Thanks. That statement seems very clear.BS 7609 references BS 4579-1:1970, which is about test specifications for compression joints: resistance, tensile strength etc. The scope of that Standard has no minimum CSA but it does say:BS 4579-1:1970 said:The conductors for which the connectors may be suitable may be tinned or untinned, stranded or solid...
As I've been saying, I can certainly see good reason for specific concerns about crimped joints (in general) in aircraft (and spacecraft), and the NASA document seems to imply that they feel that the risks are greater with solid conductors. As you say, one could also produce an argument for solid conductors, per se, being prohibited in aircraft/spacecraft - although the existence of those statements in the NASA document would seem to imply that they do use solid conductors in some situations.There's also BS 5G 178-1:1993: Crimped joints for aircraft electrical cables and wires. That makes no reference at all to solid core conductors, but it does mention strands of a core. It could be that solid core conductors are prohibited entirely in aircraft, which would seem sensible to me.
I would have thought not (other than in 'domestic-like' wiring in commercial/industrial installations), but aptsys's comment above may mean that DNOs do use (large) solid conductors in their distribution networks, even though that would somewhat surprise me. Apart from anything else, I would have thought that solid conductors would become unmanageably stiff above 10 mm².Are solid-conductor cables widely used outside of domestic wiring?
As you go on to imply, very small solid conductors are common - particularly in relation to telecoms/data - but I've never heard of crimped joints being used for such cables, and find it hard to imagine that they ever would be.
Kind Regards, John