Think about the abominable abuses being inflicted on your mains power by those cheap, low-down, tin-plated fuses
I have thought about it. And done one better - listened. That's why none of my boxes have any fuses inside.
Otherwise you make a very good point - there seem to be silver fuses available but i've never noticed gold plated fuse holders - a real business opportunity.
sam9 said:... OH, the shame of it!
LOL!
I guess the dia of this wire would be very small, given the good conductivity of silver. Not to mention it's high melting point (compared to most fuse materials) makes the amount of heat required before the fuse, well, "fuses", requires a higher resistance wire, which means something thinner, if you've already fixed the material.Would it be so hard to make your own siver wire fuses? Would they work if appropriate wire gauge was chosen and then soldered between two lugs on a PCB?
analog_sa said:Otherwise you make a very good point - there seem to be silver fuses available but i've never noticed gold plated fuse holders - a real business opportunity.
Well, look at your car-hifi store then...
Hi,
Both have been available for ages, even goldpalted mains plugs, you name it...
Cheers,
there seem to be silver fuses available but i've never noticed gold plated fuse holders - a real business opportunity.
Both have been available for ages, even goldpalted mains plugs, you name it...
Cheers,
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copper, silver, wire myths?
CDA alloy 10200 OFHC requires a minimum 99.95% copper. CDA alloy 10100 OFHC certified requirs a minimum 99.99% copper.
You seem to be assuming that everything past 99.95% or 99.99% is oxygen. It's not.
What websites are you looking at? I just picked the first half dozen I came across and 0.04% seems to be consistent with all of them.
se
markp said:After checking about half a dozen manufacturers websites, the average was 99.95% being called oxygen free copper.
CDA alloy 10200 OFHC requires a minimum 99.95% copper. CDA alloy 10100 OFHC certified requirs a minimum 99.99% copper.
You seem to be assuming that everything past 99.95% or 99.99% is oxygen. It's not.
Also .01 or .02% was the average for added O2. This might not be the book spec but it is what the industry is using and as such what we get from them.
What websites are you looking at? I just picked the first half dozen I came across and 0.04% seems to be consistent with all of them.
se
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copper, silver, wire myths?
Don't assume.
If I said it was 99.95% copper and around .01 or .02% O2 then how could I be assuming everything past 99.95% was O2? Doing the math: 99.95%+.02%=99.97% that leaves .03% other impurities.Steve Eddy said:
CDA alloy 10200 OFHC requires a minimum 99.95% copper. CDA alloy 10100 OFHC certified requirs a minimum 99.99% copper.
You seem to be assuming that everything past 99.95% or 99.99% is oxygen. It's not.
What websites are you looking at? I just picked the first half dozen I came across and 0.04% seems to be consistent with all of them.
se
Don't assume.
fdegrove said:I did report that with the sample sent, a piece of Vampire wire of 1 m length, by SE I couldn't detect any directionality.
Sorry, I forgot about that.
So I should have said the following: of the two people who were absolutely sure of their ability to hear cable directionality, one reported unable to hear them, and another was never to be heard from, when put under a test.
Either way, i am not sure if we would have concluded any differently, tho.
Hi,
Do you always jump to conclusions like this?
Cheers,
So I should have said the following: of the two people who were absolutely sure of their ability to hear cable directionality, one reported unable to hear them, and another was never to be heard from, when put under a test.
Do you always jump to conclusions like this?
Cheers,
fdegrove said:Do you always jump to conclusions like this?
No. Otherwise, I would have said that "I can hear cable direcitionality" and then fell flat in a test.
millwood said:
So I should have said the following: of the two people who were absolutely sure of their ability to hear cable directionality, one reported unable to hear them, and another was never to be heard from, when put under a test.
Well, I am not so sure either of them claimed an ability to hear
directionality in any arbitrary cable. That raises the question,
if Frank couldn't hear any difference in this case, does that mean
the cable is so good that it isn't directional or that it is so bad that
other sonic imperfections swamp the directedness. Since he
said it was a good thing not to hear it because he's lazy, I
assume he found the cable so good that he would be happy
to use in either direction.
Peter Daniel said:It would be interesting to see if they "hear" directionality when they know when cable is reversed. Some cables simply don't show any directionality. I ordered some of that wire myself, so I will "see".
Ah, but if they know it, then we cannot exclude psychological
bias so the test is no longer of much value.
Christer said:
Ah, but if they know it, then we cannot exclude psychological
bias so the test is no longer of much value.
it would be extremely valuable to compare their scores when they knew the cable directionality and their scores when they didn't. The difference is then the 'psychological bias'.
Hi,
From past experience I'd say that more and more wire, remember this was just a piece of magnet wire, sold for audio exhibits no directionality at all.
This is probably due to more care being taken at manufacture, but that's just my guess.
The reason that I'm glad this is the case is that determining correct directionality is a PITA in that it's a major waste of time.
However, as I said before this is not an issue I lose sleep over as this directionality tends to disappear with use.
Quite alot of cables (read interconnects) are directional due to geometrical layout and this, of course, is a different issue altogether.
As far as the test of the 1 m length goes, well I made an interconnect with it by just cutting it in 4 equal lengths, twisting it and fitting RCA connectors.
I than hooked it up between my MC headamp and phono pre and listened to it, than reversed it and listened again.
As I couldn't tell one from the other even if I reversed one channel only, I concluded I couldn't determine any preferred way.
Hence my conclusion: I couldn't detect any directionality with this piece of wire.
Note that at no point in time the wire was marked and other than paying attention in making a correct send and and return cable; I reversed the negative run on both cables, I had no visual clues as to which was which in the tests.
Cheers,
That raises the question, if Frank couldn't hear any difference in this case, does that mean the cable is so good that it isn't directional or that it is so bad that other sonic imperfections swamp the directedness.
From past experience I'd say that more and more wire, remember this was just a piece of magnet wire, sold for audio exhibits no directionality at all.
This is probably due to more care being taken at manufacture, but that's just my guess.
The reason that I'm glad this is the case is that determining correct directionality is a PITA in that it's a major waste of time.
However, as I said before this is not an issue I lose sleep over as this directionality tends to disappear with use.
Quite alot of cables (read interconnects) are directional due to geometrical layout and this, of course, is a different issue altogether.
As far as the test of the 1 m length goes, well I made an interconnect with it by just cutting it in 4 equal lengths, twisting it and fitting RCA connectors.
I than hooked it up between my MC headamp and phono pre and listened to it, than reversed it and listened again.
As I couldn't tell one from the other even if I reversed one channel only, I concluded I couldn't determine any preferred way.
Hence my conclusion: I couldn't detect any directionality with this piece of wire.
Note that at no point in time the wire was marked and other than paying attention in making a correct send and and return cable; I reversed the negative run on both cables, I had no visual clues as to which was which in the tests.
Cheers,
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copper, silver, wire myths?
I didn't assume. I said it SEEMED that you were assuming. I was just guessing as I didn't see a clear point in your statement:
After checking about half a dozen manufacturers websites, the average was 99.95% being called oxygen free copper.
Was there a point there?
se
markp said:If I said it was 99.95% copper and around .01 or .02% O2 then how could I be assuming everything past 99.95% was O2? Doing the math: 99.95%+.02%=99.97% that leaves .03% other impurities.
Don't assume.
I didn't assume. I said it SEEMED that you were assuming. I was just guessing as I didn't see a clear point in your statement:
After checking about half a dozen manufacturers websites, the average was 99.95% being called oxygen free copper.
Was there a point there?
se
Heresee
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhear.html
Hear Hear!Peter Daniel said:I ordered some of that wire myself, so I will "see".
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhear.html
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
- Home
- General Interest
- Everything Else
- Copper, silver, wire myths?