Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Flat Earthers
Flat Earthers
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 6th February 2018, 12:21 PM   #1421
scottjoplin is offline scottjoplin  Wales
diyAudio Member
scottjoplin's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Penrhyndeudraeth
The only thing infinite is time ................ until it runs out.......
Woofer Assisted Wideband is the New Testament renounce the anachronistic acronym FAST
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2018, 01:25 PM   #1422
nigel pearson is offline nigel pearson  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oxfordshire
Thanks everyone. I suspect conduction got stuck in time if you will forgive. 1896, 1900, 1914 and 1927 being interesting dates. 1900 seems when free electrons were suspected. 1914 about the time copper became a standard where ETPC being 100%. 1927 being when quantum theory looked to the how and the why. One interesting idea I read is the spare electron is free to do as it pleases in the latice. Strikes me that is correct. It might say why gold is unlike sodium. That suggest other than in compounds the spare electron is not on the outside as shown unless it's valancy is called upon to work. That is the substance is more inert than it should be.

My other guess is semiconductors became more important and mostly what we knew in 1914 is good enough when metals. It is curious to note if copper is 99.94% pure and doped with phosphorous to come to 100% the conductivity drops to maybe 70% of ETPC. This is done to drive out hydrogen which is part of low cost refining, I think this is for welding and not as a conductor. At a guess one needs about 10% zinc to get to 70% ETPC ( forging brass ). That single electron is easilly upset. Thus brass is not the arthimetical additions of the metals. If memory is right 70% copper and 30% zinc mostly conducts like zinc. I imagine the condutivity curve to be parabolic where 1% zinc brass drops to 85% conductivity. Silver and copper can be mixed with better outcomes. Silver Nickel is interesting if 85% silver. Rhodium is fairly good and is tough, it's neighbours seems just as interesting.

However phosphorous is an ideal dope for the near insulator silicon. A very interesting question I feel. As weird as the Flat Earth yet true.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2018, 03:35 PM   #1423
nigel pearson is offline nigel pearson  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oxfordshire
Originally Posted by Markw4 View Post
Electrical conduction is more complicated than the model you suggest. Don't know why you would speculate when explanations can readily be found online. One example here: Electrical resistivity and conductivity - Wikipedia

If you would like more in-depth information, here is an article about gold: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.4508.pdf

Regarding turning other metals into gold, it has been done. For example, lead has been turned into gold. Only in extremely small amounts though. It takes a high energy particle accelerator to do it. Unfortunately, the cost of making gold that way a far, far more than the gold is worth. It's so expensive as to be totally impractical.

Regarding infinity, no one knows if anything is physically infinite. It's looking more and more like infinity is, as you say, not more than a mathematical abstraction. But, that is based on very limited information. We don't know what goes on at Planck scale or below (if there is a below), and for infinitely large, we don't know if there is some kind of multi-verse that is unbounded.
Two things I was pleased to see is the author sees the mysteries which time hasn't completely solved. I like the idea of bandgaps being important. It is easy to think only LED's have band gaps. The rest of it is for those who wish to stay a lifetime with it. It's right to look at gold and mercury and then silver and copper. Aluminium is very good.

I have a young friend who got her BA easilly, she found the MA more difficult as the teaching was poor ( I think Oxford sold theirs to BA students ). I told her to go to PHD and only then if it suited her. Then thought of maths where many go mad. I do suspect the mad making maths are unreal. Mostly anything you can think of in maths will be right as long as basic rules of logic are used. For example -0^0.5 looks a looser. Seeing as I just made that up it's not bad. -0 is so unlikely that it must exist, perhaps it is infinity. That is everything is a Mobius loop.
  Reply With Quote


Flat EarthersHide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Flat Impedance and Flat Power response design. system7 Multi-Way 10 11th January 2017 12:57 PM
In room measurments. How flat is flat enough? murphythecat8 Multi-Way 65 30th August 2013 03:42 PM
Flat FR, Flat Power Response, in-phase crossover? RockLeeEV Multi-Way 15 7th February 2012 09:07 PM
flat sub for flat TV Artmaster Subwoofers 0 17th December 2008 12:15 PM
How Flat is "Flat"? (XT18WO + 27TBFC-G = MTM) zenon Multi-Way 3 21st January 2007 04:15 PM

New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:32 PM.

Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 15.00%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2018 diyAudio