Every Galvorn format tested carried more current per gram than copper, up to 6.2 times more, in new third-party data spanning signal wire, power conductors, and EMI shielding formats. Raw current-carrying capacity, amps for a given wire size, still favors copper; measured per gram, it doesn't. That's the comparison that matters once weight is the constraint.
Copper has been the default conductor because, until recently, it was the only one worth specifying at scale. Galvorn's numbers here are what change that calculation. TE Connectivity, one of the world's largest connector and cable manufacturers, put Galvorn® through independent ampacity testing at its Harrisburg Electrical Components Test Laboratory, alongside low-level contact resistance. Ampacity means how much current a conductor can safely and reliably carry continuously. TE built and terminated the test articles themselves, ten Galvorn configurations across twisted yarn, braided yarn, and film, and benchmarked them against a 24 AWG solid copper wire.
“Customers in the Aerospace industry require size, weight, and power optimized connections to maximize mission performance and operational effectiveness. The Galvorn product performance has demonstrated that CNT-based conductors have matured to the level of technology readiness with acceptable current carrying capability to be affordably adopted in weight sensitive applications at scale.”
Matt McAlonis, Engineering Fellow, TE Connectivity
The headline result: measured per gram instead of per given size, every configuration TE tested outperformed copper, in one case by more than six times over. That's the number that matters for weight-constrained applications like aircraft wiring, EV cabling, and satellite harnesses, and it's the clearest signal in this data set. Size for size, copper still carries more current in the same cross-section; TE's own conclusion says as much.
But gram for gram, Galvorn wins across every format tested, from the thinnest signal yarn to the widest power-carrying film. The thinner yarns confirm what we've written about Galvorn as a signal and data wire material, where current draw is low and weight savings matter most. The film and larger braided yarn formats show that meaningful power-carrying capacity is achievable with the right cross-section. And because braided yarn and film are already the formats we recommend for EMI shielding, this testing adds current-carrying data to formats already proven for shielding effectiveness. For more background on how Galvorn compares to copper and aluminum as a conductor, see our complete guide to Galvorn carbon nanotube wire and cable.
How TE Connectivity ran its ampacity testing on Galvorn
TE evaluated ten Galvorn configurations, spanning Galvorn® 1000 Twisted Yarn, Galvorn® 800 Twisted Yarn, Galvorn® 1000 Braided Yarn, and Galvorn® F10 Film in sizes from a 150-micron yarn up to a 2 cm wide film, against 24 AWG solid copper wire. Testing followed two established methods: low-level contact resistance per EIA-364-23E, and temperature rise versus current per EIA-364-70D. The ampacity method raises current in steps until a specimen reaches roughly 50°C of temperature rise above ambient, which is a typical acceptable threshold for End-of-Life reliability. The current at that point is the practical ceiling for how much a connection system can reliably carry continuously.
Specific ampacity: current-carrying capacity per gram
Here's where the weight-basis advantage shows up directly. Raw current-carrying capacity, measured size for size, is one way to compare conductors, and it favors copper; the next section covers that comparison in detail. Engineers who care about weight and space instead, aerospace harnesses, EV wiring, anything where mass or crowding is the constraint, care about ampacity per unit mass. That constraint is only getting tighter: as more sensors and electrification get added to a given platform, more cables compete for the same space, and a thinner conductor matters as much as a lighter one. On that basis, Galvorn wins outright.
| Configuration | Specific ampacity (A per g/m) | vs. copper |
|---|---|---|
| Galvorn 1000 Twisted Yarn, 150 µm | 23.53 | 6.2x |
| Galvorn F10 Film, 2 cm wide | 15.50 | 4.1x |
| Galvorn F10 Film, 1 cm wide | 12.96 | 3.4x |
| Galvorn F10 Film, 1.6 cm wide | 12.89 | 3.4x |
| Galvorn 800 Twisted Yarn, 400 µm | 10.56 | 2.8x |
| Galvorn 1000 Twisted Yarn, 500 µm | 10.30 | 2.7x |
| Galvorn 1000 Twisted Yarn, 600 µm | 9.76 | 2.6x |
| Galvorn 1000 Braided Yarn, 620 µm | 7.07 | 1.9x |
| Galvorn 800 Twisted Yarn, 850 µm | 6.25 | 1.7x |
| Galvorn 1000 Braided Yarn, 1000 µm | 5.44 | 1.4x |
| 24 AWG copper wire, solid (reference) | 3.78 | 1.0x |
Specific ampacity is calculated from each specimen's linear density (mass per unit length) using Galvorn product specifications, and an estimated copper linear density based on standard 24 AWG solid wire dimensions and copper's density.
Every configuration tested beats copper on a per-mass basis, from 1.4x for the largest braided yarn up to 6.2x for the thinnest twisted yarn. The ranking is close to inverted from the raw current-carrying numbers in the next section: the 150-micron yarn, the weakest performer size for size, has the best specific ampacity of anything tested, because it takes so little mass to carry even a modest current.
Some of that gap comes from geometry rather than material: a thinner cylinder sheds heat more efficiently per unit mass than a thicker one regardless of what it's made of, and the 150-micron yarn is far thinner than the 510-micron copper reference. The 2 cm Galvorn F10 Film is a cleaner test of material alone, since its cross-section is actually larger than the copper reference's, and Galvorn still leads there by 4.1x.
Copper could close part of that gap by going thinner, but a thinner copper wire is also a weaker one, and wire breakage from handling and flex is already a real problem at small gauges. Galvorn holds up far better at those thin gauges, with roughly 1,000 times the flex life of copper, which is part of why the geometry effect works in its favor rather than against it. Gram for gram, Galvorn wins, in some formats by a wide margin. The section below shows how the raw numbers stack up size for size, and why that comparison still matters for some applications.
Galvorn vs. copper wire: ampacity results by format and size
Size for size, the picture flips. Copper still carries more current in the same cross-section, and that trade-off is the reason Galvorn's weight advantage exists in the first place. Here's how the ten configurations compare to 24 AWG solid copper wire on raw current-carrying capacity:
| Configuration | Size | Current at ~50°C rise | % of copper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24 AWG copper, solid wire (reference) | 510 µm diameter | 7.0 A | 100% |
| Galvorn F10 Film | 2 cm wide | 6.2 A | 89% |
| Galvorn F10 Film | 1.6 cm wide | 5.8 A | 83% |
| Galvorn 1000 Braided Yarn | 1000 µm | 4.9 A | 70% |
| Galvorn F10 Film | 1 cm wide | 3.5 A | 50% |
| Galvorn 800 Twisted Yarn | 850 µm | 2.5 A | 36% |
| Galvorn 1000 Braided Yarn | 620 µm | 2.05 A | 29% |
| Galvorn 1000 Twisted Yarn | 600 µm | 2.05 A | 29% |
| Galvorn 1000 Twisted Yarn | 500 µm | 1.7 A | 24% |
| Galvorn 800 Twisted Yarn | 400 µm | 0.95 A | 14% |
| Galvorn 1000 Twisted Yarn | 150 µm | 0.4 A | 6% |
The film formats lead the field on raw current-carrying capacity. At 2 cm wide, Galvorn F10 Film reached 89% of copper's current-carrying capacity in the same test conditions. The largest braided yarn reached 70%.
Why cross-section determines Galvorn's current-carrying capacity
Current-carrying capacity scales with size in every format tested, and that pattern alone isn't surprising, a thicker copper wire carries more current too. The more useful question is how much extra cross-section Galvorn needs to approach copper's numbers.
Twisted yarn goes from 0.4 A at 150 microns to 1.7 A at 500 microns to 2.05 A at 600 microns. Braided yarn goes from 2.05 A at 620 microns to 4.9 A at 1000 microns. Film goes from 3.5 A at 1 cm wide to 5.8 A at 1.6 cm to 6.2 A at 2 cm. The relationship holds across every format: more cross-section buys more current-carrying capacity in a predictable way, so engineers can dial in the ampacity a design needs by choosing size, trading back some of the weight advantage as they scale up.
Best applications for Galvorn wire and cable
What the data shows is that the right comparison depends on what's constraining the design. Size for size, copper is still ahead. Gram for gram, in every configuration tested, Galvorn beat copper, in some cases by more than six times over.
For engineers evaluating Galvorn as a wire or cable material, this data draws a practical line. The thinner yarns are signal and data conductors, not power conductors. The film and heavier yarn and braid formats are where power-carrying applications become realistic, provided the design can accommodate a larger cross-section than a copper equivalent.
That size trade-off matters most where weight is the primary driver: a heavier-gauge Galvorn conductor gives back some of the mass advantage. But for applications where flexibility, corrosion resistance, or sustainability outweigh matching copper's size, this testing shows the current-carrying capacity is there to support it, in signal wire, in power conductors sized appropriately, and in the braided yarn and film formats already doing double duty as EMI shielding.
What's next
TE Connectivity ran this testing independently, at its own lab, with its own test articles and methods. That's the kind of validation we look for as Galvorn moves into more wire and cable programs, and we expect more of it as testing continues.
If you're evaluating Galvorn for a wire or cable application, contact DexMat's engineering team.