Talk:Transformer oil

message: how many type of insulating oil or transformer oil we used in 11 kv line?
Delete The coverage of the only source is promotional. Not notable  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgarg78 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Reference or correction required. As noted further down in the article, Transformer oil is usually not mineral oil, and before that was PCB.
Speaking of which, the article calls mineral oil "flammable."  The link is to a wiki on combustibility and flammability.  At normal temperatures, mineral oil is not defined as flammable: it does not produce vapors that will ignite.  It is, however, combustible:  it will burn if you soak it onto a wick.  Sufficient heat to produce vapors will push mineral oils to flammability, but I think, for the intent of this article, the word should be combustible, perhaps with a note that flammable vapors may be produced in malfunctions that produce severe heating.   Tomligon (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  is usually a highly refined mineral oil 

message: That the repeated deletion of cited material be restored.   The last revert was this edit and this should be reversed.
===Evidence===
The paragraph was already referenced, but has been deleted because of 's apparent superior knowledge which apparently is regarded as superior to the added cite.  Wtshymanski claims that the low sulphur oil is exactly the same as the regular variety, but clearly removal of the sulphur makes it different.  There is considerable material via Google that shows that the sulphur corrodes the copper windings, hence the problem this oil apparently solves.  Google only brings up 39,000 odd hits on the matter.  This is important and notable enough to be included in the article.  
For those concerned that a manufacturer's paper is not impeccable enough, then this ER requests that this and this reference be either added or substituted as this comes from a much more impeccable source (University of Southampton and a transformer manufacturer respectively).  I could add more references, but three should be more than adequate.  85.255.235.66 (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: The paragraph was already referenced, but has been deleted because of 's apparent superior knowledge which apparently is regarded as superior to the added cite.  Wtshymanski claims that the low sulphur oil is exactly the same as the regular variety, but clearly removal of the sulphur makes it different.  There is considerable material via Google that shows that the sulphur corrodes the copper windings, hence the problem this oil apparently solves.  Google only brings up 39,000 odd hits on the matter.  This is important and notable enough to be included in the article.  
For those concerned that a manufacturer's paper is not impeccable enough, then this ER requests that this and this reference be either added or substituted as this comes from a much more impeccable source (University of Southampton and a transformer manufacturer respectively).  I could add more references, but three should be more than adequate.  85.255.235.66 (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence