# Length of 250g of 37 SWG (40 AWG) wire?

What is the approximate length of 250g of 37 SWG (40 AWG or 0.17mm diameter) enamelled copper wire?
Where can I see a chart showing this sort of info for other gauges of
enamelled copper wire?
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Alex Coleman wrote:

It's just possible a manufacturer may have date, like these people: http://mdmetric.com/tech/wirewt.htm
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Alex Coleman wrote:

or http://www.interfacebus.com/Copper_Wire_AWG_SIze.html
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Alex Coleman wrote:

You did say "enamelled" so I ass-ume you mean magnet wire: http://www.mwswire.com/tech_book.htm
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Density of copper = 8.94 gm/cm3 (various sources give 8.92 to 8.96.)
I don't know what the weight of the enamelling is, but as copper is more dense than iron, I'll ignore it.
250g of copper / 8.94 gm = 27.964 cm3.
Cross section area = PI * r (in cm here) squared = 0.00022698 cm2.
Length is 27.964/0.00022698, so 123200 cm.
You might have to take the weight of the enamel into account with that thin wire, but I think a calculation might get close enough.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 00:58:21 GMT, the renowned Lostgallifreyan

My wire tables say AWG 40 is 33,410 ft/lb.
So, for 250g =0.551155655 lb would be 18,414 ft = 5,600m, about 4.6x as long.
The reason for the discrepancy-- the diameter of AWG 40 is given as 3.145 mils or about 0.08mm. Square the ratio and we have the difference accounted for.
Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
snipped-for-privacy@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Or, to put it another way, how long is a piece of metal string? >:)
What with the differing vlues for density, the unknown thickness and weight of enamelling, and what may or may not be a confusion somewhere between radius and diameter, the room for error is large. The OP gives 0.17 mm as a diameter, but yours might be a radius, given a figure of 0.08. I've no idea which is right, but that half/double between the two values is suggestive.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Gave us:

Copper wire... ALL copper wire is given as the gauge of the WIRE part of the "wire". Not enamel or anything else.
Otherwise all current capacity declarations/calculations would be off from maker to maker, when in fact they are merely adjusted for factors related to insulation material and thickness and thermal properties.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

yup, but when they weigh a spool of enamelled wire the deduct the weight of the spool and the label but not the weight of the enamel.
Bye. Jasen
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Gave us:

Bwuahahahahaha!
Basic math belongs in the basic math group.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

So it is. I went looking. I don't know where the OP's value of 0.17 comes from, I just took it at face value.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Gave us:

Apples and oranges?
Bwuahahahahah!