[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: AWG WIRE TABLE for Coilers (fwd)



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 98 19:24:13 EDT
From: Jim Monte <JDM95003-at-UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU>
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: AWG WIRE TABLE for Coilers


>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 03:11:12 +0500
>From: "Alfred A. Skrocki" <alfred.skrocki-at-cybernetworking-dot-com>
>On Thursday, April 09, 1998 1:38 PM Antonio C. M. de Queiroz
>[SMTP:acmq-at-compuland-dot-com.br] wrote;
>
>> About the AWG wire table, some time ago I tried to see what was
>> the relation between the AWG gauge and the wire diameter, and found:
>>
>> diameter in mils=exp(-0.11592*gauge+5.7832)
>>
>> where exp(x)=e^x=2.71828^x
>>
>> For 00, 000, and 0000, use -1, -2, and -3.
>> This expression is precise for #10 and #30, and gives less than 0.1% of
>> error for the other gauges. (A regression algorithm can refine the
>> coefficients for better mean precision, if someone want to try).
>> Most of the other values of the table can be easily derived from the
>> wire diameter, conductivity, and density of the material.
>
>Antonio, I also worked on the relationship between the AWG (B&S) gauge and
>wire diameter back around 1991
<snip>
>Given the AWG (B&S) wire gauge you can calculate the diameter of the wire
>in inches;
>
> d = .3245574964 * 2.718281829 ^ (gauge / -8.624487202999999)
<snip>
>                                   Alfred A. Skrocki
>                               Alfred.Skrocki.Sr-at-JUNO-dot-com
>                           alfred.skrocki-at-cybernetworking-dot-com
>                      Visit my Do-It-Yourself Aquarium WEB page at;
>                       http://www.geocities-dot-com/CapeCanaveral/6251

Hi,

Using exp(a+b) = exp(a) * exp(b) and
      x = exp(ln(x)), x>0,
Alfred's formula translates to
d = exp(-0.1159489226967782 * gague - 1.125292573941649)   -- in inches
d = exp(-0.1159489226967782 * gague + 5.782462705040488)   -- in mils

So the two are essentially the same -- it's good to see formulas that
agree!  From a computational standpoint, this form is somewhat better
than the one Alfred gave since it trades an addition/subtraction for a
division.

Jim Monte