Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!samsung!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!wrgate!midas!jeffw
From: jeffw@midas.WR.TEK.COM (Jeff Winslow)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: A conundrum about the AWG (wire gauge) table
Message-ID: <3416@wrgate.WR.TEK.COM>
Date: 30 Aug 90 16:34:54 GMT
References: <2588@ryn.esg.dec.com> <5170088@hplsla.HP.COM>
Sender: news@wrgate.WR.TEK.COM
Reply-To: jeffw@midas.WR.TEK.COM (Jeff Winslow)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 13

In article <5170088@hplsla.HP.COM> tomb@hplsla.HP.COM (Tom Bruhns) writes:
>Dunno how it all got started, but you should note that a change of
>3 in gauge number corresponds exactly to a 2:1 cross-section change.

Are you sure about that, Tom? According to the tables I have here, it's
about half a percent off.

I wouldn't even mention it, except that another poster kept coming up
with a 1.007 ratio and was wondering why it wasn't exactly 1. I don't know
the answer either, but it might have something to do with the fact that
1.007 is just about the ratio of the square root of 10 to pi.

						Jeff Winslow