[Mr.T]

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
In the 1960's,
the various magazines (Popular Electronics, Radio Electronics, etc)
had discovered hi-fi. Articles on the topic were epidemic and
interest was high. Many of the articles used superlatives that defied
definition and measurement. "The amplifier has a velvet texture to
the strings", was typical.

Nothing's changed then.

MrT.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"jwvm" wrote in...

Sorry but you need an audiophile CD player to play the CD. The
texture, soundstage, chromatic balance and realism will all be
attenuated with a cheap player and result in a biased burn-in. Don't
forget to put green marker around the edge of the CD while you are at
it so restless photons don't mess things up.

Wasn't that seepage problem cured by the miraculous Black CD ?

[Arny Krueger]

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:32:57 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
in message
Tim Williams wrote:
"Jeff Liebermann" wrote

Anyway, I like the idea of the audio conditioner. It
probably doesn't do much for the electronics, but
perhaps the suspension in my loudspeakers could use
some loosening up.

Just make sure it doesn't play a lot of 8Hz, or
*you'll* be the one loosened up! ;o)

Busted by mythbusters I'm afraid.

I've personally experienced it. Mythbusters didn't
duplicate our test procedures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_note#In_fiction

What's unclear about "Mythbusters didn't duplicate our test procedures."

Rock PA subwoofers are generally merely woofers by hi fi standards.

[William Sommerwerck]

"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
...

They got the "heart" model all wrong, much less anything
that resembles human internal conductivity modeling.

Have you posted comments? They do listen.

[William Sommerwerck]

I'm bothered by the "knee jerk" reaction of the people in this group against
what are, admittedly, "loony" and grossly overpriced accessories that claim
to perform miracles (to people with "common sense", anyway).

These negative reactions (most of which are justified) _aren't_ based on
careful consideration, but on a thoughtless/mindless reflex that dismisses
_anything and everything_ that doesn't fit with one's experience or world
view. This is neither intelligent nor "scientific".

Several things bother me about this, on a practical as well as intellectual
level. Reading the posts, I get the impression that blindly (as opposed to
thoughtfully) rejecting these far-out claims comes with a rejection of _any_
belief in meaningful differences among audio equipment. That, in turn, means
an increased tendency to buy products on the basis of specs or price, rather
than extended, low-pressure listening sessions.

By the way, I've been replacing the expensive AudioQuest cables in my system
with Acoustic Research cables, and hear no particular difference. On the
other hand, the Parasound A21 amplifiers were a revelation.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

I'm bothered by the "knee jerk" reaction of the people in
this group against what are, admittedly, "loony" and
grossly overpriced accessories that claim to perform
miracles (to people with "common sense", anyway).

I wouldn't be.

These negative reactions (most of which are justified)
_aren't_ based on careful consideration,

Says who?

but on a
thoughtless/mindless reflex that dismisses _anything and
everything_ that doesn't fit with one's experience or
world view. This is neither intelligent nor "scientific".

Come on William, science is itself a world view. You can't say that having a
world view is wrong and then fault people for not being scientific. If
you're scientific you've bought into the scientific world view which is one
of those damnable world views, and if you haven't bought into one of those
damnable world views than you can't be scientific.

Several things bother me about this, on a practical as
well as intellectual level. Reading the posts, I get the
impression that blindly (as opposed to thoughtfully)
rejecting these far-out claims comes with a rejection of
_any_ belief in meaningful differences among audio
equipment.

Absolutely wrong. I'm quite sure I'm one of the sorts that you are
complaining about William, and trust me, I know for a fact that there are
meaningful differences among a wide variety of kinds of audio gear. I've
probabaly spent more time finding them in scientific ways than the nest 5
other guys you know.

That, in turn, means an increased tendency to
buy products on the basis of specs or price, rather than
extended, low-pressure listening sessions.

The error here is the implication that somehow one can avoid doing extended,
low-pressure listening sessions. They always happen, if at no other time
after the equipment is bought and put into service.


By the way, I've been replacing the expensive AudioQuest
cables in my system with Acoustic Research cables, and
hear no particular difference. On the other hand, the
Parasound A21 amplifiers were a revelation.

Or so you believe. Or maybe it is true that the Parasound amps were an
improvement, given that we know zilch about the specfic pieces of equipment
that you replaced. By that I mean the results of detailed technical tests.

Read my lips William: Detailed technical tests, not some manufacturer's spec
shreet!

[Scott Dorsey]

Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
"loosening up"? Sheesh, where do you guys get this crap?

From a JAES paper written by Wolfgang Klippel, for example. It's worth
reading. There isn't a HUGE change in compliance with a new driver, but
there is some, and the T-S parameters need to be measured after it's
stabilized.

Which is only temporary anyway. See Dick Pierce's postings on the subject.

Yup! That's the scary part!
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

These negative reactions (most of which are justified)
_aren't_ based on careful consideration,

Says who?

I do. Read the comments. All too often they're of the "Oh, how crazy can you
get, this is totally stupid" sort, rather than "This doesn't make any sense,
because... [critique based on math/physics/common sense]" That is,
extravagant claims are _a priori_ invalid, and don't need any examination,
because they're "unscientific".


Several things bother me about this, on a practical as
well as intellectual level. Reading the posts, I get the
impression that blindly (as opposed to thoughtfully)
rejecting these far-out claims comes with a rejection
of _any_ belief in meaningful differences among audio
equipment.

Absolutely wrong. I'm quite sure I'm one of the sorts that you
are complaining about William, and trust me, I know for a fact
that there are meaningful differences among a wide variety of
[all] kinds of audio gear. I've probabaly spent more time finding
them in scientific ways than the nest 5 other guys you know.

Birds of a feather? grin

I don't want to re-ignite ouir argument, but where is the book
systematically documenting your discoveries? I'm not being sarcastic; I'd be
the first person to buy it. I want to read about what you've _learned_ --
that is, what you _understand_.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"William Sommerwerck" wrote
in message


These negative reactions (most of which are justified)
_aren't_ based on careful consideration,

Says who?

I do.

What's new?

Read the comments. All too often they're of the
"Oh, how crazy can you get, this is totally stupid" sort,
rather than "This doesn't make any sense, because...
[critique based on math/physics/common sense]" That is,
extravagant claims are _a priori_ invalid, and don't need
any examination, because they're "unscientific".

The real question is about whether or not you have to taste a piece of crap
in order to know that it is crap, or whether all you have to do is sniff it
from a distance. As far as break-in of electronic compononents and circuits
goes, the notion has been around for a decade or three. Once upon a time
people even investigated it seriously. But now, its just another one of
those decades-old pieces of crap that need not be taste-tested every time it
is encountered.

Several things bother me about this, on a practical as
well as intellectual level. Reading the posts, I get the
impression that blindly (as opposed to thoughtfully)
rejecting these far-out claims comes with a rejection
of _any_ belief in meaningful differences among audio
equipment.

Absolutely wrong. I'm quite sure I'm one of the sorts
that you are complaining about William, and trust me, I
know for a fact that there are meaningful differences
among a wide variety of [all] kinds of audio gear. I've
probabaly spent more time finding them in scientific
ways than the nest 5 other guys you know.

Birds of a feather? grin

Birds who did some crap-tasting a few decades back.

I don't want to re-ignite ouir argument, but where is the
book systematically documenting your discoveries?

Not worth the trouble to write.

I'm not
being sarcastic; I'd be the first person to buy it.

You and two other people - not enough to make a market.

I want to read about what you've _learned_ -- that is, what
you _understand_.

It's so well known that Scott managed to say just about everything about it
that I could...

[HapticZ]

oboy oboy oboy, i jes gotta get sum uf dem!

i use my food muney to get dem if need be!

i'll be da only one in da neybor hud wit it and be the king of the blok!

sheesh, i wonder if Burma/Myanmar can supply enough heroin to substantiate
all this acoustic behavior?




"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:37:09 -0700, "Lumpy"
wrote:

Rane spoofs themselves -
http://www.rane.com/pdf/old/pi14dat.pdf

Bwuahahahaha! Funny.

Check out the bass on this preamp -
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24...ckieSRM150.jpg


Mmmm... OK

Regulate that Resonance! -
http://www.shunmook.com/text1.htm


Bwuahahahaha! And to think... they are NOT spoofing themselves!

[Carey Carlan]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
:

Come on, Jeff. Everyone in the field of electronics knows a
gullibility meter when they see one.

If everyone knew, the meter wouldn't work.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

Read the comments. All too often they're of the "Oh,
"how crazy can you get, this is totally stupid" sort,
rather than "This doesn't make any sense, because...
[critique based on math/physics/common sense]" That is,
extravagant claims are _a priori_ invalid, and don't need
any examination, because they're "unscientific".

The real question is about whether or not you have to taste a piece
of crap in order to know that it is crap, or whether all you have to do
is sniff it from a distance.

You're making my point for me, Arny. Knee-jerk, knee-jerk, knee-jerk.


As far as break-in of electronic compononents and circuits goes, the
notion has been around for a decade or three. Once upon a time,
people even investigated it seriously. But now, its just another one of
those decades-old pieces of crap that need not be taste-tested every
time it is encountered.

Sorry, but I heard it with Krell equipment. And other people have, too. (It
occurred over a period of about 20 hours.) I've never heard this with any
other brand of electronics. It also occurs with planar drivers of many
types, and again, the break-in is fairly rapid. This isn't of the "I had to
listen to this equipment for several hundred hours before it finally settled
in.") type.


Absolutely wrong. I'm quite sure I'm one of the sorts
that you are complaining about William, and trust me, I
know for a fact that there are meaningful differences
among a wide variety of [all] kinds of audio gear. I've
probabaly spent more time finding them in scientific
ways than the nest 5 other guys you know.

Birds of a feather? grin

Birds who did some crap-tasting a few decades back.

You missed the typo.


I don't want to re-ignite ouir argument, but where is the
book systematically documenting your discoveries?

Not worth the trouble to write.

Then what would be in it is of no value.


I want to read about what you've _learned_ -- that is, what
you _understand_.

It's so well known that Scott managed to say just about everything
about it that I could...

Scott? Inquiring minds want to know!

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"William Sommerwerck" wrote
in
message

Read the comments. All too often they're of the "Oh,
"how crazy can you get, this is totally stupid" sort,
rather than "This doesn't make any sense, because...
[critique based on math/physics/common sense]" That is,
extravagant claims are _a priori_ invalid, and don't
need any examination, because they're "unscientific".

The real question is about whether or not you have to
taste a piece
of crap in order to know that it is crap, or whether all
you have to do is sniff it from a distance.

The following critical paragraph is restored to the thread by me to where
it origionally appeared, due to the fact that William redacted for some
unknown reason.

As far as break-in of electronic components and circuits
goes, the notion has been around for a decade or three. Once upon a time
people even investigated it seriously. But now, its just another one of
those decades-old pieces of crap that need not be taste-tested every time
it
is encountered.


You're making my point for me, Arny. Knee-jerk,
knee-jerk, knee-jerk.

That's just it - it's not a knee-jerk, its a simple matter of pattern
recognition.

As far as break-in of electronic compononents and
circuits goes, the notion has been around for a decade
or three. Once upon a time,
people even investigated it seriously. But now, its just
another one of those decades-old pieces of crap that
need not be taste-tested every time it is encountered.

Sorry, but I heard it with Krell equipment.

Tell me about your bias-controlled testing.

And other people have, too.

IME William, it is likely that they share your malaise with doing proper
tests.

(It occurred over a period of about 20
hours.) I've never heard this with any other brand of
electronics. It also occurs with planar drivers of many
types, and again, the break-in is fairly rapid.

At this point I will remind one and all that I limited the discussion the
discussion to "electronic components and circuits", above. For some reason
William decided to remove this critical comment. I think now we see the
reason - I had intentionally removed loudspeakers from the discussion to
keep things simple and clear.

This isn't of the "I had to listen to this equipment for
several hundred hours before it finally settled in.")
type.

As far as electronics goes, they get from a few seconds to a few minutes to
get their act together. Of course retro-technology like tubed equipment can
be exceptional, because it may be just careening from one breakdown and
tube replacement to the next.

Absolutely wrong. I'm quite sure I'm one of the sorts
that you are complaining about William, and trust me, I
know for a fact that there are meaningful differences
among a wide variety of [all] kinds of audio gear. I've
probabaly spent more time finding them in scientific
ways than the nest 5 other guys you know.

Birds of a feather? grin

Birds who did some crap-tasting a few decades back.

You missed the typo.

The [all] is gratuitous, as the extent of the idea I was trying to convey
was conveyed by "a wide variety".


I don't want to re-ignite ouir argument, but where is
the book systematically documenting your discoveries?

Not worth the trouble to write.

Then what would be in it is of no value.

Simply not true. One of the things that is nice about working with
practicing technologists (recordists) as opposed to dilentantes, idlers, and
dabblers with massive amounts of time and money to waste (audiophiles) is
that so many of the recordists learn a lot of useful knowlege from what they
do. There is not any need to waste time arguing with them about imagninary
events such as cable break-in.

I want to read about what you've _learned_ -- that is,
what you _understand_.

It's so well known that Scott managed to say just about
everything about it that I could...

Scott? Inquiring minds want to know!

See Scott Dorsey's posts, which refer to the writings of Dick Pierce and
Wolfgang Klippel. Driver breakin, such as it exists is very real to people
who are trying to make accurate measurements of driver parameters. In my
case, I'm also informed by the experiences and thoughts of David L. Clark
and Earl Geddes - both personal friends for decades, who co-invented the
DuMax.

http://www.audioxpress.com/reviews/m...azella2154.pdf

[William Sommerwerck]

"Chel van Gennip" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Sorry, but I heard it with Krell equipment. And other people have, too.
(It
occurred over a period of about 20 hours.) I've never heard this with any
other brand of electronics. It also occurs with planar drivers of many
types, and again, the break-in is fairly rapid. This isn't of the "I had
to
listen to this equipment for several hundred hours before it finally
settled

Just a quote from the product: "FryBaby is designed to condition and
break-in interconnects, speaker cables, power cords, digital and video
cables, or any type of wire used in an audio system." So the vendor
claims cables will improve over time.

It is not possible that electronics can change its behaviour over time.
It is however improbable that such a change will be an improvement and
even more improbable that the changes will stop at a point in time where
"perfection" is reached. In general, an electronic component changing
behaviour over time, is a bad component and should be avoided.

As is typical of most of your posts, you really don't know what you're
talking about.

I was simply making an observation. I have no idea what is going on within
the electronics.

I have some friends at Krell. I'll ask them about this.

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:32:13 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 20:40:22 +0200, Chel van Gennip
wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Sorry, but I heard it with Krell equipment. And other people have, too. (It
occurred over a period of about 20 hours.) I've never heard this with any
other brand of electronics. It also occurs with planar drivers of many
types, and again, the break-in is fairly rapid. This isn't of the "I had to
listen to this equipment for several hundred hours before it finally settled

Just a quote from the product: "FryBaby is designed to condition and
break-in interconnects, speaker cables, power cords, digital and video
cables, or any type of wire used in an audio system." So the vendor
claims cables will improve over time.

It is not possible that electronics can change its behaviour over time.
It is however improbable that such a change will be an improvement and
even more improbable that the changes will stop at a point in time where
"perfection" is reached. In general, an electronic component changing
behaviour over time, is a bad component and should be avoided.


Excellent observation.

One point, however... Silver Oxide is a better conductor than pure
Silver is, but there is no requisite of passing signals through it to
"age" it. All that is needed is time, and the presence of Oxygen.

Wrong again! Pure silver is the best room-temperature conductor.
Silver oxide is variously referred to as an insulator or a
semiconductor, as its conductivity varies greatly depending on
impurities.

John

[Paul Stamler]

"Chel van Gennip" wrote in message
...

It is not possible that electronics can change its behaviour over time.
It is however improbable that such a change will be an improvement and
even more improbable that the changes will stop at a point in time where
"perfection" is reached. In general, an electronic component changing
behaviour over time, is a bad component and should be avoided.

I wish it wer so. Most electrolytic capacitors require 30-60 minutes or so
after turn-on for the leakage to drop to proper levels. It's not mysterious,
it can be easily measured (a battery, a 10k resistor and a voltmeter will
do). Equipment which uses electrolytic capacitors in its power supplies will
change for a while after they're turned on. Some manufacturers tell you
that, others don't.

Peace,
Paul

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:17:13 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
.. .

Pure silver oxide conducts better than pure silver.

Hard to believe, especially as the once-free silver electrons are now bound
to the oxygen. Give a reference.


Silver oxide is, technically, a ceramic, and conducts like one.

John

[William Sommerwerck]

"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:15:36 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

It is not possible that electronics can change its behaviour over
time.
It is however improbable that such a change will be an improvement
and
even more improbable that the changes will stop at a point in time
where
"perfection" is reached. In general, an electronic component
changing
behaviour over time, is a bad component and should be avoided.

As is typical of most of your posts, you really don't know what you're
talking about.

I was simply making an observation. I have no idea what is going on
within the electronics.

I have some friends at Krell. I'll ask them about this.

Idiot. The WIRES are "electronics" as well. You "single definition
per term" boys make me laugh.

This "idiot" said nothing about wires. When did they come in to the
point Iwas making?

The idiot I referred to is you since you apparently did not even read
his post. He made a reference to the Fry Baby, not the Krell gear.

The claim was that said cabling (read wires, idiot) was affected by
said "conditioning", and he noted that is simply not the case. And yes,
calling the cabling part of the electronics is perfectly correct.

Is your English really that bad, or are you just ****ing that dense?

Are you an insufferably rude shmuck, or do you just play one on UseNet?

I was addressing the topic of whether or not audio components' "sound"
changes with time. I did read the original post, and decided to discuss a
particular situation with which I and others had experience.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:17:13 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
. ..

Pure silver oxide conducts better than pure silver.

Hard to believe, especially as the once-free silver electrons are now bound
to the oxygen. Give a reference.

Silver oxide is, technically, a ceramic, and conducts like one.

Yes. I believe he is talking about tarnish, which is actually silver
sulphide and not oxide.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Larkin]

On 1 Oct 2007 09:04:26 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In article ,
John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:17:13 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
...

Pure silver oxide conducts better than pure silver.

Hard to believe, especially as the once-free silver electrons are now bound
to the oxygen. Give a reference.

Silver oxide is, technically, a ceramic, and conducts like one.

Yes. I believe he is talking about tarnish, which is actually silver
sulphide and not oxide.

It's probably a mixture, which makes it a semiconductor; silver oxide
is apparently very sensitive to doping, so the oxide-sulphide mix
probably conducts better than pure oxide. But no oxide/sulphide of any
metal is going to conduct a fraction as well as the pure metal;
metallic oxides are "ceramics." AlO2, BeO, things like that. Are there
any conductive oxides?

It's hard to research, at least quickly, because silver oxide is
usually dismissed as "an insulator."

If AlwaysWrong has any references or numbers, I'd be pleased to see
them.

John

[Michael A. Terrell]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:15:36 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

It is not possible that electronics can change its behaviour over
time.
It is however improbable that such a change will be an improvement
and
even more improbable that the changes will stop at a point in time
where
"perfection" is reached. In general, an electronic component
changing
behaviour over time, is a bad component and should be avoided.

As is typical of most of your posts, you really don't know what you're
talking about.

I was simply making an observation. I have no idea what is going on
within the electronics.

I have some friends at Krell. I'll ask them about this.

Idiot. The WIRES are "electronics" as well. You "single definition
per term" boys make me laugh.

This "idiot" said nothing about wires. When did they come in to the
point Iwas making?

The idiot I referred to is you since you apparently did not even read
his post. He made a reference to the Fry Baby, not the Krell gear.

The claim was that said cabling (read wires, idiot) was affected by
said "conditioning", and he noted that is simply not the case. And yes,
calling the cabling part of the electronics is perfectly correct.

Is your English really that bad, or are you just ****ing that dense?

Are you an insufferably rude shmuck, or do you just play one on UseNet?

I was addressing the topic of whether or not audio components' "sound"
changes with time. I did read the original post, and decided to discuss a
particular situation with which I and others had experience.


He is one of the biggest 'Skippys' on the electronics newsgroups.
Don't waste your time.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

[Don Klipstein]

In article , Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:17:13 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
...

Pure silver oxide conducts better than pure silver.

Hard to believe, especially as the once-free silver electrons are now
bound to the oxygen. Give a reference.

Silver oxide is, technically, a ceramic, and conducts like one.

Yes. I believe he is talking about tarnish, which is actually silver
sulphide and not oxide.

I'd like to see a cite for silver sulfide or any silver compound having
higher conductivity than pure silver for that matter.

- Don Klipstein )

[Bob Myers]

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
It's probably a mixture, which makes it a semiconductor; silver oxide
is apparently very sensitive to doping, so the oxide-sulphide mix
probably conducts better than pure oxide. But no oxide/sulphide of any
metal is going to conduct a fraction as well as the pure metal;
metallic oxides are "ceramics." AlO2, BeO, things like that. Are there
any conductive oxides?

One comes to mind: ITO, indium-tin oxide, which is actually
a tin-oxide-doped form of indium oxide. It's most commonly used
where one has to have a transparent conductor, as in touch
panels or some of the interconnects in LCD panels. Certainly
not a great conductor, of course, but at least it IS transparent
in thin films.

Bob M.

[Richard Crowley]

"Don Klipstein" wrote ...
I'd like to see a cite for silver sulfide or any silver compound
having higher conductivity than pure silver for that matter.

Electrical Conductivity of Silver Sulfide
Malcolm H. Hebb, J. Chem. Phys. 20, 185 (1952)
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/serv...cvips&gifs=yes

The answer seems likely in the article cited, but I don't have
access to it.

[Paul Stamler]

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
Yes. I believe he is talking about tarnish, which is actually silver
sulphide and not oxide.

It's probably a mixture, which makes it a semiconductor; silver oxide
is apparently very sensitive to doping, so the oxide-sulphide mix
probably conducts better than pure oxide. But no oxide/sulphide of any
metal is going to conduct a fraction as well as the pure metal;
metallic oxides are "ceramics." AlO2, BeO, things like that. Are there
any conductive oxides?

Dihydrogen oxide is a fairly good conductor.

Peace,
Paul

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:38:52 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in message
.. .
Yes. I believe he is talking about tarnish, which is actually silver
sulphide and not oxide.

It's probably a mixture, which makes it a semiconductor; silver oxide
is apparently very sensitive to doping, so the oxide-sulphide mix
probably conducts better than pure oxide. But no oxide/sulphide of any
metal is going to conduct a fraction as well as the pure metal;
metallic oxides are "ceramics." AlO2, BeO, things like that. Are there
any conductive oxides?

Dihydrogen oxide is a fairly good conductor.

Peace,
Paul

Not when pure. Although 5.5E-6 S/m technically doesn't quite qualify
as an insulator, it's pretty darn close.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:25:07 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
wrote:

Pure Silver Oxide conducts better than pure Silver.

Take plenty of no-notice.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Paul Stamler wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
Yes. I believe he is talking about tarnish, which is actually silver
sulphide and not oxide.

It's probably a mixture, which makes it a semiconductor; silver oxide
is apparently very sensitive to doping, so the oxide-sulphide mix
probably conducts better than pure oxide. But no oxide/sulphide of any
metal is going to conduct a fraction as well as the pure metal;
metallic oxides are "ceramics." AlO2, BeO, things like that. Are there
any conductive oxides?

Dihydrogen oxide is a fairly good conductor.


That depends on the purity.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

[David Brown]

John Larkin wrote:
On 1 Oct 2007 09:04:26 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In article ,
John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:17:13 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
...

Pure silver oxide conducts better than pure silver.
Hard to believe, especially as the once-free silver electrons are now bound
to the oxygen. Give a reference.
Silver oxide is, technically, a ceramic, and conducts like one.
Yes. I believe he is talking about tarnish, which is actually silver
sulphide and not oxide.

It's probably a mixture, which makes it a semiconductor; silver oxide
is apparently very sensitive to doping, so the oxide-sulphide mix
probably conducts better than pure oxide. But no oxide/sulphide of any
metal is going to conduct a fraction as well as the pure metal;
metallic oxides are "ceramics." AlO2, BeO, things like that. Are there
any conductive oxides?

It's hard to research, at least quickly, because silver oxide is
usually dismissed as "an insulator."

If AlwaysWrong has any references or numbers, I'd be pleased to see
them.

John


Google turned up:

http://hometheaterhifi.com/forum/arc...hp/t-1507.html

Copper: 1.7 X 10^-8 ohm-m
Silver: 1.6 X 10^-8 ohms-m
Gold: 2.4 X 10^-8 ohms-m
Silver Sulfide: 1.5 to 2.0 X 10^-3 ohm-m
Silver Oxide: 1 x 10^+9 ohms-m

I haven't found any other pages with numbers, so I can't be sure on
these figures. But I'd certainly say they look reasonable enough - it's
certainly consistent with the simple physics of conductors and insulators.

It's worth noting, however, that silver oxide layers are often extremely
thin - thus silver oxide tarnish has lower *resistance* than copper
oxide tarnish, even if there is not much difference in their resistivities.

[William Sommerwerck]

"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
...

Why don't you ask your "Krell" friend?

I will. (I was busy today.) Though I am afraid of giant spiders.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...

Dihydrogen oxide is a fairly good conductor.

But it's dangerous. And nowhere nearly as good a conductor as hydrogen
hydroxide.

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:38:52 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in message
.. .
Yes. I believe he is talking about tarnish, which is actually silver
sulphide and not oxide.

It's probably a mixture, which makes it a semiconductor; silver oxide
is apparently very sensitive to doping, so the oxide-sulphide mix
probably conducts better than pure oxide. But no oxide/sulphide of any
metal is going to conduct a fraction as well as the pure metal;
metallic oxides are "ceramics." AlO2, BeO, things like that. Are there
any conductive oxides?

Dihydrogen oxide is a fairly good conductor.

Peace,
Paul


http://zpinch.sandia.gov/Z/Images/z.jpg


John

[Don Klipstein]

In article ,
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 08:30:33 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

It's hard to research, at least quickly, because silver oxide is
usually dismissed as "an insulator."

That must be why they use it for battery anodes in silver oxide
batteries. D'oh!

You are dismissed as being insulated from rational thought, based on
your "always wrong" baby bull****.

As if this means more than doped or electrolyte-soaked-porous silver
oxide being "reasonably conductive"?

Is this supposed to be any support for your claim that silver oxide is
more conductive than pure silver?

- Don Klipstein )

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:38:52 +0000, Paul Stamler wrote:
"John Larkin" wrote in
message ...
Yes. I believe he is talking about tarnish, which is actually silver
sulphide and not oxide.

It's probably a mixture, which makes it a semiconductor; silver oxide is
apparently very sensitive to doping, so the oxide-sulphide mix probably
conducts better than pure oxide. But no oxide/sulphide of any metal is
going to conduct a fraction as well as the pure metal; metallic oxides
are "ceramics." AlO2, BeO, things like that. Are there any conductive
oxides?

Dihydrogen oxide is a fairly good conductor.


Actually, in its pure form it's a fairly good insulator.

Cheers!
Rich

[Matt Ion]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
...

They got the "heart" model all wrong, much less anything
that resembles human internal conductivity modeling.

Have you posted comments? They do listen.

.....and do the occasional follow-up episodes where they revisit some of
the tests viewers have taken them to task on.

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:20:18 GMT, Rich Grise wrote:

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:38:52 +0000, Paul Stamler wrote:
"John Larkin" wrote in
message ...
Yes. I believe he is talking about tarnish, which is actually silver
sulphide and not oxide.

It's probably a mixture, which makes it a semiconductor; silver oxide is
apparently very sensitive to doping, so the oxide-sulphide mix probably
conducts better than pure oxide. But no oxide/sulphide of any metal is
going to conduct a fraction as well as the pure metal; metallic oxides
are "ceramics." AlO2, BeO, things like that. Are there any conductive
oxides?

Dihydrogen oxide is a fairly good conductor.


Actually, in its pure form it's a fairly good insulator.

Cheers!
Rich

Yup. You can water-cool the anode of a transmitting tube, 20KV off
ground or so, with pure water flowing through plastic tubes.

And megavolt Marx generators often use water resistors.

John

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 03:10:55 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article ,
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 08:30:33 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

It's hard to research, at least quickly, because silver oxide is
usually dismissed as "an insulator."

That must be why they use it for battery anodes in silver oxide
batteries. D'oh!

You are dismissed as being insulated from rational thought, based on
your "always wrong" baby bull****.

As if this means more than doped or electrolyte-soaked-porous silver
oxide being "reasonably conductive"?

Is this supposed to be any support for your claim that silver oxide is
more conductive than pure silver?

- Don Klipstein )


Some of the audiophool sites claim that silver oxide conducts better
than silver, and cite the battery thing as proof. That's probably
where he picked up the notion.

So, why aren't they making their cables out of silver oxide?

John

[martin griffith]

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:37:05 -0700, in sci.electronics.design John
Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 03:10:55 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article ,
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 08:30:33 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

It's hard to research, at least quickly, because silver oxide is
usually dismissed as "an insulator."

That must be why they use it for battery anodes in silver oxide
batteries. D'oh!

You are dismissed as being insulated from rational thought, based on
your "always wrong" baby bull****.

As if this means more than doped or electrolyte-soaked-porous silver
oxide being "reasonably conductive"?

Is this supposed to be any support for your claim that silver oxide is
more conductive than pure silver?

- Don Klipstein )


Some of the audiophool sites claim that silver oxide conducts better
than silver, and cite the battery thing as proof. That's probably
where he picked up the notion.

So, why aren't they making their cables out of silver oxide?

John
Well I suppose
"Oxygen Free silver oxide" would not fool even the dumbest audiophool


Martin

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:37:05 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 03:10:55 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 08:30:33 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

It's hard to research, at least quickly, because silver oxide is
usually dismissed as "an insulator."

That must be why they use it for battery anodes in silver oxide
batteries. D'oh!

You are dismissed as being insulated from rational thought, based on
your "always wrong" baby bull****.

As if this means more than doped or electrolyte-soaked-porous silver
oxide being "reasonably conductive"?

Is this supposed to be any support for your claim that silver oxide is
more conductive than pure silver?

Some of the audiophool sites claim that silver oxide conducts better
than silver, and cite the battery thing as proof. That's probably
where he picked up the notion.

So, why aren't they making their cables out of silver oxide?


Wouldn't it be a little bit on the brittle side?

Thanks,
Rich

[krw]

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:37:05 -0700, in sci.electronics.design John
Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 03:10:55 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article ,
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 08:30:33 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

It's hard to research, at least quickly, because silver oxide is
usually dismissed as "an insulator."

That must be why they use it for battery anodes in silver oxide
batteries. D'oh!

You are dismissed as being insulated from rational thought, based on
your "always wrong" baby bull****.

As if this means more than doped or electrolyte-soaked-porous silver
oxide being "reasonably conductive"?

Is this supposed to be any support for your claim that silver oxide is
more conductive than pure silver?

- Don Klipstein )


Some of the audiophool sites claim that silver oxide conducts better
than silver, and cite the battery thing as proof. That's probably
where he picked up the notion.

So, why aren't they making their cables out of silver oxide?

John
Well I suppose
"Oxygen Free silver oxide" would not fool even the dumbest audiophool

Don't count on it. They'd have Dimbulb eating out of their hand.
Though, perhaps he's not an audiophool.

--
Keith