The point was that 97% capacity was cutting it too close.  We were hired
    to solve a problem.  When something failed during a performance, waving a
    bunch of calculations in their face showing it shouldn't have happend
    wasn't going to help.  A few more dollars for a larger cable is nothing
    compared to the cost of having to abort a performance in the middle.

I'm not convinced.  Sure, he has a point.  But on the other hand, what data
were you given to indicate that capacity might exceed that planned for, or
that the cable might be out-of-spec, or on failure statistics and
probabilities?  All other things being equal, a cable operated at "97% of
capacity" shouldn't fail, so it should be fine.

Of course, operating the cable at 110% of capacity doesn't result in
immediate failure anyway, just a slightly warmer than expected cable.

And 20g cable is probably more expensive than 18g cable, because 18g is
one of those "stdardard" values.

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics