| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ruthenium condemns ABX
From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html
"The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Obviously, between surfaces separated by nanometers, conductivity can also occur. Would anyone care to characterize this as well? |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Really? How hard is extreme hardness? Ever occur to you the harder the contact the smoother it can be polished? Which factor takes precedence in determining contact resistance, smoothness or malleability? Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? What happens if a very hard but microthin plating is applied to a flexible base metal contact? Will it conform to form multiple contact points? Obviously, between surfaces separated by nanometers, conductivity can also occur. Would anyone care to characterize this as well? You're reminding me of Trots claiming cable insulators acting as dielectrics are an audible factor. What was it you were pursuing a PhD in? ScottW |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ScottW" wrote in message news:7eh2f.3085$jw6.1293@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Really? How hard is extreme hardness? Ever occur to you the harder the contact the smoother it can be polished? Which factor takes precedence in determining contact resistance, smoothness or malleability? Failure to answer the questions noted. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:7eh2f.3085$jw6.1293@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Really? How hard is extreme hardness? Ever occur to you the harder the contact the smoother it can be polished? Which factor takes precedence in determining contact resistance, smoothness or malleability? Failure to answer the questions noted. Yep, you failed again, sock puppet Morein. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:7eh2f.3085$jw6.1293@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Really? How hard is extreme hardness? Ever occur to you the harder the contact the smoother it can be polished? Which factor takes precedence in determining contact resistance, smoothness or malleability? Failure to answer the questions noted. Failure to put the truth ahead of your agenda is also noted. You have succumbed to the dark side of the game. ScottW |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:7eh2f.3085$jw6.1293@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Really? How hard is extreme hardness? Ever occur to you the harder the contact the smoother it can be polished? Which factor takes precedence in determining contact resistance, smoothness or malleability? Failure to answer the questions noted. Yep, you failed again, sock puppet Morein. How can you call him a sockpuppet? You know his name, his phone number, his address, and his academic history (such as it is). I know lots more about him than I know about you, and I don't call you a sockpuppet, because you are not, |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ScottW" wrote in message news  3i2f.3089$jw6.2538@lakeread02..."Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:7eh2f.3085$jw6.1293@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Really? How hard is extreme hardness? Ever occur to you the harder the contact the smoother it can be polished? Which factor takes precedence in determining contact resistance, smoothness or malleability? Failure to answer the questions noted. Failure to put the truth ahead of your agenda is also noted. You have succumbed to the dark side of the game. ScottW So answer the questions, already. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news 3i2f.3089$jw6.2538@lakeread02..."Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:7eh2f.3085$jw6.1293@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Really? How hard is extreme hardness? Ever occur to you the harder the contact the smoother it can be polished? Which factor takes precedence in determining contact resistance, smoothness or malleability? Failure to answer the questions noted. Failure to put the truth ahead of your agenda is also noted. You have succumbed to the dark side of the game. ScottW So answer the questions, already. First question depends on the shape of the surface. ^^^^^^^^^^..... ^^^^^^^^^^ ..... Wow, look at all those points of contact between those two non-flat surfaces which all surfaces are at some microscopic level. How do you deal with the fact that no two atoms are in physical contact even in a solid? When you get right down to it... solid copper has the same problems you're trying to attribute to relay contacts. ScottW |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in physical contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of ruthenium important. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ScottW" wrote in message news:7ij2f.3098$jw6.3017@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news 3i2f.3089$jw6.2538@lakeread02..."Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:7eh2f.3085$jw6.1293@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Really? How hard is extreme hardness? Ever occur to you the harder the contact the smoother it can be polished? Which factor takes precedence in determining contact resistance, smoothness or malleability? Failure to answer the questions noted. Failure to put the truth ahead of your agenda is also noted. You have succumbed to the dark side of the game. ScottW So answer the questions, already. First question depends on the shape of the surface. ^^^^^^^^^^..... ^^^^^^^^^^ ..... Wow, look at all those points of contact between those two non-flat surfaces which all surfaces are at some microscopic level. How do you deal with the fact that no two atoms are in physical contact even in a solid? When you get right down to it... solid copper has the same problems you're trying to attribute to relay contacts. ScottW That is incorrect, Scott. Solid copper does not exhibit junction effects. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:7ij2f.3098$jw6.3017@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news 3i2f.3089$jw6.2538@lakeread02..."Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:7eh2f.3085$jw6.1293@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Really? How hard is extreme hardness? Ever occur to you the harder the contact the smoother it can be polished? Which factor takes precedence in determining contact resistance, smoothness or malleability? Failure to answer the questions noted. Failure to put the truth ahead of your agenda is also noted. You have succumbed to the dark side of the game. ScottW So answer the questions, already. First question depends on the shape of the surface. ^^^^^^^^^^..... ^^^^^^^^^^ ..... Wow, look at all those points of contact between those two non-flat surfaces which all surfaces are at some microscopic level. How do you deal with the fact that no two atoms are in physical contact even in a solid? When you get right down to it... solid copper has the same problems you're trying to attribute to relay contacts. ScottW That is incorrect, Scott. Solid copper does not exhibit junction effects. Actually... it does... just to miniscule to worry about. Kind of like your ridiculous theories. ScottW |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in physical contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of ruthenium important. Quantify the contact area and demonstrate through specs that ruthenium contacts have significantly greater resistance than relays of comparable size contacts. I look forward to you providing more than just idle speculation from your extremely poorly thought out and fundamentally flawed theories. ScottW |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:7ij2f.3098$jw6.3017@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news 3i2f.3089$jw6.2538@lakeread02..."Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:7eh2f.3085$jw6.1293@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Really? How hard is extreme hardness? Ever occur to you the harder the contact the smoother it can be polished? Which factor takes precedence in determining contact resistance, smoothness or malleability? Failure to answer the questions noted. Failure to put the truth ahead of your agenda is also noted. You have succumbed to the dark side of the game. ScottW So answer the questions, already. First question depends on the shape of the surface. ^^^^^^^^^^..... ^^^^^^^^^^ ..... Wow, look at all those points of contact between those two non-flat surfaces What happenned to your finite number of contact point theories? ScottW |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ScottW" wrote in message news:PJm2f.3101$jw6.2597@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:7ij2f.3098$jw6.3017@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news 3i2f.3089$jw6.2538@lakeread02..."Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:7eh2f.3085$jw6.1293@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Really? How hard is extreme hardness? Ever occur to you the harder the contact the smoother it can be polished? Which factor takes precedence in determining contact resistance, smoothness or malleability? Failure to answer the questions noted. Failure to put the truth ahead of your agenda is also noted. You have succumbed to the dark side of the game. ScottW So answer the questions, already. First question depends on the shape of the surface. ^^^^^^^^^^..... ^^^^^^^^^^ ..... Wow, look at all those points of contact between those two non-flat surfaces which all surfaces are at some microscopic level. How do you deal with the fact that no two atoms are in physical contact even in a solid? When you get right down to it... solid copper has the same problems you're trying to attribute to relay contacts. ScottW That is incorrect, Scott. Solid copper does not exhibit junction effects. Actually... it does... just to miniscule to worry about. Kind of like your ridiculous theories. Actually, it doesn't, Scott. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ScottW" wrote in message news:sPm2f.3103$jw6.273@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:7ij2f.3098$jw6.3017@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news 3i2f.3089$jw6.2538@lakeread02..."Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:7eh2f.3085$jw6.1293@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Really? How hard is extreme hardness? Ever occur to you the harder the contact the smoother it can be polished? Which factor takes precedence in determining contact resistance, smoothness or malleability? Failure to answer the questions noted. Failure to put the truth ahead of your agenda is also noted. You have succumbed to the dark side of the game. ScottW So answer the questions, already. First question depends on the shape of the surface. ^^^^^^^^^^..... ^^^^^^^^^^ ..... Wow, look at all those points of contact between those two non-flat surfaces What happenned to your finite number of contact point theories? ScottW I asked a question that you chose to ignore. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ScottW" wrote in message news:cOm2f.3102$jw6.2510@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in physical contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of ruthenium important. Quantify the contact area and demonstrate through specs that ruthenium contacts have significantly greater resistance than relays of comparable size contacts. I look forward to you providing more than just idle speculation from your extremely poorly thought out and fundamentally flawed theories. ScottW Answer the question, Scott: Two hard and nonparallel surfaces can have a maximum of how many contact points? |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message news " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:7eh2f.3085$jw6.1293@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Really? How hard is extreme hardness? Ever occur to you the harder the contact the smoother it can be polished? Which factor takes precedence in determining contact resistance, smoothness or malleability? Failure to answer the questions noted. Yep, you failed again, sock puppet Morein. How can you call him a sockpuppet? Like this, he's a sock puppett. You know his name, his phone number, his address, and his academic history (such as it is). It may in fact belong to a Robert Morein, but that doesn't mean he's the guy posting here. Besides, it's as valid as the statements he's been making about why he doesn't have to offer proof on various subjects, like the ABX relays, or his claimed ability to be immune from bias in sighted listening. I know lots more about him than I know about you, and I don't call you a sockpuppet, because you are not, And he is either someone just pulling people's chains with his anti-scinetific bull ****, or he's a sock puppet who actually believes the crap he says. Of course it is possible that there is a 3rd explanation, he is the Robert Morein that went to the Supreme Court AND he's an idot on electronics as well. None of the possiblities speak well for him. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in physical contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of ruthenium important. Prove it makes an audible difference. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in physical contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of ruthenium important. Prove it makes an audible difference. Prove it doesn't. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message news " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:7eh2f.3085$jw6.1293@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Really? How hard is extreme hardness? Ever occur to you the harder the contact the smoother it can be polished? Which factor takes precedence in determining contact resistance, smoothness or malleability? Failure to answer the questions noted. Yep, you failed again, sock puppet Morein. How can you call him a sockpuppet? Like this, he's a sock puppett. You know his name, his phone number, his address, and his academic history (such as it is). It may in fact belong to a Robert Morein, but that doesn't mean he's the guy posting here. Besides, it's as valid as the statements he's been making about why he doesn't have to offer proof on various subjects, like the ABX relays, or his claimed ability to be immune from bias in sighted listening. I know lots more about him than I know about you, and I don't call you a sockpuppet, because you are not, And he is either someone just pulling people's chains with his anti-scinetific bull ****, or he's a sock puppet who actually believes the crap he says. Of course it is possible that there is a 3rd explanation, he is the Robert Morein that went to the Supreme Court AND he's an idot on electronics as well. None of the possiblities speak well for him. Anybody posting here could be someone other than who they claim to be. Your theory can be applied to you, as well as to anyone else. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Robert Morein wrote: "ScottW" wrote in message news:sPm2f.3103$jw6.273@lakeread02... So answer the questions, already. First question depends on the shape of the surface. ^^^^^^^^^^..... ^^^^^^^^^^ ..... Wow, look at all those points of contact between those two non-flat surfaces What happenned to your finite number of contact point theories? ScottW I asked a question that you chose to ignore. Bzzzt... cogent response required.. lest we accept this as covert concession that your finite contact point theory was baseless. ScottW |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ScottW" wrote in message oups.com... Robert Morein wrote: "ScottW" wrote in message news:sPm2f.3103$jw6.273@lakeread02... So answer the questions, already. First question depends on the shape of the surface. ^^^^^^^^^^..... ^^^^^^^^^^ ..... Wow, look at all those points of contact between those two non-flat surfaces What happenned to your finite number of contact point theories? ScottW I asked a question that you chose to ignore. Bzzzt... cogent response required.. lest we accept this as covert concession that your finite contact point theory was baseless. ScottW Answer the question, Scott. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" said:
Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? 3. Obviously, between surfaces separated by nanometers, conductivity can also occur. Would anyone care to characterize this as well? (Parasitical) capacitance, in parallel with the surface resistance. Usually negligible. -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" said: Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? 3. Obviously, between surfaces separated by nanometers, conductivity can also occur. Would anyone care to characterize this as well? (Parasitical) capacitance, in parallel with the surface resistance. Usually negligible. I have found entire papers on the physics of the contacts that show the problem is far more complex. To give an example of something easier to grasp, consider lubrication oil. It turns out that lube oil in bearings oxidizes. In bearings with large clearances, the effect is negligible. In bearings with small clearances, this accelerates death of the bearing. There seems to be an assumption that because audio is low frequency, and because it's been around for a long time, and because it can be realized without microelectronics, that audio is far removed from quantum effects. But you, as a tube user, know this to be false, because when you turn up the gain, you hear shot noise, which is a quantum effect. Likewise, it turns out that the physics of contacts involves both quantum effects and something else. The contact pairs have the characteristics of an unintentional nanomachine. At this scale, mechanical and electrical characteristics become intertwined. Remember that line level audio, at the zero crossing, involves nanoamps and microvolts. In order to introduce the subject, I asked the question, "For two hard, imperfectly flat surfaces, what are the maximum number of contact points?" The purpose was to invite some discovery on the part of the readers of this newsgroup. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Robert Morein wrote: "ScottW" wrote in message news:cOm2f.3102$jw6.2510@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in physical contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of ruthenium important. Quantify the contact area and demonstrate through specs that ruthenium contacts have significantly greater resistance than relays of comparable size contacts. I look forward to you providing more than just idle speculation from your extremely poorly thought out and fundamentally flawed theories. ScottW Answer the question, Scott: Two hard and nonparallel surfaces can have a maximum of how many contact points? Why are you changing the question, Bob? Anyway, it still depends on their shape.....and we're not talking diamond hard here so your inference that there is no conformance is just hogwash. ScottW |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Robert Morein wrote: "ScottW" wrote in message oups.com... Robert Morein wrote: "ScottW" wrote in message news:sPm2f.3103$jw6.273@lakeread02... So answer the questions, already. First question depends on the shape of the surface. ^^^^^^^^^^..... ^^^^^^^^^^ ..... Wow, look at all those points of contact between those two non-flat surfaces What happenned to your finite number of contact point theories? ScottW I asked a question that you chose to ignore. Bzzzt... cogent response required.. lest we accept this as covert concession that your finite contact point theory was baseless. ScottW Answer the question, Scott. Can I first wait for it too stop mutating? Question has made more evolutionary progress in 2 days than you have in your years. ScottW |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" said:
I have found entire papers on the physics of the contacts that show the problem is far more complex. I am aware of some aspects of those physics. Generally, in at least line level audio signals, driven from a low output impedance, those problems are negligible, providing the right relay or switch is chosen for the application. For line levels, for me, nothing else comes into consideration but thoroughly gold-plated, gas filled relays. For speaker-level signals, a combination of both silver-plated and gold-plated heavy duty contacts with strong spring action (meaning contact pressure) are a good choice (if one has to switch speaker-level signals at all, something I don't like to do at all). Switching an audio signal at microphone- or phono cartridge levels is almost not possible without suffering from signal degradation. To give an example of something easier to grasp, consider lubrication oil. It turns out that lube oil in bearings oxidizes. In bearings with large clearances, the effect is negligible. In bearings with small clearances, this accelerates death of the bearing. I'm not sure if this is comparable to relay switch action. There seems to be an assumption that because audio is low frequency, and because it's been around for a long time, and because it can be realized without microelectronics, that audio is far removed from quantum effects. But you, as a tube user, know this to be false, because when you turn up the gain, you hear shot noise, which is a quantum effect. Correct, but what's the correlation between shot noise and relay contacts, else than possibly involved quantum mech effects? Likewise, it turns out that the physics of contacts involves both quantum effects and something else. The contact pairs have the characteristics of an unintentional nanomachine. At this scale, mechanical and electrical characteristics become intertwined. Remember that line level audio, at the zero crossing, involves nanoamps and microvolts. Also correct, that's why selecting the right relay for the job is so important. I've measured signal drops of 3 dB with badly chosen relays (IMHO), in a circuit with impedances involved of about 50 kohms. That was in a highly touted high end product (a preamp), the type of which I won't reveal as to not disappoint readers in posession of said preamp :-) In order to introduce the subject, I asked the question, "For two hard, imperfectly flat surfaces, what are the maximum number of contact points?" The purpose was to invite some discovery on the part of the readers of this newsgroup. I said 3 contact points, 3 points being the most stable way to put two surfaces together (think about a table with 3 legs). Applying more contact pressure won't change that :-) -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote: "Robert Morein" said: In order to introduce the subject, I asked the question, "For two hard, imperfectly flat surfaces, what are the maximum number of contact points?" The purpose was to invite some discovery on the part of the readers of this newsgroup. I said 3 contact points, 3 points being the most stable way to put two surfaces together (think about a table with 3 legs). Applying more contact pressure won't change that :-) 3 points define a plane. Robert has stated his problem as non-flat (does he mean non-planar?), non parallel, and now imperfectly flat. He keeps playing the words in a feeble attempt to get his desired answer of 1 (consider 2 spheres). His whole point is irrelevant as the materials in question aren't close to the level of hardness required for his theory to come into play. ScottW |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" said: I have found entire papers on the physics of the contacts that show the problem is far more complex. I am aware of some aspects of those physics. Generally, in at least line level audio signals, driven from a low output impedance, those problems are negligible, providing the right relay or switch is chosen for the application. For line levels, for me, nothing else comes into consideration but thoroughly gold-plated, gas filled relays. For speaker-level signals, a combination of both silver-plated and gold-plated heavy duty contacts with strong spring action (meaning contact pressure) are a good choice (if one has to switch speaker-level signals at all, something I don't like to do at all). This is quite reasonable. It is only when a gadget is supposed to be used to establish a reference point that it has to come under exquisite scrutiny. In that case, one has to turn the problem over and over, examining all the literature. Switching an audio signal at microphone- or phono cartridge levels is almost not possible without suffering from signal degradation. To give an example of something easier to grasp, consider lubrication oil. It turns out that lube oil in bearings oxidizes. In bearings with large clearances, the effect is negligible. In bearings with small clearances, this accelerates death of the bearing. I'm not sure if this is comparable to relay switch action. It is not. I gave it as an example of a scale-related problem that may not be useful to everyone. There seems to be an assumption that because audio is low frequency, and because it's been around for a long time, and because it can be realized without microelectronics, that audio is far removed from quantum effects. But you, as a tube user, know this to be false, because when you turn up the gain, you hear shot noise, which is a quantum effect. Correct, but what's the correlation between shot noise and relay contacts, else than possibly involved quantum mech effects? It is supposed to make people think about assumptions. It is not integral. The mechanical junction is made out of paths that have been denoted "nanowires". Current through nanowires follows quantum steps. And then there is the nano machine effect; at this scale, mechanical rearrangement occurs with variations in the current/potential. Likewise, it turns out that the physics of contacts involves both quantum effects and something else. The contact pairs have the characteristics of an unintentional nanomachine. At this scale, mechanical and electrical characteristics become intertwined. Remember that line level audio, at the zero crossing, involves nanoamps and microvolts. Also correct, that's why selecting the right relay for the job is so important. I've measured signal drops of 3 dB with badly chosen relays (IMHO), in a circuit with impedances involved of about 50 kohms. That was in a highly touted high end product (a preamp), the type of which I won't reveal as to not disappoint readers in posession of said preamp :-) In order to introduce the subject, I asked the question, "For two hard, imperfectly flat surfaces, what are the maximum number of contact points?" The purpose was to invite some discovery on the part of the readers of this newsgroup. I said 3 contact points, 3 points being the most stable way to put two surfaces together (think about a table with 3 legs). Applying more contact pressure won't change that :-) Yes. The others were too afraid to answer, afraid that their answers would be used against them. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message news " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:7eh2f.3085$jw6.1293@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Really? How hard is extreme hardness? Ever occur to you the harder the contact the smoother it can be polished? Which factor takes precedence in determining contact resistance, smoothness or malleability? Failure to answer the questions noted. Yep, you failed again, sock puppet Morein. How can you call him a sockpuppet? Like this, he's a sock puppett. You know his name, his phone number, his address, and his academic history (such as it is). It may in fact belong to a Robert Morein, but that doesn't mean he's the guy posting here. Besides, it's as valid as the statements he's been making about why he doesn't have to offer proof on various subjects, like the ABX relays, or his claimed ability to be immune from bias in sighted listening. I know lots more about him than I know about you, and I don't call you a sockpuppet, because you are not, And he is either someone just pulling people's chains with his anti-scinetific bull ****, or he's a sock puppet who actually believes the crap he says. Of course it is possible that there is a 3rd explanation, he is the Robert Morein that went to the Supreme Court AND he's an idiot on electronics as well. None of the possiblities speak well for him. Anybody posting here could be someone other than who they claim to be. Your theory can be applied to you, as well as to anyone else. As I said there are 3 possibilities. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in physical contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of ruthenium important. Prove it makes an audible difference. Prove it doesn't. Can't prove a negative. You still have the burden of proof. You made the claim, you supply the proof. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in physical contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of ruthenium important. Prove it makes an audible difference. Prove it doesn't. Can't prove a negative. BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can't prove that there are not differences. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message news
" wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:7eh2f.3085$jw6.1293@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Really? How hard is extreme hardness? Ever occur to you the harder the contact the smoother it can be polished? Which factor takes precedence in determining contact resistance, smoothness or malleability? Failure to answer the questions noted. Yep, you failed again, sock puppet Morein. How can you call him a sockpuppet? Like this, he's a sock puppett. You know his name, his phone number, his address, and his academic history (such as it is). It may in fact belong to a Robert Morein, but that doesn't mean he's the guy posting here. Besides, it's as valid as the statements he's been making about why he doesn't have to offer proof on various subjects, like the ABX relays, or his claimed ability to be immune from bias in sighted listening. I know lots more about him than I know about you, and I don't call you a sockpuppet, because you are not, And he is either someone just pulling people's chains with his anti-scinetific bull ****, or he's a sock puppet who actually believes the crap he says. Of course it is possible that there is a 3rd explanation, he is the Robert Morein that went to the Supreme Court AND he's an idiot on electronics as well. None of the possiblities speak well for him. Anybody posting here could be someone other than who they claim to be. Your theory can be applied to you, as well as to anyone else. As I said there are 3 possibilities. Of course, it is impossible to know whether I am a sockpuppet or not. That is why I post my phone number: (215) 646-4894. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in physical contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of ruthenium important. Prove it makes an audible difference. Prove it doesn't. Can't prove a negative. You still have the burden of proof. You made the claim, you supply the proof. Mikey, we reject ABX, and we reject Arny's ABX device, until such time as it is proven to be transparent. We will not permit adoption of this technique by the public until this is done. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ScottW" wrote in message oups.com... Sander deWaal wrote: "Robert Morein" said: In order to introduce the subject, I asked the question, "For two hard, imperfectly flat surfaces, what are the maximum number of contact points?" The purpose was to invite some discovery on the part of the readers of this newsgroup. I said 3 contact points, 3 points being the most stable way to put two surfaces together (think about a table with 3 legs). Applying more contact pressure won't change that :-) 3 points define a plane. Robert has stated his problem as non-flat (does he mean non-planar?), non parallel, and now imperfectly flat. He keeps playing the words in a feeble attempt to get his desired answer of 1 (consider 2 spheres). His whole point is irrelevant as the materials in question aren't close to the level of hardness required for his theory to come into play. Sander has given the correct answer. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ScottW" wrote in message oups.com... Robert Morein wrote: "ScottW" wrote in message news:cOm2f.3102$jw6.2510@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in physical contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of ruthenium important. Quantify the contact area and demonstrate through specs that ruthenium contacts have significantly greater resistance than relays of comparable size contacts. I look forward to you providing more than just idle speculation from your extremely poorly thought out and fundamentally flawed theories. ScottW Answer the question, Scott: Two hard and nonparallel surfaces can have a maximum of how many contact points? Why are you changing the question, Bob? Anyway, it still depends on their shape.....and we're not talking diamond hard here so your inference that there is no conformance is just hogwash. Sander has given the correct answer. You simply didn't have the smarts to figure it out. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in physical contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of ruthenium important. Prove it makes an audible difference. Prove it doesn't. Can't prove a negative. You still have the burden of proof. You made the claim, you supply the proof. Mikey, we reject ABX, and we reject Arny's ABX device, until such time as it is proven to be transparent. We will not permit adoption of this technique by the public until this is done. What's the big deal? The public doesn't give a flying **** about it anyway. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in physical contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of ruthenium important. Prove it makes an audible difference. Prove it doesn't. Can't prove a negative. You still have the burden of proof. You made the claim, you supply the proof. Mikey, we reject ABX, and we reject Arny's ABX device, until such time as it is proven to be transparent. We will not permit adoption of this technique by the public until this is done. What's the big deal? The public doesn't give a flying **** about it anyway.  |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:24:03 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote: Remember that line level audio, at the zero crossing, involves nanoamps and microvolts. You are making this up.. again. The voltage at the (voltage) zero crossing is zero. Not only that but the time taken to cross zero is zero, so any energy loss or distortion is also zero. This can be heard by audiophools, we will note. |
Linear Mode
