John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now let me point out a few features of the first pages presented.
First, there is the INTRINSIC resistivity of a pure metal at a specific temperature (usually room temperature for audio). THEN there is the increase of resistivity due to impurities, usually other metals, oxygen, etc.
Finally, there is the state of order or disorder of the metal due to previous operations on it, such as quenching, soft annealing, work hardening, etc. This can create 'vacancies'. Please note that each contribution is separate. Now, this is the question, are these changes in resistance strictly RESISTANCE or is there a bit of rectification, or sensitivity with audio level? That is the question.
 
Now let me point out a few features of the first pages presented.
First, there is the INTRINSIC resistivity of a pure metal at a specific temperature (usually room temperature for audio). THEN there is the increase of resistivity due to impurities, usually other metals, oxygen, etc.
Finally, there is the state of order or disorder of the metal due to previous operations on it, such as quenching, soft annealing, work hardening, etc. This can create 'vacancies'. Please note that each contribution is separate. Now, this is the question, are these changes in resistance strictly RESISTANCE or is there a bit of rectification, or sensitivity with audio level? That is the question.

So far, I've seen nuttin down in the nanovolt region.

Linear, linear, linear.

Oh, forgot. Linear, linear, linear, down to about 1.8 Kelvin.

jn
 
Why are we talking about copper resistivity? Surely it has been determined that all we require for audio purposes is conductivity somewhat better than mud?

To answer John's question, more scatterers means more resistance - that is all. Nice pure linear resistance, no rectification, no added noise, no distortion. I remember first year 'properties of materials', where we learnt that random scattering of electrons is what causes Ohm's Law.
 
Let us remember where the burden of proof lies: those who are questioning the accepted theory of metallic conductors. Repeatedly demanding proof that the theory is correct is not quite the same as offering evidence and plausible explanations to the contrary.

Someone could demand proof that there are no fairies/goblins living at the bottom of my garden. I would find it difficult to provide sufficient proof, but this is not evidence that they are there. It is for the goblin-believers to offer proof that they are there; in the meantime I will continue to believe they are not there. If someone who organised goblin-spotting tours started claiming that there are goblins everywhere one might question his independence of thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.