ruthenium condemns ABX [Archive]

ScottW

October 9th 05, 11:55 PM

"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

Robert Morein

October 10th 05, 12:17 AM

"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.

[email protected]

October 10th 05, 12:42 AM

"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.

ScottW

October 10th 05, 12:53 AM

Clyde Slick

October 10th 05, 01:16 AM

" > 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,

Robert Morein

October 10th 05, 01:43 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:D3i2f.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.

Arny Krueger

October 10th 05, 01:46 AM

"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.

ScottW

October 10th 05, 02:16 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:D3i2f.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

Robert Morein

October 10th 05, 03:57 AM

"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.

Robert Morein

October 10th 05, 03:58 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:7ij2f.3098$jw6.3017@lakeread02...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > news:D3i2f.3089$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.

ScottW

October 10th 05, 06:11 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:7ij2f.3098$jw6.3017@lakeread02...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> > news:D3i2f.3089$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

ScottW

October 10th 05, 06:15 AM

"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

ScottW

October 10th 05, 06:17 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:7ij2f.3098$jw6.3017@lakeread02...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> > news:D3i2f.3089$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

Robert Morein

October 10th 05, 07:46 AM

"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:D3i2f.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.

Robert Morein

October 10th 05, 07:47 AM

"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:D3i2f.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.

Robert Morein

October 10th 05, 07:47 AM

"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?

[email protected]

October 10th 05, 07:56 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > 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.

[email protected]

October 10th 05, 08:00 AM

Robert Morein

October 10th 05, 08:22 AM

" > 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.

Clyde Slick

October 10th 05, 03:00 PM

" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > 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.

ScottW

October 10th 05, 06:09 PM

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

Robert Morein

October 10th 05, 06:44 PM

"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.

Sander deWaal

October 10th 05, 07:26 PM

"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

Robert Morein

October 10th 05, 09:24 PM

"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.

ScottW

October 10th 05, 09:32 PM

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

ScottW

October 10th 05, 09:35 PM

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

Sander deWaal

October 10th 05, 10:06 PM

"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

ScottW

October 10th 05, 10:33 PM

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

Robert Morein

October 10th 05, 10:35 PM

"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.

[email protected]

October 11th 05, 01:05 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > 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.

[email protected]

October 11th 05, 01:07 AM

"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.

Clyde Slick

October 11th 05, 01:41 AM

" > 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.

Robert Morein

October 11th 05, 04:04 AM

Robert Morein

October 11th 05, 04:05 AM

" > 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.

Robert Morein

October 11th 05, 04:07 AM

"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.

Robert Morein

October 11th 05, 04:07 AM

"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.

Clyde Slick

October 11th 05, 04:10 AM

"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.

Robert Morein

October 11th 05, 04:14 AM

"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.
>
:):):)

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 11th 05, 01:39 PM

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.

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 11th 05, 01:42 PM

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:07:08 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"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.
>

Only if you make an assumption.

Arny Krueger

October 11th 05, 02:14 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> For line levels, for me, nothing else comes into
> consideration but thoroughly gold-plated, gas filled
> relays.

Wrong.

> 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).

Wrong.

> Switching an audio signal at microphone- or phono
> cartridge levels is almost not possible without suffering
> from signal degradation.

Wrong.

Keep up the good work, Sander!

Robert Morein

October 11th 05, 03:43 PM

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>
You take my words to literally. Please substitute, "in the neighborhood of
the zero crossing" for "at the zero crossing".

Robert Morein

October 11th 05, 04:33 PM

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:07:08 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"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.
> >
>
> Only if you make an assumption.
Yes.

[email protected]

October 11th 05, 06:20 PM

"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.

The rest of the world doing audio research already has done so.

We will not permit adoption of this technique
> by the public until this is done.
>
It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio professionals
the world over.

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 11th 05, 06:44 PM

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:33:40 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:07:08 -0400, "Robert Morein"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"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.
>> >
>>
>> Only if you make an assumption.
>Yes.

So is that a "Please substitute, 'in the neighborhood of the correct
answer if the said contact or contacts are able to rotate about two
perpendicular axes and there exist three high points on the contact or
contacts such that the said contacts might contact each other at the
three said points on closure and there exists a residual closing force
within the triangle formed by said points after the moments required
to rotate the said contacts to the said three contact geometry is
taken into account in calculating the said resultant closing force and
none of the said contact points are deformed by the said force to the
extent that further contact points result from the said deformation'"
?

Ruud Broens

October 11th 05, 06:48 PM

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
: On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:07:08 -0400, "Robert Morein"
: > wrote:
:
: >
: >"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.
: >
:
: Only if you make an assumption.

Yep, what's a point (the point?), for instance ? define 'contact'
Better make that several. Say the surface could be polished to
the atomic level (yeah, right:), so we'd have three atoms stickin' out
making the contact. The pressure on those atoms would be gigantic
(try working out grams on nanometers squared:) and they'd be
pressed back into the metallic lattice for sure. The 'mountains' are
leveled, then some other atoms will make contact, reducing
the pressure, etc. etc. Three points would be a mathematical, not a
physical maximum, it'd rather be the absolute minimum (say if one
has some (metal) surfaces stacked in zero gravity)
I guess a springloaded ballbearing transport table with a slab of metal
on it would make for an adequate mental model.
make that two tables, one overturned, on top of each other
for Robert :-)

Rudy

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 11th 05, 07:06 PM

> So is that a "Please substitute, 'in the neighborhood of the correct
>answer if the said contact or contacts are able to rotate about two
>perpendicular axes and there exist three high points on the contact or
>contacts such that the said contacts might contact each other at the
>three said points on closure and there exists a residual closing force
>within the triangle formed by said points after the moments required
>to rotate the said contacts to the said three contact geometry is
>taken into account in calculating the said resultant closing force and
>none of the said contact points are deformed by the said force to the
>extent that further contact points result from the said deformation'"
>?

....after the moments required to rotate the said contacts to the said
three contact geometry *are*...

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 11th 05, 07:14 PM

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:43:45 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
>> 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.
>>
>You take my words to literally. Please substitute, "in the neighborhood of
>the zero crossing" for "at the zero crossing".
>

For someone who considers himself to be a bit of a scientist and
writer one wonders if the problem sloppy writing, fuzzy thinking or
plain old "debating trade" The agument that a big signal that passes
through zero is really a little signal after all does not appeal to
me..

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 11th 05, 07:18 PM

Is it just me or is Bob getting on one's tits?

Robert Morein

October 11th 05, 08:21 PM

" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "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.
>
> The rest of the world doing audio research already has done so.
>
> We will not permit adoption of this technique
> > by the public until this is done.
> >
> It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio professionals
> the world over.
>
As I said, we will not allow it to be adopted by the public. "Real audio
professionals" do not use it either.

Robert Morein

October 11th 05, 08:22 PM

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:33:40 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:07:08 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"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.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Only if you make an assumption.
> >Yes.
>
> So is that a "Please substitute, 'in the neighborhood of the correct
> answer if the said contact or contacts are able to rotate about two
> perpendicular axes and there exist three high points on the contact or
> contacts such that the said contacts might contact each other at the
> three said points on closure and there exists a residual closing force
> within the triangle formed by said points after the moments required
> to rotate the said contacts to the said three contact geometry is
> taken into account in calculating the said resultant closing force and
> none of the said contact points are deformed by the said force to the
> extent that further contact points result from the said deformation'"
> ?
That is correct. Much of this is covered by the specification "hard
surface".

Robert Morein

October 11th 05, 08:24 PM

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
>
> > So is that a "Please substitute, 'in the neighborhood of the correct
> >answer if the said contact or contacts are able to rotate about two
> >perpendicular axes and there exist three high points on the contact or
> >contacts such that the said contacts might contact each other at the
> >three said points on closure and there exists a residual closing force
> >within the triangle formed by said points after the moments required
> >to rotate the said contacts to the said three contact geometry is
> >taken into account in calculating the said resultant closing force and
> >none of the said contact points are deformed by the said force to the
> >extent that further contact points result from the said deformation'"
> >?
>
> ...after the moments required to rotate the said contacts to the said
> three contact geometry *are*...

Not necessary, because the question asks for the maximum number of contact
points for two nonflat surfaces. If the moments are insufficient to align
the surfaces, then the number of contact points can be less than three.

Robert Morein

October 11th 05, 08:25 PM

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
> Is it just me or is Bob getting on one's tits?

Why would I be interested in your tits? Is that some kind of English fag
expression?
Here we say, "pulling my chain".

If your tits are somehow representative of a nonflat surface with a maximum
of three contact points, I'll sleep somewhere else.

Robert Morein

October 11th 05, 08:26 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>
>
> > For line levels, for me, nothing else comes into
> > consideration but thoroughly gold-plated, gas filled
> > relays.
>
> Wrong.
>
> > 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).
>
> Wrong.
>
> > Switching an audio signal at microphone- or phono
> > cartridge levels is almost not possible without suffering
> > from signal degradation.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Keep up the good work, Sander!
>
Keep up the repetition, Arny. Train them 'dogs!

Robert Morein

October 11th 05, 08:32 PM

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:43:45 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> 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.
> >>
> >You take my words to literally. Please substitute, "in the neighborhood
of
> >the zero crossing" for "at the zero crossing".
> >
>
> For someone who considers himself to be a bit of a scientist and
> writer one wonders if the problem sloppy writing, fuzzy thinking or
> plain old "debating trade" The agument that a big signal that passes
> through zero is really a little signal after all does not appeal to
> me..

It doesn't appeal to me either, but this is the world we live in. In fact,
audio equipment exhibits a well known quantum effect, in the form of
background hiss. The purpose of my questions is to illuminate the fact that
we have a tiny signal that passes through a complex interface. According to
the literature, the interface is composed of "nanowires", a term coined to
denote conductors, and the current flow through these is quantized.

I do not give much concern to the incorporation of these devices into hifi
equipment. But Arny Krueger is pushing his device like the NBS platinum
meter. An interesting discovery was made about that bar afew years ago, now
that it is a secondary standard to the atomic meter. The bar is shrinking.
Either it is evaporating, or internal stresses are causing it to change
shape.

So what I'm saying is, we cannot bank on relays for ABX comparison. They
seem comfortably simple, but they are not.

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 11th 05, 08:33 PM

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:24:05 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> > So is that a "Please substitute, 'in the neighborhood of the correct
>> >answer if the said contact or contacts are able to rotate about two
>> >perpendicular axes and there exist three high points on the contact or
>> >contacts such that the said contacts might contact each other at the
>> >three said points on closure and there exists a residual closing force
>> >within the triangle formed by said points after the moments required
>> >to rotate the said contacts to the said three contact geometry is
>> >taken into account in calculating the said resultant closing force and
>> >none of the said contact points are deformed by the said force to the
>> >extent that further contact points result from the said deformation'"
>> >?
>>
>> ...after the moments required to rotate the said contacts to the said
>> three contact geometry *are*...
>
>Not necessary, because the question asks for the maximum number of contact
>points for two nonflat surfaces. If the moments are insufficient to align
>the surfaces, then the number of contact points can be less than three.
>
Ok, I only read answers and the answer was a three legged stool.

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 11th 05, 08:36 PM

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:22:55 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:33:40 -0400, "Robert Morein"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:07:08 -0400, "Robert Morein"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"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.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Only if you make an assumption.
>> >Yes.
>>
>> So is that a "Please substitute, 'in the neighborhood of the correct
>> answer if the said contact or contacts are able to rotate about two
>> perpendicular axes and there exist three high points on the contact or
>> contacts such that the said contacts might contact each other at the
>> three said points on closure and there exists a residual closing force
>> within the triangle formed by said points after the moments required
>> to rotate the said contacts to the said three contact geometry is
>> taken into account in calculating the said resultant closing force and
>> none of the said contact points are deformed by the said force to the
>> extent that further contact points result from the said deformation'"
>> ?
>That is correct. Much of this is covered by the specification "hard
>surface".
>
Who would have thunk. What was your assumption?

Ruud Broens

October 11th 05, 08:45 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
: > >> >> >
: > >> >>
: > >> >> 3 points define a plane. Robert has stated his problem as
: non-flat

: > >> Only if you make an assumption.
: > >Yes.
: >
: > So is that a "Please substitute, 'in the neighborhood of the correct
: > answer if the said contact or contacts are able to rotate about two
: > perpendicular axes and there exist three high points on the contact or
: > contacts such that the said contacts might contact each other at the
: > three said points on closure and there exists a residual closing force
: > within the triangle formed by said points after the moments required
: > to rotate the said contacts to the said three contact geometry is
: > taken into account in calculating the said resultant closing force and
: > none of the said contact points are deformed by the said force to the
: > extent that further contact points result from the said deformation'"
: > ?
: That is correct. Much of this is covered by the specification "hard
: surface".
:
A specification you get to make :-)
However, in the real world, that's a figment of the imagination.
Looking at this another way, say we have a 1mA current, is that
possible with a three atom contact ? Lookin' forward for a reply,
Rudy
BS watchdog

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 11th 05, 08:46 PM

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:25:55 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
>> Is it just me or is Bob getting on one's tits?
>
>Why would I be interested in your tits? Is that some kind of English fag
>expression?

You mean Queen's.. English? No.

>Here we say, "pulling my chain".
>

Not equivalent.

>If your tits are somehow representative of a nonflat surface with a maximum
>of three contact points, I'll sleep somewhere else.
>
One's man boobs are hard, note,

Arny Krueger

October 11th 05, 08:52 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> I do not give much concern to the incorporation of these
> devices into hifi equipment.

Good idea because reed relays are common signal-handling
components in quality equipment for audio production for
decades. As I said before, the ruthenium plated reed relays
we used had been recently used by a widely-respected
manufacturer of studio mixing boards.

Morein's vendetta against reed relays is yet another example
of his lack of familiarity with audio production equipment,
and audio in general.

> But Arny Krueger is pushing
> his device like the NBS platinum meter.

This is nuts. I'm not pushing the ABC RM-2 relay module at
all. RM-2 has been out of production for what, 20 years?

However, no matter what Morein says - Stereophile never
published a review of the ABX RM-2 relay module.

Clyde Slick

October 11th 05, 09:01 PM

" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
>
..
>>
> It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio professionals
> the world over.
>

That should read "professional audio clowns".

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 11th 05, 09:02 PM

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:32:42 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message

Snip preamble.

>> For someone who considers himself to be a bit of a scientist and
>> writer one wonders if the problem sloppy writing, fuzzy thinking or
>> plain old "debating trade" The agument that a big signal that passes
>> through zero is really a little signal after all does not appeal to
>> me..
>
>It doesn't appeal to me either, but this is the world we live in.

What can I say.

Snip irrelevance

[email protected]

October 11th 05, 09:13 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > link.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>>
>> >>> " > 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.
>
So I guess this possibility is correect.

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.

[email protected]

October 11th 05, 09:16 PM

"Clyde Slick" > 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.
>>
>
> BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> You can't prove that there are not differences.
Never said it was possible, what is possible is demonstrating whethere or
not a given individual can hear them. If they can't then for that person,
they don't exist.

My bet is that the vast majority of people who claim differences in sighted
listening, which is the most unrelaible way to try and detect subtle
differences, can't hear any in a blind, level matched, comparison.

[email protected]

October 11th 05, 09:17 PM

"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
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > " > 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.
>>
>> The rest of the world doing audio research already has done so.
>>
>> We will not permit adoption of this technique
>> > by the public until this is done.
>> >
>> It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio professionals
>> the world over.
>>
> As I said, we will not allow it to be adopted by the public. "Real audio
> professionals" do not use it either.
>
That must be why it is the standard.

Robert Morein

October 11th 05, 09:28 PM

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "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
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > " > 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.
> >>
> >> The rest of the world doing audio research already has done so.
> >>
> >> We will not permit adoption of this technique
> >> > by the public until this is done.
> >> >
> >> It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio
professionals
> >> the world over.
> >>
> > As I said, we will not allow it to be adopted by the public. "Real audio
> > professionals" do not use it either.
> >
> That must be why it is the standard.
>
ABX = A Bull**** Xperimeint

Robert Morein

October 11th 05, 09:30 PM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> : > >> >> >
> : > >> >>
> : > >> >> 3 points define a plane. Robert has stated his problem as
> : non-flat
>
> : > >> Only if you make an assumption.
> : > >Yes.
> : >
> : > So is that a "Please substitute, 'in the neighborhood of the correct
> : > answer if the said contact or contacts are able to rotate about two
> : > perpendicular axes and there exist three high points on the contact or
> : > contacts such that the said contacts might contact each other at the
> : > three said points on closure and there exists a residual closing force
> : > within the triangle formed by said points after the moments required
> : > to rotate the said contacts to the said three contact geometry is
> : > taken into account in calculating the said resultant closing force and
> : > none of the said contact points are deformed by the said force to the
> : > extent that further contact points result from the said deformation'"
> : > ?
> : That is correct. Much of this is covered by the specification "hard
> : surface".
> :
> A specification you get to make :-)
> However, in the real world, that's a figment of the imagination.
> Looking at this another way, say we have a 1mA current, is that
> possible with a three atom contact ?

No. It has been discovered that the number and configuration of the
nanowires varies with the current.
Within each nanowire, the current is quantized.

Ruud Broens

October 11th 05, 09:48 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: ...
: > : That is correct. Much of this is covered by the specification "hard
: > : surface".
: > :
: > A specification you get to make :-)
: > However, in the real world, that's a figment of the imagination.
: > Looking at this another way, say we have a 1mA current, is that
: > possible with a three atom contact ?
:
: No. It has been discovered that the number and configuration of the
: nanowires varies with the current.
: Within each nanowire, the current is quantized.
:
So, once again, what was the _3 point_ pointe ?
a point is not a wire, you will note ;-)
Rudy

Robert Morein

October 11th 05, 09:48 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
> > I do not give much concern to the incorporation of these
> > devices into hifi equipment.
>
> Good idea because reed relays are common signal-handling
> components in quality equipment for audio production for
> decades. As I said before, the ruthenium plated reed relays
> we used had been recently used by a widely-respected
> manufacturer of studio mixing boards.
>
> Morein's vendetta against reed relays is yet another example
> of his lack of familiarity with audio production equipment,
> and audio in general.
>
> > But Arny Krueger is pushing
> > his device like the NBS platinum meter.
>
> This is nuts. I'm not pushing the ABC RM-2 relay module at
> all. RM-2 has been out of production for what, 20 years?
>
> However, no matter what Morein says - Stereophile never
> published a review of the ABX RM-2 relay module.
>
Arny, permit me to clarify. I would love to have an ABX device. Even if it
were one of yours, I would treat it as a treasured resource, unless it
obviously contradicted certain observations about amplifiers that have the
same certainty of audibility as you have with speakers.

You reached conclusions about amplifiers that arouse in a number of us, deep
suspicion. Even if someone was incapable of distinguishing the difference
between a Pass single ended design and a Yamaha, it has little meaning for
us. Speaking for myself, I acknowledge that there may be audible equivalence
classes that transcend price and construction. Still, this is not the same
as declaring an axiom. Speaking again for myself, it appears that reliance
on current methods of measuring amplifier specifications produces the
appearance of technical equivalance, or "proper operation", while the latter
is not a properly defined term. I know that you are convinced of this
through your studies of the audibility of harmonic and IM distortion, but,
unfortunately, this contradicts the common experience of a great many
people. It does so even when one admits imagined differences. My small club
of audio buddies only acknowledge differences in amplification when it hits
us on our heads, just like speakers can and do.

You are, to me, a tantalizing paradox, because you are a very intelligent
person who has succumbed to a personal need for definitive results. Science
always benefits when the investigator is detached from the result. It always
suffers from personal involvement. A good scientist serves the principal,
not the end. Or, as Jobs says, "The journey is the reward."

I make a lot of noise about this, because the finer points of hifi are on
the verge of extinction. The endeavor is not immune to your influence. By
promoting the idea that quality of reproduction is no longer a concern with
commercial offerings, you do a disservice to the consumer, who is reliant on
this very troubled industry.

A possibility to consider is that your ABX design is adequate to the job,
yet, in your investigations, you made other errors. I have written in a
colorful style, to bring attention to the issue. Because you promote your
device, or others like it as a standard, it requires scrutiny far above the
norm. In another post, I mentioned that the NBS platinum bar is shrinking.
No one expected that either.

Ruud Broens

October 11th 05, 10:30 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
: ...
: > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
: >
: >
: > > I do not give much concern to the incorporation of these
: > > devices into hifi equipment.
: >
: > Good idea because reed relays are common signal-handling
: > components in quality equipment for audio production for
: > decades. As I said before, the ruthenium plated reed relays
: > we used had been recently used by a widely-respected
: > manufacturer of studio mixing boards.
: >
: > Morein's vendetta against reed relays is yet another example
: > of his lack of familiarity with audio production equipment,
: > and audio in general.
: >
: > > But Arny Krueger is pushing
: > > his device like the NBS platinum meter.
: >
: > This is nuts. I'm not pushing the ABC RM-2 relay module at
: > all. RM-2 has been out of production for what, 20 years?
: >
: > However, no matter what Morein says - Stereophile never
: > published a review of the ABX RM-2 relay module.
: >
: Arny, permit me to clarify. I would love to have an ABX device. Even if it
: were one of yours, I would treat it as a treasured resource, unless it
: obviously contradicted certain observations about amplifiers that have the
: same certainty of audibility as you have with speakers.
:
: You reached conclusions about amplifiers that arouse in a number of us, deep
: suspicion. Even if someone was incapable of distinguishing the difference
: between a Pass single ended design and a Yamaha, it has little meaning for
: us. Speaking for myself, I acknowledge that there may be audible equivalence
: classes that transcend price and construction. Still, this is not the same
: as declaring an axiom. Speaking again for myself, it appears that reliance
: on current methods of measuring amplifier specifications produces the
: appearance of technical equivalance, or "proper operation", while the latter
: is not a properly defined term. I know that you are convinced of this
: through your studies of the audibility of harmonic and IM distortion, but,
: unfortunately, this contradicts the common experience of a great many
: people. It does so even when one admits imagined differences. My small club
: of audio buddies only acknowledge differences in amplification when it hits
: us on our heads, just like speakers can and do.
:
: You are, to me, a tantalizing paradox, because you are a very intelligent
: person who has succumbed to a personal need for definitive results. Science
: always benefits when the investigator is detached from the result. It always
: suffers from personal involvement. A good scientist serves the principal,
: not the end. Or, as Jobs says, "The journey is the reward."
:
: I make a lot of noise about this, because the finer points of hifi are on
: the verge of extinction. The endeavor is not immune to your influence. By
: promoting the idea that quality of reproduction is no longer a concern with
: commercial offerings, you do a disservice to the consumer, who is reliant on
: this very troubled industry.
:
: A possibility to consider is that your ABX design is adequate to the job,
: yet, in your investigations, you made other errors. I have written in a
: colorful style, to bring attention to the issue. Because you promote your
: device, or others like it as a standard, it requires scrutiny far above the
: norm.

Fact is that the pressure variations as a result of speaker driver
movement are used to qualify the amplifier 'resolution'. Rather begs the
question, which i previously highlighted by giving the example of using
subwoofers to find out differences between amplifiers :-)

Then there is the problem of the driver mechanically always lagging the
electrical power supplied and hence feeding back energy to the amp
time delayed. The woofer will 'smear' the mid-frequencies.
Much better to use an active XO in a multiple driver speaker.

Good posting for a change there, R.
Rudy

: In another post, I mentioned that the NBS platinum bar is shrinking.
: No one expected that either.

...maybe the guard isn't paid very well and makes an extra buck with a
nail file operation? :-)
:

Robert Morein

October 11th 05, 10:40 PM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> :
> : "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> : >
> : >
> : > > I do not give much concern to the incorporation of these
> : > > devices into hifi equipment.
> : >
> : > Good idea because reed relays are common signal-handling
> : > components in quality equipment for audio production for
> : > decades. As I said before, the ruthenium plated reed relays
> : > we used had been recently used by a widely-respected
> : > manufacturer of studio mixing boards.
> : >
> : > Morein's vendetta against reed relays is yet another example
> : > of his lack of familiarity with audio production equipment,
> : > and audio in general.
> : >
> : > > But Arny Krueger is pushing
> : > > his device like the NBS platinum meter.
> : >
> : > This is nuts. I'm not pushing the ABC RM-2 relay module at
> : > all. RM-2 has been out of production for what, 20 years?
> : >
> : > However, no matter what Morein says - Stereophile never
> : > published a review of the ABX RM-2 relay module.
> : >
> : Arny, permit me to clarify. I would love to have an ABX device. Even if
it
> : were one of yours, I would treat it as a treasured resource, unless it
> : obviously contradicted certain observations about amplifiers that have
the
> : same certainty of audibility as you have with speakers.
> :
> : You reached conclusions about amplifiers that arouse in a number of us,
deep
> : suspicion. Even if someone was incapable of distinguishing the
difference
> : between a Pass single ended design and a Yamaha, it has little meaning
for
> : us. Speaking for myself, I acknowledge that there may be audible
equivalence
> : classes that transcend price and construction. Still, this is not the
same
> : as declaring an axiom. Speaking again for myself, it appears that
reliance
> : on current methods of measuring amplifier specifications produces the
> : appearance of technical equivalance, or "proper operation", while the
latter
> : is not a properly defined term. I know that you are convinced of this
> : through your studies of the audibility of harmonic and IM distortion,
but,
> : unfortunately, this contradicts the common experience of a great many
> : people. It does so even when one admits imagined differences. My small
club
> : of audio buddies only acknowledge differences in amplification when it
hits
> : us on our heads, just like speakers can and do.
> :
> : You are, to me, a tantalizing paradox, because you are a very
intelligent
> : person who has succumbed to a personal need for definitive results.
Science
> : always benefits when the investigator is detached from the result. It
always
> : suffers from personal involvement. A good scientist serves the
principal,
> : not the end. Or, as Jobs says, "The journey is the reward."
> :
> : I make a lot of noise about this, because the finer points of hifi are
on
> : the verge of extinction. The endeavor is not immune to your influence.
By
> : promoting the idea that quality of reproduction is no longer a concern
with
> : commercial offerings, you do a disservice to the consumer, who is
reliant on
> : this very troubled industry.
> :
> : A possibility to consider is that your ABX design is adequate to the
job,
> : yet, in your investigations, you made other errors. I have written in a
> : colorful style, to bring attention to the issue. Because you promote
your
> : device, or others like it as a standard, it requires scrutiny far above
the
> : norm.
>
> Fact is that the pressure variations as a result of speaker driver
> movement are used to qualify the amplifier 'resolution'. Rather begs the
> question, which i previously highlighted by giving the example of using
> subwoofers to find out differences between amplifiers :-)
>
> Then there is the problem of the driver mechanically always lagging the
> electrical power supplied and hence feeding back energy to the amp
> time delayed. The woofer will 'smear' the mid-frequencies.
> Much better to use an active XO in a multiple driver speaker.
>
There are so many problems, it's a mistake to consider amplifiers a
cut-and-dried affair.

> Good posting for a change there, R.
> Rudy
>
Thank you. Now watch Arny bite. He has the personality of an alligator.

> : In another post, I mentioned that the NBS platinum bar is shrinking.
> : No one expected that either.
>
> ..maybe the guard isn't paid very well and makes an extra buck with a
> nail file operation? :-)
> :
:):):)
There are little mysteries under the surface of many things.

Robert Morein

October 11th 05, 10:41 PM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> :
> : "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : > : That is correct. Much of this is covered by the specification "hard
> : > : surface".
> : > :
> : > A specification you get to make :-)
> : > However, in the real world, that's a figment of the imagination.
> : > Looking at this another way, say we have a 1mA current, is that
> : > possible with a three atom contact ?
> :
> : No. It has been discovered that the number and configuration of the
> : nanowires varies with the current.
> : Within each nanowire, the current is quantized.
> :
> So, once again, what was the _3 point_ pointe ?
> a point is not a wire, you will note ;-)
> Rudy
>
It was to get people to think about the nature of the contact surface.
Perhaps people assume that the contacts slap together to form a cold weld
with the characteristics of the bulk material. But it's not true.

[email protected]

October 11th 05, 11:36 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "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
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > " > 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.
>> >>
>> >> The rest of the world doing audio research already has done so.
>> >>
>> >> We will not permit adoption of this technique
>> >> > by the public until this is done.
>> >> >
>> >> It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio
> professionals
>> >> the world over.
>> >>
>> > As I said, we will not allow it to be adopted by the public. "Real
>> > audio
>> > professionals" do not use it either.
>> >
>> That must be why it is the standard.
>>
> ABX = A Bull**** Xperimeint
>
Only when done by someone who doesn't know the difference between 40 inches
and 2.4 meters.

ScottW

October 11th 05, 11:42 PM

Robert Morein wrote:
> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > So is that a "Please substitute, 'in the neighborhood of the correct
> > >answer if the said contact or contacts are able to rotate about two
> > >perpendicular axes and there exist three high points on the contact or
> > >contacts such that the said contacts might contact each other at the
> > >three said points on closure and there exists a residual closing force
> > >within the triangle formed by said points after the moments required
> > >to rotate the said contacts to the said three contact geometry is
> > >taken into account in calculating the said resultant closing force and
> > >none of the said contact points are deformed by the said force to the
> > >extent that further contact points result from the said deformation'"
> > >?
> >
> > ...after the moments required to rotate the said contacts to the said
> > three contact geometry *are*...
>
> Not necessary, because the question asks for the maximum number of contact
> points for two nonflat surfaces.

Really... that appears to be at least the fourth evolution of this
question.

ScottW

[email protected]

October 11th 05, 11:44 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > I do not give much concern to the incorporation of these
>> > devices into hifi equipment.
>>
>> Good idea because reed relays are common signal-handling
>> components in quality equipment for audio production for
>> decades. As I said before, the ruthenium plated reed relays
>> we used had been recently used by a widely-respected
>> manufacturer of studio mixing boards.
>>
>> Morein's vendetta against reed relays is yet another example
>> of his lack of familiarity with audio production equipment,
>> and audio in general.
>>
>> > But Arny Krueger is pushing
>> > his device like the NBS platinum meter.
>>
>> This is nuts. I'm not pushing the ABC RM-2 relay module at
>> all. RM-2 has been out of production for what, 20 years?
>>
>> However, no matter what Morein says - Stereophile never
>> published a review of the ABX RM-2 relay module.
>>
> Arny, permit me to clarify. I would love to have an ABX device.

Here's where you can get the schematic to build one of your own, use parts
of whatever quality you chose.
http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm

Even if it
> were one of yours, I would treat it as a treasured resource, unless it
> obviously contradicted certain observations about amplifiers that have the
> same certainty of audibility as you have with speakers.
>
> You reached conclusions about amplifiers that arouse in a number of us,
> deep
> suspicion. Even if someone was incapable of distinguishing the difference
> between a Pass single ended design and a Yamaha, it has little meaning for
> us. Speaking for myself, I acknowledge that there may be audible
> equivalence
> classes that transcend price and construction. Still, this is not the same
> as declaring an axiom. Speaking again for myself, it appears that reliance
> on current methods of measuring amplifier specifications produces the
> appearance of technical equivalance, or "proper operation", while the
> latter
> is not a properly defined term. I know that you are convinced of this
> through your studies of the audibility of harmonic and IM distortion, but,
> unfortunately, this contradicts the common experience of a great many
> people. It does so even when one admits imagined differences. My small
> club
> of audio buddies only acknowledge differences in amplification when it
> hits
> us on our heads, just like speakers can and do.
>
> You are, to me, a tantalizing paradox, because you are a very intelligent
> person who has succumbed to a personal need for definitive results.
> Science
> always benefits when the investigator is detached from the result. It
> always
> suffers from personal involvement. A good scientist serves the principal,
> not the end. Or, as Jobs says, "The journey is the reward."
>
> I make a lot of noise about this, because the finer points of hifi are on
> the verge of extinction. The endeavor is not immune to your influence. By
> promoting the idea that quality of reproduction is no longer a concern
> with
> commercial offerings, you do a disservice to the consumer, who is reliant
> on
> this very troubled industry.
>
> A possibility to consider is that your ABX design is adequate to the job,
> yet, in your investigations, you made other errors. I have written in a
> colorful style, to bring attention to the issue. Because you promote your
> device, or others like it as a standard,

It's not him doing the promoting, DBT IS the standard.

it requires scrutiny far above the
> norm.

Which has been done by many of his peers and people more involved in audio
research than Arny ever was. That is how it became one of the accepted
protocols.

ScottW

October 11th 05, 11:48 PM

Robert Morein wrote:
> "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.

Show us how spheres fall outside the set of shapes you specified. Show
us how spheres can have 3 points of contact.

and finally... show us why your assumption of perfect hardness is
valid.

ScottW

Robert Morein

October 11th 05, 11:53 PM

" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >> > I do not give much concern to the incorporation of these
> >> > devices into hifi equipment.
> >>
> >> Good idea because reed relays are common signal-handling
> >> components in quality equipment for audio production for
> >> decades. As I said before, the ruthenium plated reed relays
> >> we used had been recently used by a widely-respected
> >> manufacturer of studio mixing boards.
> >>
> >> Morein's vendetta against reed relays is yet another example
> >> of his lack of familiarity with audio production equipment,
> >> and audio in general.
> >>
> >> > But Arny Krueger is pushing
> >> > his device like the NBS platinum meter.
> >>
> >> This is nuts. I'm not pushing the ABC RM-2 relay module at
> >> all. RM-2 has been out of production for what, 20 years?
> >>
> >> However, no matter what Morein says - Stereophile never
> >> published a review of the ABX RM-2 relay module.
> >>
> > Arny, permit me to clarify. I would love to have an ABX device.
>
> Here's where you can get the schematic to build one of your own, use parts
> of whatever quality you chose.
> http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm
>
>
>
> Even if it
> > were one of yours, I would treat it as a treasured resource, unless it
> > obviously contradicted certain observations about amplifiers that have
the
> > same certainty of audibility as you have with speakers.
> >
> > You reached conclusions about amplifiers that arouse in a number of us,
> > deep
> > suspicion. Even if someone was incapable of distinguishing the
difference
> > between a Pass single ended design and a Yamaha, it has little meaning
for
> > us. Speaking for myself, I acknowledge that there may be audible
> > equivalence
> > classes that transcend price and construction. Still, this is not the
same
> > as declaring an axiom. Speaking again for myself, it appears that
reliance
> > on current methods of measuring amplifier specifications produces the
> > appearance of technical equivalance, or "proper operation", while the
> > latter
> > is not a properly defined term. I know that you are convinced of this
> > through your studies of the audibility of harmonic and IM distortion,
but,
> > unfortunately, this contradicts the common experience of a great many
> > people. It does so even when one admits imagined differences. My small
> > club
> > of audio buddies only acknowledge differences in amplification when it
> > hits
> > us on our heads, just like speakers can and do.
> >
> > You are, to me, a tantalizing paradox, because you are a very
intelligent
> > person who has succumbed to a personal need for definitive results.
> > Science
> > always benefits when the investigator is detached from the result. It
> > always
> > suffers from personal involvement. A good scientist serves the
principal,
> > not the end. Or, as Jobs says, "The journey is the reward."
> >
> > I make a lot of noise about this, because the finer points of hifi are
on
> > the verge of extinction. The endeavor is not immune to your influence.
By
> > promoting the idea that quality of reproduction is no longer a concern
> > with
> > commercial offerings, you do a disservice to the consumer, who is
reliant
> > on
> > this very troubled industry.
> >
> > A possibility to consider is that your ABX design is adequate to the
job,
> > yet, in your investigations, you made other errors. I have written in a
> > colorful style, to bring attention to the issue. Because you promote
your
> > device, or others like it as a standard,
>
> It's not him doing the promoting, DBT IS the standard.
>
> it requires scrutiny far above the
> > norm.
>
> Which has been done by many of his peers and people more involved in audio
> research than Arny ever was. That is how it became one of the accepted
> protocols.
>
But not for hifi, Mikey.

Ruud Broens

October 12th 05, 12:01 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
: > : > > But Arny Krueger is pushing
: > : > > his device like the NBS platinum meter.
: > : >
: > : > This is nuts. I'm not pushing the ABC RM-2 relay module at
: > : > all. RM-2 has been out of production for what, 20 years?
: Now watch Arny bite. He has the personality of an alligator.
:
: > : In another post, I mentioned that the NBS platinum bar is shrinking.
: > : No one expected that either.
: >
: > ..maybe the guard isn't paid very well and makes an extra buck with a
: > nail file operation? :-)
: > :
: :):):)
: There are little mysteries under the surface of many things.

Kreuger on ruthenium :
http://ivarkreuger.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=Caledonia&action=display&threa
d=1089108518

(better get some Rhodium stockpiled :-)
:
:

Clyde Slick

October 12th 05, 12:40 AM

" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > 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.
>>>
>>
>> BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> You can't prove that there are not differences.
> Never said it was possible, what is possible is demonstrating whethere or
> not a given individual can hear them. If they can't then for that person,
> they don't exist.
>

all you can say is that they don't exist under those certain test
conditions,
given that you have such test results for the given individual.

> My bet is that the vast majority of people who claim differences in
> sighted listening, which is the most unrelaible way to try and detect
> subtle differences, can't hear any in a blind, level matched, comparison.

"If" that were the case, then you can say that they hear them sighted, but
don't hear them
under test conditions.
The really interesting thing to see would be this:
a) person hears differences sighted (According to you
supposedly from expectation effects)
b) person does not hear differences during DBT tests
c) person is told of his negative test results (therefore removing
supposed future expectation effects)
d) person listens sighted again, now without expectation effects. Does he
still hear differences, or did they go away with
removal of the supposed expectation effects?

Robert Morein

October 12th 05, 01:36 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
> > "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.
>
> Show us how spheres fall outside the set of shapes you specified. Show
> us how spheres can have 3 points of contact.
>
> and finally... show us why your assumption of perfect hardness is
> valid.
>
> ScottW
>
This has been covered in discussion with other people in these threads.

ScottW

October 12th 05, 03:07 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> Robert Morein wrote:
>> > "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.
>>
>> Show us how spheres fall outside the set of shapes you specified. Show
>> us how spheres can have 3 points of contact.
>>
>> and finally... show us why your assumption of perfect hardness is
>> valid.
>>
>> ScottW
>>
> This has been covered in discussion with other people in these threads.

So have you accepted the numerous flaws of your theory or are you still
grasping at straws?

ScottW

[email protected]

October 12th 05, 06:08 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> You can't prove that there are not differences.
>> Never said it was possible, what is possible is demonstrating whethere or
>> not a given individual can hear them. If they can't then for that
>> person, they don't exist.
>>
>
> all you can say is that they don't exist under those certain test
> conditions,
> given that you have such test results for the given individual.
>
>> My bet is that the vast majority of people who claim differences in
>> sighted listening, which is the most unrelaible way to try and detect
>> subtle differences, can't hear any in a blind, level matched, comparison.
>
>
> "If" that were the case, then you can say that they hear them sighted, but
> don't hear them
> under test conditions.

You could say that but it would be untrue,due to the fact that bias was not
removed and levels were not matched.

> The really interesting thing to see would be this:
> a) person hears differences sighted (According to you
> supposedly from expectation effects)

Not mecessarily, they could be differences large enough to hear sighted, as
is the case with speakers

> b) person does not hear differences during DBT tests
> c) person is told of his negative test results (therefore removing
> supposed future expectation effects)
> d) person listens sighted again, now without expectation effects. Does he
> still hear differences, or did they go away with
> removal of the supposed expectation effects?
Unless there is level matching to within .1db I suspect any sighted test is
still not going to be relaible.

Fortunately we have someone who posts here freuently who knows much more
about the acceptability of such tests than I do. Arny, what say you?

[email protected]

October 12th 05, 06:09 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>>
>>
> .
>>>
>> It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio professionals
>> the world over.
>>
>
> That should read "professional audio clowns".
>
That's right, anybody who knows more about it than you must be a clown.
BTW, I've been wondering why you've been seen with that big red nose and the
garish makeup.

[email protected]

October 12th 05, 06:13 AM

"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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > I do not give much concern to the incorporation of these
>> >> > devices into hifi equipment.
>> >>
>> >> Good idea because reed relays are common signal-handling
>> >> components in quality equipment for audio production for
>> >> decades. As I said before, the ruthenium plated reed relays
>> >> we used had been recently used by a widely-respected
>> >> manufacturer of studio mixing boards.
>> >>
>> >> Morein's vendetta against reed relays is yet another example
>> >> of his lack of familiarity with audio production equipment,
>> >> and audio in general.
>> >>
>> >> > But Arny Krueger is pushing
>> >> > his device like the NBS platinum meter.
>> >>
>> >> This is nuts. I'm not pushing the ABC RM-2 relay module at
>> >> all. RM-2 has been out of production for what, 20 years?
>> >>
>> >> However, no matter what Morein says - Stereophile never
>> >> published a review of the ABX RM-2 relay module.
>> >>
>> > Arny, permit me to clarify. I would love to have an ABX device.
>>
>> Here's where you can get the schematic to build one of your own, use
>> parts
>> of whatever quality you chose.
>> http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> Even if it
>> > were one of yours, I would treat it as a treasured resource, unless it
>> > obviously contradicted certain observations about amplifiers that have
> the
>> > same certainty of audibility as you have with speakers.
>> >
>> > You reached conclusions about amplifiers that arouse in a number of us,
>> > deep
>> > suspicion. Even if someone was incapable of distinguishing the
> difference
>> > between a Pass single ended design and a Yamaha, it has little meaning
> for
>> > us. Speaking for myself, I acknowledge that there may be audible
>> > equivalence
>> > classes that transcend price and construction. Still, this is not the
> same
>> > as declaring an axiom. Speaking again for myself, it appears that
> reliance
>> > on current methods of measuring amplifier specifications produces the
>> > appearance of technical equivalance, or "proper operation", while the
>> > latter
>> > is not a properly defined term. I know that you are convinced of this
>> > through your studies of the audibility of harmonic and IM distortion,
> but,
>> > unfortunately, this contradicts the common experience of a great many
>> > people. It does so even when one admits imagined differences. My small
>> > club
>> > of audio buddies only acknowledge differences in amplification when it
>> > hits
>> > us on our heads, just like speakers can and do.
>> >
>> > You are, to me, a tantalizing paradox, because you are a very
> intelligent
>> > person who has succumbed to a personal need for definitive results.
>> > Science
>> > always benefits when the investigator is detached from the result. It
>> > always
>> > suffers from personal involvement. A good scientist serves the
> principal,
>> > not the end. Or, as Jobs says, "The journey is the reward."
>> >
>> > I make a lot of noise about this, because the finer points of hifi are
> on
>> > the verge of extinction. The endeavor is not immune to your influence.
> By
>> > promoting the idea that quality of reproduction is no longer a concern
>> > with
>> > commercial offerings, you do a disservice to the consumer, who is
> reliant
>> > on
>> > this very troubled industry.
>> >
>> > A possibility to consider is that your ABX design is adequate to the
> job,
>> > yet, in your investigations, you made other errors. I have written in a
>> > colorful style, to bring attention to the issue. Because you promote
> your
>> > device, or others like it as a standard,
>>
>> It's not him doing the promoting, DBT IS the standard.
>>
>> it requires scrutiny far above the
>> > norm.
>>
>> Which has been done by many of his peers and people more involved in
>> audio
>> research than Arny ever was. That is how it became one of the accepted
>> protocols.
>>
> But not for hifi, Mikey.
>
Yes Robert, even for hi-fi. Unless you don't consider Revel or a host of
others to be hi fi companies.

Sander deWaal

October 12th 05, 06:04 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

>> For line levels, for me, nothing else comes into
>> consideration but thoroughly gold-plated, gas filled
>> relays.

>Wrong.

>> 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).

>Wrong.

>> Switching an audio signal at microphone- or phono
>> cartridge levels is almost not possible without suffering
>> from signal degradation.

>Wrong.

>Keep up the good work, Sander!

Is this the difference between someone who has built and repaired many
amplifiers, and someone who just read about them? ;-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Ruud Broens

October 12th 05, 08:05 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Arny Krueger" > said:

: >Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.
:
: >Keep up the good work, Sander!
:
:
: Is this the difference between someone who has built and repaired many
: amplifiers, and someone who just read about them? ;-)
:
: --
Nah, it's the betatesting of the Kroologique module v5.3
it's principle is 'winning an argument'
by boring opponents to death :-)
R.

Arny Krueger

October 12th 05, 10:07 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> Is this the difference between someone who has built and
> repaired many amplifiers, and someone who just read about
> them? ;-)

Since I've built and repaired a number of amplifiers, too
bad about your reading-only familiarity with them, Sander. I
had no idea.

Robert Morein

October 12th 05, 11:26 PM

" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >>
> >> "Clyde Slick" > 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.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>> CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>>
> >>> You can't prove that there are not differences.
> >> Never said it was possible, what is possible is demonstrating whethere
or
> >> not a given individual can hear them. If they can't then for that
> >> person, they don't exist.
> >>
> >
> > all you can say is that they don't exist under those certain test
> > conditions,
> > given that you have such test results for the given individual.
> >
> >> My bet is that the vast majority of people who claim differences in
> >> sighted listening, which is the most unrelaible way to try and detect
> >> subtle differences, can't hear any in a blind, level matched,
comparison.
> >
> >
> > "If" that were the case, then you can say that they hear them sighted,
but
> > don't hear them
> > under test conditions.
>
> You could say that but it would be untrue,due to the fact that bias was
not
> removed and levels were not matched.
>
> > The really interesting thing to see would be this:
> > a) person hears differences sighted (According to you
> > supposedly from expectation effects)
>
> Not mecessarily, they could be differences large enough to hear sighted,
as
> is the case with speakers
>
> > b) person does not hear differences during DBT tests
> > c) person is told of his negative test results (therefore removing
> > supposed future expectation effects)
> > d) person listens sighted again, now without expectation effects. Does
he
> > still hear differences, or did they go away with
> > removal of the supposed expectation effects?
> Unless there is level matching to within .1db I suspect any sighted test
is
> still not going to be relaible.
>
> Fortunately we have someone who posts here freuently who knows much more
> about the acceptability of such tests than I do. Arny, what say you?
>
Nothing.

Robert Morein

October 12th 05, 11:27 PM

" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> >>
> >>
> > .
> >>>
> >> It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio
professionals
> >> the world over.
> >>
> >
> > That should read "professional audio clowns".
> >
> That's right, anybody who knows more about it than you must be a clown.
> BTW, I've been wondering why you've been seen with that big red nose and
the
> garish makeup.
>
Mikey, you have an inferior mind.

[email protected]

October 13th 05, 12:58 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > link.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Clyde Slick" > 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.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> >>> CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> >>>
>> >>> You can't prove that there are not differences.
>> >> Never said it was possible, what is possible is demonstrating whethere
> or
>> >> not a given individual can hear them. If they can't then for that
>> >> person, they don't exist.
>> >>
>> >
>> > all you can say is that they don't exist under those certain test
>> > conditions,
>> > given that you have such test results for the given individual.
>> >
>> >> My bet is that the vast majority of people who claim differences in
>> >> sighted listening, which is the most unrelaible way to try and detect
>> >> subtle differences, can't hear any in a blind, level matched,
> comparison.
>> >
>> >
>> > "If" that were the case, then you can say that they hear them sighted,
> but
>> > don't hear them
>> > under test conditions.
>>
>> You could say that but it would be untrue,due to the fact that bias was
> not
>> removed and levels were not matched.
>>
>> > The really interesting thing to see would be this:
>> > a) person hears differences sighted (According to you
>> > supposedly from expectation effects)
>>
>> Not mecessarily, they could be differences large enough to hear sighted,
> as
>> is the case with speakers
>>
>> > b) person does not hear differences during DBT tests
>> > c) person is told of his negative test results (therefore removing
>> > supposed future expectation effects)
>> > d) person listens sighted again, now without expectation effects. Does
> he
>> > still hear differences, or did they go away with
>> > removal of the supposed expectation effects?
>> Unless there is level matching to within .1db I suspect any sighted test
> is
>> still not going to be relaible.
>>
>> Fortunately we have someone who posts here freuently who knows much more
>> about the acceptability of such tests than I do. Arny, what say you?
>>
> Nothing.
>
Nothing you're capable of understanding.

[email protected]

October 13th 05, 12:58 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > hlink.net...
>> >>
>> >>
>> > .
>> >>>
>> >> It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio
> professionals
>> >> the world over.
>> >>
>> >
>> > That should read "professional audio clowns".
>> >
>> That's right, anybody who knows more about it than you must be a clown.
>> BTW, I've been wondering why you've been seen with that big red nose and
> the
>> garish makeup.
>>
> Mikey, you have an inferior mind.
>
Sit Bobbie, sit.

More Kibble?

Clyde Slick

October 13th 05, 02:14 AM

" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>> CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> You can't prove that there are not differences.
>>> Never said it was possible, what is possible is demonstrating whethere
>>> or not a given individual can hear them. If they can't then for that
>>> person, they don't exist.
>>>
>>
>> all you can say is that they don't exist under those certain test
>> conditions,
>> given that you have such test results for the given individual.
>>
>>> My bet is that the vast majority of people who claim differences in
>>> sighted listening, which is the most unrelaible way to try and detect
>>> subtle differences, can't hear any in a blind, level matched,
>>> comparison.
>>
>>
>> "If" that were the case, then you can say that they hear them sighted,
>> but don't hear them
>> under test conditions.
>
> You could say that but it would be untrue,due to the fact that bias was
> not removed and levels were not matched.
>

IDIOT, that is EXACTLY why it "is" a true statement.

>> The really interesting thing to see would be this:
>> a) person hears differences sighted (According to you
>> supposedly from expectation effects)
>
> Not mecessarily, they could be differences large enough to hear sighted,
> as is the case with speakers
>

IDIOT, many people hear differences when sighted. You have even said this.
IT is one of the premises for your arguments to go blind.

>> b) person does not hear differences during DBT tests
>> c) person is told of his negative test results (therefore removing
>> supposed future expectation effects)
>> d) person listens sighted again, now without expectation effects. Does he
>> still hear differences, or did they go away with
>> removal of the supposed expectation effects?
> Unless there is level matching to within .1db I suspect any sighted test
> is still not going to be relaible.
>
> Fortunately we have someone who posts here freuently who knows much more
> about the acceptability of such tests than I do. Arny, what say you?
>

DIDN't come close to answering the question.
It appears that you are too stupid to understand it.

Clyde Slick

October 13th 05, 02:15 AM

" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> hlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>> .
>>>>
>>> It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio
>>> professionals the world over.
>>>
>>
>> That should read "professional audio clowns".
>>
> That's right, anybody who knows more about it than you must be a clown.
> BTW, I've been wondering why you've been seen with that big red nose and
> the garish makeup.
>

My boyfriend lives in Talahassee. I must have been down there to visit him.

[email protected]

October 13th 05, 03:41 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> link.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>> CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't prove that there are not differences.
>>>> Never said it was possible, what is possible is demonstrating whethere
>>>> or not a given individual can hear them. If they can't then for that
>>>> person, they don't exist.
>>>>
>>>
>>> all you can say is that they don't exist under those certain test
>>> conditions,
>>> given that you have such test results for the given individual.
>>>
>>>> My bet is that the vast majority of people who claim differences in
>>>> sighted listening, which is the most unrelaible way to try and detect
>>>> subtle differences, can't hear any in a blind, level matched,
>>>> comparison.
>>>
>>>
>>> "If" that were the case, then you can say that they hear them sighted,
>>> but don't hear them
>>> under test conditions.
>>
>> You could say that but it would be untrue,due to the fact that bias was
>> not removed and levels were not matched.
>>
>
> IDIOT, that is EXACTLY why it "is" a true statement.
>
>
>>> The really interesting thing to see would be this:
>>> a) person hears differences sighted (According to you
>>> supposedly from expectation effects)
>>
>> Not mecessarily, they could be differences large enough to hear sighted,
>> as is the case with speakers
>>
>
> IDIOT, many people hear differences when sighted. You have even said this.
> IT is one of the premises for your arguments to go blind.
>
>
>>> b) person does not hear differences during DBT tests
>>> c) person is told of his negative test results (therefore removing
>>> supposed future expectation effects)
>>> d) person listens sighted again, now without expectation effects. Does
>>> he still hear differences, or did they go away with
>>> removal of the supposed expectation effects?
>> Unless there is level matching to within .1db I suspect any sighted test
>> is still not going to be relaible.
>>
>> Fortunately we have someone who posts here freuently who knows much more
>> about the acceptability of such tests than I do. Arny, what say you?
>>
>
> DIDN't come close to answering the question.
> It appears that you are too stupid to understand it.
I guess we have that in common then.

[email protected]

October 13th 05, 04:08 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> hlink.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> .
>>>>>
>>>> It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio
>>>> professionals the world over.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That should read "professional audio clowns".
>>>
>> That's right, anybody who knows more about it than you must be a clown.
>> BTW, I've been wondering why you've been seen with that big red nose and
>> the garish makeup.
>>
>
> My boyfriend lives in Talahassee. I must have been down there to visit
> him.
>
And the gigantic red shoes?

Clyde Slick

October 13th 05, 04:28 AM

" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio
>>>>> professionals the world over.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That should read "professional audio clowns".
>>>>
>>> That's right, anybody who knows more about it than you must be a clown.
>>> BTW, I've been wondering why you've been seen with that big red nose and
>>> the garish makeup.
>>>
>>
>> My boyfriend lives in Talahassee. I must have been down there to visit
>> him.
>>
> And the gigantic red shoes?
>
Those were giant red slippers he was wearing. they had bells on the toes.

Robert Morein

October 13th 05, 04:58 AM

" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >>
> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> " > wrote in message
> >>> link.net...
> >>>>
> >>>> "Clyde Slick" > 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>>>> CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You can't prove that there are not differences.
> >>>> Never said it was possible, what is possible is demonstrating
whethere
> >>>> or not a given individual can hear them. If they can't then for that
> >>>> person, they don't exist.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> all you can say is that they don't exist under those certain test
> >>> conditions,
> >>> given that you have such test results for the given individual.
> >>>
> >>>> My bet is that the vast majority of people who claim differences in
> >>>> sighted listening, which is the most unrelaible way to try and detect
> >>>> subtle differences, can't hear any in a blind, level matched,
> >>>> comparison.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "If" that were the case, then you can say that they hear them sighted,
> >>> but don't hear them
> >>> under test conditions.
> >>
> >> You could say that but it would be untrue,due to the fact that bias was
> >> not removed and levels were not matched.
> >>
> >
> > IDIOT, that is EXACTLY why it "is" a true statement.
> >
> >
> >>> The really interesting thing to see would be this:
> >>> a) person hears differences sighted (According to you
> >>> supposedly from expectation effects)
> >>
> >> Not mecessarily, they could be differences large enough to hear
sighted,
> >> as is the case with speakers
> >>
> >
> > IDIOT, many people hear differences when sighted. You have even said
this.
> > IT is one of the premises for your arguments to go blind.
> >
> >
> >>> b) person does not hear differences during DBT tests
> >>> c) person is told of his negative test results (therefore removing
> >>> supposed future expectation effects)
> >>> d) person listens sighted again, now without expectation effects. Does
> >>> he still hear differences, or did they go away with
> >>> removal of the supposed expectation effects?
> >> Unless there is level matching to within .1db I suspect any sighted
test
> >> is still not going to be relaible.
> >>
> >> Fortunately we have someone who posts here freuently who knows much
more
> >> about the acceptability of such tests than I do. Arny, what say you?
> >>
> >
> > DIDN't come close to answering the question.
> > It appears that you are too stupid to understand it.
> I guess we have that in common then.
>
Mikey, you are the village idiot. You can feel quite secure about the
position.