|
|
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:27:43 -0800
"Al Gietzen" <ALVentures@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Bob;
>
>
>
> I don't have your spreadsheet attached to earlier post. Mine gives:
>
>
>
> 10A and 14 ft gives #18 single wire, #16 bundled.
>
> 350 A 1 ft gives #0000 wire; does not calculate weight for a current over
> 265A - gives #VALUE (who would want a wire for such a high current anyway?)
>
>
>
> Al
>
>
The attached spread sheet should give the same results in Excel and
Open Office. Don't use MIL5088L-Repaired.xls.
When I changed the LOOKUP functions I made the length of search vector
match the length of the results vector by moving the result vector range
up by one. This was obviously going to make the output of the function
off by one cell. I moved the extra results cell to the end. Now the
answers seem to match (at least at 10A / 14 ft). The rest should be OK
too. There is still a problem with the LOOKUP function in that if the
last index cell is selected the result cell isn't valid. I'm not sure
why Excel doesn't flag the mismatch as an error. That may be why the
high current weight gives a #VALUE error. #VALUE is the same as a 502
error in Open Office. As you say, where the error occurs isn't a
practical value, but probably should be flagged as out of range or
something.
Al, thanks for providing the original spread sheet. It's a nifty tool.
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/
|
|