Talk:American wire gauge

Tables of AWG wire sizes versus Approximate resistance

These disagree by almost a factor of two, but I'm not quite sure how to fix it. Chris2crawford (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of the old Wikipedia exhortation "So fix it!", as it comes across as both a dismissal and a demand. However... :) This article, like so many, needs the input of people who know what they're talking about, and can back it up with sources. So - if you are so inclined - please take a stab at fixing the issues. I, a reluctant, barely competent person when it comes to wires and our old friend Mr. Electron, would be ever grateful. Cheers! Anastrophe (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was both lazy and exhortational, but all the same, thanks, 184.174.240.170, for fixing it anyway :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris2crawford (talk • contribs) 17:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The table for approximate resistance is supposedly taken from page 27 of reference 6. But it does not agree with the table in that reference. Yes, the referenced table has the data spread across 3 columns for some reason (readability?), but by my reading, the reference table is a lot closer to the AWG wire sizes table than the table here. Apparently the table in the reference is supposed to be a demonstration of the "rules of thumb", so I suppose it is appropriate here. But the reference only lists the values in "Ohms per 1000 Feet" (the same as mΩ/ft presented here). An additional column was added for this article for metric values (mΩ/m). But those values are clearly rounded arbitrarily to very low precision numbers. If that is meant to show the metric equivalent, shouldn't it be done more precisely even though this is a table of approximate values? Finally, in the reference, this table is supposed to be showing how these rules of thumb can be applied to a variety of other AWGs based on 10 AWG having 1 ohm per 1000 ft. That should be explained here, AND, 1 mΩ/ft should have been used as the starting point for 10 AWG rather than the 1.6 mΩ/ft used in this table. Was that just a mistake by the original author? At some point (soon?) I will propose a new table for discussion here. JDHeinzmann (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see why the table in the reference has its values spread across three columns. It is meant to show how the resistance doubles with every increase of 3 in AWG. And only 10 sizes are shown per column to show how the resistance increases by a factor of 10 for each increase of AWG by 10. I say the beauty of the original table in the reference is lost by the table in this article. For the purpose of illustrating these rules of thumb then, I see no reason to present the metric equivalents. Then, the reader can compare the rules-of-thumb table to the Tables of AWG wire sizes to see how closely the rules of thumb come to the real values. I say, recreate the original table in its same format here. Thoughts? JDHeinzmann (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The AWG column is wrong I think. It should start at 0 not 000, then you have a better match. Xanxious (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, Xanxious. I dug through the history of edits and found that the table was correct for years and then on the 15th of January 2021 someone made a silly mistake that ruined this table. Here is a link to the diff of the bad edit: [1] I'll revert the changes now, even though I'm not sure why this table is really necessary. IMHO it should be removed altogether as the same data already exists in the next table, but that's not for me to decide. --141.226.14.107 (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Approximate resistance of copper wire and extended AWG wire sizes table.

Now that Approximate resistance table has been fixed, I would suggest (as IP 141.226.14.107 user did above) that the table be completely removed, as anyone can easily approximate numbers from the full table just below it. Also, instead of an approximation of the values already given, what might be useful is an extension of the copper table to include values for Aluminium (for larger wires) and Gold (for small wires), since aluminium is often used to carry large current in various places, due to the price of copper, and gold is used in microelectronics for very small wires. Dhrm77 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Agreed, I will remove the table. DouglasHeld (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Another error in the table

After finding some wrong information in a Google search, I studied this page and checked the mm cross-section values in the table. I think most values fall within the rules for rounding, but the value for 2 AWG seems incorrect to me.

My formula in Google Sheets is

=PI() / 4 * ( 0.127 * 92^((36-A9)/39) )^2

where A9 is the AWG number. My work can be checked publicly here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kC9fOswjAN98ZhTFpo5mhjSCz_YBnBTLBucEc1fOhoM/edit?usp=sharing

I'd propose that a knowledgeable person review whether the mm^2 value for 2 AWG should be changed from 33.4 to 33.6. Or, just ping back here and I will edit the entry.

DouglasHeld (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the value in the table from 33.4 to 33.6.

DouglasHeld (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

"Turns of wire per unit length" is confusing

I find this reference lacking in detail. Especially as this "turns of wire" figure appears in the table below. I didn't think the single sentence adequately explained the derivation of the unit or its practical use. Also the statement is missing a reference so I don't have further information to browse to, either.

I'd propose that the information be expanded into a paragraph with at least one reference, or else removed and the information removed from the AWG table as well.

DouglasHeld (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)