I thought that gold was a better conductor than copper... and Aluminium is used for HV transmission lines around a steel core for strength.Mayhem said:Have not taken the time to look it up but I have a strange recollection that aluminium was originally considered the ideal conductor of electricity but since that copper is a much more efficient conductor it has a rating of 100%. In saying that, it is quite likely that I am wrong.
However, given that I do recall that it was given a 100% conductivity rating in the standards, there must be some reason why resistance isn’t considered.
Then again, given that you can never expect to transfer energy with out some form of loss (why we have never been able to achieve perpetual motion), the 100% rating may come from the fact that it has the lowest resistance of other conductors and is therefore used as the bench mark.
Suppose I should really go and find a reference to back this up. Perhaps I will do so over the weekend, unless someone else beats me to it (hint hint).
Neither gold or aluminium are as good at conducting electricity as copper. Gold is used because it does not corrode. Aluminium is used over copper in some applications because it is stronger. Brass is used for the same reason.Chris15 said:
This may explain the discrepencies: ConductivityChris15 said:I would tend to think that copper is not 100% conductive, else it would not have any resistance at all, and we know that it is not true. Superconductors are the only instance of practically zero resistance, and then only at temperatures within few degrees of absolute zero.
So I suppose this may be what Belden was referring to on that exam. (That was a rephrasal of a question off their Belden Cable College "Cable 101" Exam.)...conductivity values are often reported as percent IACS. IACS is an acronym for International Annealed Copper Standard or the material that was used to make traditional copper-wire . The conductivity of the annealed copper (5.8108 x 107S/m) is defined to be 100% IACS at 20°C. All other conductivity values are related back to this conductivity of annealed copper.
Just noticed that you haven't even voted!Chris15 said:I would tend to think that copper is not 100% conductive, else it would not have any resistance at all, and we know that it is not true. Superconductors are the only instance of practically zero resistance, and then only at temperatures within few degrees of absolute zero.
Correct. Is there a problem with that? But I guess if the standard against which conductivity is measured is copper, then I guess it would be 100%. Then silver would have a conductivity of 104%! I have issues with the question (like percent of what) and I know that you have taken it from elsewhere, so I will not blame you for it, but I am withholding my vote at this point.Radman said:Just noticed that you haven't even voted!