X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([63.240.77.83] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.1) with ESMTP id 1515587 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:12:31 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=63.240.77.83; envelope-from=rlwhite@comcast.net Received: from quail.site (c-68-35-160-229.hsd1.nm.comcast.net[68.35.160.229]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP id <200610310012110130091pm8e>; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:12:11 +0000 Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:12:45 -0700 From: Bob White To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Re: Wire size Message-Id: <20061030171245.26f09fcf.rlwhite@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 22:49:14 -0600 "Wendell Voto" wrote: > Bob, > Thanks a bunch. I loaded it up in OO and it seems to work OK. Maybe the awg is on the small side. Calcs 20awg for 10A @ 16 feet. > Wendell > > I tried using it but with my spread sheet program it gives err.504 in the > > calculation. > > > > Guess I need to buy a good program. > > > > > > > > You don't need a good one - just one from MS called Excel:-). > > > > > > > > Al > > > > > > The error was caused by the LOOKUP functions which all had an 18 cell > search vector and a 17 cell results vector. Apparently Microsoft knows > their users lack programming skills and ignore such errors. ;) > > Anyway a modified version is attached. The only change I think I've > made was to make the search and result vectors the same length. Could > one of you Excel users compare the results to the original to see > if the calculations are the same. > > Thanks, > Bob W. > > -- N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com First engine start 1/7/06 - Special Airworthiness Certificate 10/1/06 Cables for your rotary installation - http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/