a time when using CCA or CCS is as good as or better
than using solid copper. I ask because I have found out after the
event, that my bell wire for my doorbell is CC something.

I am looking to buy some telephone cable to run a socket upstairs
and Tool station sell two varieties; you've guess it: one is CCA
and the other is CCS.

Perhaps I'm just being a copper snob but I'd like my cables to be
copper through and through.

Is there a reason for this? Is it a coincidence that these cables
are both small strand sizes and are not copper?

Thanks, Stephen.

They're cheaper, but CCA is liable to fracture if bent repeatedly.
CCS is much stronger, hence is used outdoors for phone wiring. Either
is fine for bell wiring, but if there's any possibility of putting
broadband down phone wiring then avoid CCA/CCS.

CCA gets its reputation for being unreliable because BT used it. It gets
a lot of rough handling in the CAB and breaks.

Problem in outdoor cabinets was corrosion, not handling.
They had to stuff the cabinets full of dessicant bags to keep
them working at all, until it was eventually stripped out.

In a normal household where the cable isn't moved about a lot it should
be fine.
CCS probably gets its reputation from the same place but I don't know of
BT using it.

There are 3 steel wires in the standard 2-pair BT drop cable,
but they aren't used as conductors, only for extra strength.
The wires used as conductors are copper. Hence 7 wires in total.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Monday, 9 November 2015 13:56:36 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/11/2015 11:36, nt wrote:
On Monday, 9 November 2015 08:41:16 UTC, Stephen wrote:
Hello,

I must admit that until I read here, I never knew these existed or
what they meant (copper coated aluminium, copper coated steel). I
made the mistake of buying some cable from cpc, either not seeing
or not understanding the three tiny letters at the end of the
description.

Is there ever a time when using CCA or CCS is as good as or better
than using solid copper. I ask because I have found out after the
event, that my bell wire for my doorbell is CC something.

I am looking to buy some telephone cable to run a socket upstairs
and Tool station sell two varieties; you've guess it: one is CCA
and the other is CCS.

Perhaps I'm just being a copper snob but I'd like my cables to be
copper through and through.

Is there a reason for this? Is it a coincidence that these cables
are both small strand sizes and are not copper?

Thanks, Stephen.

They're cheaper, but CCA is liable to fracture if bent repeatedly.
CCS is much stronger, hence is used outdoors for phone wiring. Either
is fine for bell wiring, but if there's any possibility of putting
broadband down phone wiring then avoid CCA/CCS.

CCA gets its reputation for being unreliable because BT used it. It gets
a lot of rough handling in the CAB and breaks.
In a normal household where the cable isn't moved about a lot it should
be fine.
CCS probably gets its reputation from the same place but I don't know of
BT using it.

With respect CCA got its reputation long before BT existed. Ferrous electrical wire has a much older history.


NT

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:39:12 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

====snip====


There are 3 steel wires in the standard 2-pair BT drop cable,
but they aren't used as conductors, only for extra strength.
The wires used as conductors are copper. Hence 7 wires in total.

AFAICR, those 3 steel wires were known as the "catenary" wires.


--
Johnny B Good

On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 23:39:12 -0000 (UTC), Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Is there ever a time when using CCA or CCS is as good as or
better
than using solid copper.

When the totally overwhelming factor is capital cost. Costs due to
poor performance of anything using it or maintenance excluded. It'll
be OK for a doorbell (provided it doesn't get wet/damp) and for a
short, telephone only, extension but anything dataery, ADSL, VDSL,
Ethernet, etc forget it, copper is reuired.

CCA gets its reputation for being unreliable because BT used it.
It
gets a lot of rough handling in the CAB and breaks.

That's what happens here, engineer opens joint post or bullet to
trace/fix a line. The movement even gentle, I've watched 'em, breaks
3 other lines, which is fine if the wire falls out of the jelly bean,
engineer normally spots stray wire and lonely jelley bean and remakes
the connection. Trouble is the wire can break but not fall out.
Engineer fixes orginal fault but someone elses line is now dead, they
report a fault, so engineer comes out and ... rinse and repeat.
Normally takes a week to two weeks for things to settle down. Another
thing that can happen is that the a wire doen't break completely so
POTS still works but the discontinuity upsets ADSL and makes the
upload a bit iffy, overall less stable and a bit slower. Our line is
currently in that state, waiting for an engineer to give it a fatal
prod.

Problem in outdoor cabinets was corrosion, not handling.
They had to stuff the cabinets full of dessicant bags to keep
them working at all, until it was eventually stripped out.

Cabinets still have dessicant bags and there is still Ali in service.
I'm in two minds about them stripping out the Ali as what we have is
one of the heaviest ali cables they used, each wire is 0.75 mm dia
noticeably larger than the copper. But of course ali has higher
losses ...

These days if they go to the expense of stripping out the direct
buried Ali they ought to replace it with FTTP. B-)

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 09/11/2015 23:51, wrote:


With respect CCA got its reputation long before BT existed. Ferrous electrical wire has a much older history.


NT


OK, Post Office then.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 23:39:12 -0000 (UTC), Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Is there ever a time when using CCA or CCS is as good as or
better
than using solid copper.

When the totally overwhelming factor is capital cost. Costs due to
poor performance of anything using it or maintenance excluded. It'll
be OK for a doorbell (provided it doesn't get wet/damp) and for a
short, telephone only, extension but anything dataery, ADSL, VDSL,
Ethernet, etc forget it, copper is reuired.

CCA gets its reputation for being unreliable because BT used it.
It
gets a lot of rough handling in the CAB and breaks.

That's what happens here, engineer opens joint post or bullet to
trace/fix a line. The movement even gentle, I've watched 'em, breaks
3 other lines, which is fine if the wire falls out of the jelly bean,
engineer normally spots stray wire and lonely jelley bean and remakes
the connection. Trouble is the wire can break but not fall out.
Engineer fixes orginal fault but someone elses line is now dead, they
report a fault, so engineer comes out and ... rinse and repeat.
Normally takes a week to two weeks for things to settle down. Another
thing that can happen is that the a wire doen't break completely so
POTS still works but the discontinuity upsets ADSL and makes the
upload a bit iffy, overall less stable and a bit slower.

It normally happens the other way, it's the POTS that fails
because it needs DC continuity but the ADSL that keeps
working because it doesn't.

Our line is currently in that state, waiting for an engineer to give it a
fatal
prod.

Problem in outdoor cabinets was corrosion, not handling.
They had to stuff the cabinets full of dessicant bags to keep
them working at all, until it was eventually stripped out.

Cabinets still have dessicant bags and there is still Ali in service.
I'm in two minds about them stripping out the Ali as what we have is
one of the heaviest ali cables they used, each wire is 0.75 mm dia
noticeably larger than the copper. But of course ali has higher
losses ...

These days if they go to the expense of stripping out the direct
buried Ali they ought to replace it with FTTP. B-)

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 04:33:24 +1100, John Jackson wrote:

Another thing that can happen is that the a wire doen't break
completely so POTS still works but the discontinuity upsets ADSL
and
makes the upload a bit iffy, overall less stable and a bit slower.

It normally happens the other way, it's the POTS that fails because it
needs DC continuity but the ADSL that keeps working because it doesn't.

Read what I wrote, one of the wires *doen't* (sic) break.

The DC loop still works so POTS does but the raised resistance at the
near break upsets the balance of the line and I find makes the
frequencies used for the upper end of the upload and lower end of the
download bands less able to carry as much data.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 09/11/2015 13:56, dennis@home wrote:
CCA gets its reputation for being unreliable because BT used it. It gets
a lot of rough handling in the CAB and breaks.

It's also rather prone to corrosion damage.

Andy

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 04:33:24 +1100, John Jackson wrote:

Another thing that can happen is that the a wire doen't break
completely so POTS still works but the discontinuity upsets ADSL
and
makes the upload a bit iffy, overall less stable and a bit slower.

It normally happens the other way, it's the POTS that fails because it
needs DC continuity but the ADSL that keeps working because it doesn't.

Read what I wrote,

I already did that thanks.

one of the wires *doen't* (sic) break.

You actually said

one of the wires *doen't* break COMPLETELY.

The DC loop still works

Not when you get what the industry calls an HR joint, high resistance.

so POTS does

No it doesn't with an HR joint.

but the raised resistance at the near break upsets the balance of the line

ADSL doesn't care because even with a full break it often still works
fine as long as the pieces of metal are still close to each other.

and I find makes the frequencies used for the upper end of the upload
and lower end of the download bands less able to carry as much data.

It doesn't work like that as a complete break in the DC path shows.

En el artículo o.uk,
Dave Liquorice escribió:

Read what I wrote,

You're wasting your time arguing with one of the nyms of the troll Rod
Speed. Usenet is write-only for him, he's not going to read anything
you write.


""
"John James"
"Simon Brown"
"Jacko"
"Simon263"
"John Chance"
"Ratsack"
"Hank"
"kshy"
"JHY"
"Blano"
"Santo Brown"
"hqhy"
"Jim Thomas"
"Sam Thatch"
"Hanny Z"
"78lp"
"John Jackson"

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 10:38:46 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

For datacomms applications, its doubtful if many of the CCA or CCS
cables even meet the required standards to be CAT5e etc. So you are wise
to be wary. Also for any flexible cable application (especially at small
cross sections) they will prove less durable.

Thanks for all the replies.

I would have thought that all phone wires would carry broadband these
days, so I am surprised there is a market for CC?-type wires.

I have been looking on CPC and they seem to sell quite a range. Some
are 0.2mm^2 CSA up to 0.5mm^2 CSA. Is bigger better?

The 0.5mm^2 cable says it meets BT specification CW1308, whatever that
is. The thinner cables do not.

Interestingly they say only for internal use; I thought the black
version would be ok for outside? Not to worry, I only want to use it
inside anyway.

Thanks,
Stephen.

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:48:09 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

You're wasting your time arguing with one of the nyms of the troll Rod
Speed.

Meh. Can't be arsed to carry on with anyone who doesn't accept what
another says about their own direct experience.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:46:39 +0000, Stephen wrote:

I would have thought that all phone wires would carry broadband these
days, so I am surprised there is a market for CC?-type wires.

Cost...

I have been looking on CPC and they seem to sell quite a range. Some
are 0.2mm^2 CSA up to 0.5mm^2 CSA. Is bigger better?

The 0.5mm^2 cable says it meets BT specification CW1308, whatever that
is. The thinner cables do not.

Within limits bigger the better and it really ought to meet CW1308
which is the defined standard for (internal?) phone wireing cable.
Smaller stuff might not work well/reliably with IDC connections and
mixing wire sizes in the same IDC is asking for trouble.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:48:09 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

You're wasting your time arguing with one of the nyms of the troll Rod
Speed.

Meh. Can't be arsed to carry on with anyone who doesn't accept what
another says about their own direct experience.

Your direct experience wasn't relevant to what was being discussed.

On Wednesday, 11 November 2015 19:43:05 UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:46:39 +0000, Stephen wrote:

I would have thought that all phone wires would carry broadband these
days, so I am surprised there is a market for CC?-type wires.

Cost...

I have been looking on CPC and they seem to sell quite a range. Some
are 0.2mm^2 CSA up to 0.5mm^2 CSA. Is bigger better?

The 0.5mm^2 cable says it meets BT specification CW1308, whatever that
is. The thinner cables do not.

Within limits bigger the better and it really ought to meet CW1308
which is the defined standard for (internal?) phone wireing cable.
Smaller stuff might not work well/reliably with IDC connections and
mixing wire sizes in the same IDC is asking for trouble.

Surely within limits it makes no difference. I agree about IDCs, mixing sizes in one is not smart.

1mm^2 has 44 milliohms per metre per pair, so
0.5mm^2: 88mohm/m, 10m = 0.88 ohms,
0.2mm^2: 220mohm/m, 10m = 2.2 ohms.
For telecomms I wouldn't expect it to make a difference. A kilometre of it would.


NT

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:36:08 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Within limits bigger the better and it really ought to meet CW1308
which is the defined standard for (internal?) phone wireing cable.
Smaller stuff might not work well/reliably with IDC connections
and
mixing wire sizes in the same IDC is asking for trouble.

Surely within limits it makes no difference. I agree about IDCs, mixing sizes in one is not smart.

1mm^2 has 44 milliohms per metre per pair, so
0.5mm^2: 88mohm/m, 10m = 0.88 ohms,
0.2mm^2: 220mohm/m, 10m = 2.2 ohms.

For telecomms I wouldn't expect it to make a difference. A kilometre of it would.

Less than 10m 0.2mm^2 CCS really screwed up the ADSL. No noticeable
change in the POTS for the 10 minutes it was in circuit.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thursday, 12 November 2015 22:58:04 UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:36:08 -0800 (PST), nt wrote:

Within limits bigger the better and it really ought to meet CW1308
which is the defined standard for (internal?) phone wireing cable.
Smaller stuff might not work well/reliably with IDC connections
and
mixing wire sizes in the same IDC is asking for trouble.

Surely within limits it makes no difference. I agree about IDCs, mixing sizes in one is not smart.

1mm^2 has 44 milliohms per metre per pair, so
0.5mm^2: 88mohm/m, 10m = 0.88 ohms,
0.2mm^2: 220mohm/m, 10m = 2.2 ohms.

For telecomms I wouldn't expect it to make a difference. A kilometre of it would.

Less than 10m 0.2mm^2 CCS really screwed up the ADSL. No noticeable
change in the POTS for the 10 minutes it was in circuit.

I presume it's misbehaviour at rf that causes that, I can't see the extra 1.32 ohms being the problem.


NT