Bob,

   I'm only using Excel on this machine.  The two versions give different results for several
cases.  350a @ 1 ft. old=="size 0/4" with "see chart" for "in-bundle" (no weight column); new=="0/3" and
weight == "######".  For 10A @ 14 ft, I get: 18g /16g in-bundle; new: 20g/18 in-bundle.

   Now I don't know what to trust. ;)

Dale R.

Bob White wrote:

Hi Wendell,

Yes, we need to get one of the Excel users to test it (if I didn't make
them all mad with my smart a** comment :).  I also found a 502 error in
the weight depending on the data input.  For example, If length is one
foot, any current from 301A to 379A gives a 502 error.  380A and above
gives a zero weight.  The zero makes sense because that's where the AWG
answer becomes 'See Chart'.

How about it Excel users.  Will one of you run the same data in the
spreadsheet I modified and compare it to Al's original?  Does it
calculate to the same AWG for reasonable data?  Do you see an error in
weight for current of 350A and length of 1 foot?  (Spreadsheet attached
to earlier post.)

Thanks,
Bob W.