|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I've read some claims here that silver takes a long while to break in sonically, in some cases hundreds of hours for the strident highs to start to sound airy and the mids to bloom.If one were wiring a component with new silver wire, would it do any good to use a small battery to burn in each length first? By this I mean, say you are about to install a four inch piece of 19AWG 4n silver wire. You take a small 1.5V battery like a AAA and make a closed circuit with the wire, paying close attention that the wire does not overheat by opening and closing the circuit. Then you install the wire oriented such that the end which was touching negative on the battery is 'upstream' electrically from the end which contacted positive, because this was the direction of electron flow in the burn-in and the wire has been 'taught' to conduct that way...
Somebody must have tried this already... what did you find out? Could this possibly help to shorten the break-in period for silver wire? I'm aware of downsides (like cooking the insulation for instance), and of course it's quite possible that it would make no difference whatsoever, but I'd be interested to hear anyone's experience and/or explanations for why it might work, or why it's a bad idea. Feel free to share superior methods...
Follow Ups:
I don't know if this would help or not. If you are ultimately listening to AC signals through the wire, it would seem that an AC signal would be most appropriate. We don't actually know exactly 'what' we are changing with 'break in' Most probably, it is a partial re-alignment of the crystal structure to let signals flow with a minimum of turbulence. As we know, metal wires are formed from larger stock, and pushed or pulled into shape. This creates fractures in the crystal structure. There are books written about this. Time, and audio like signals flowing through a wire will smooth out some of these fractures or vacancies in the crystal structure. Most of us don't want to wait a very long time for the wire to settle down, so we 'break it in'.
Wow, so you're saying that some type of room temperature diffusion occurs in the metal due to minor electrical currents? This is truly revolutionary! And by "time" are you saying that there may be some heretofore unknown no-stress, room temperature, creep phenomenon occurring?Can you point me towards any literature about this, or did you discover the phenomenon through personal investigation? This is truly stunning stuff!
Yes, 'Electron Microscopy of Interfaces in Metal and Alloys' CT Forward, LM Clarebrough. Adam Hilger $210
pp.314-337 "6.41 Faulted Defects Generated by the Movement of Boundaries in Electron Microscope Specimens."
Should be C T Forwood.
I'll have to go by the library and read it- thank you very much!Wow, the title of the section almost seems to imply that it discusses generation, rather than elimination, of defects. (shrug)
Good observation. It is difficult to actually tell what they are after, except that the metal is settling into a lower energy state. You can see electron photographs of moving inclined boundries, even to the outside surface of the copper foil. Sometimes you can make faults this way, but I suspect that in time you get the best overall electron flow, especially with electric current flowing through the sample, like we do when we 'break in' a cable. The main point here is that the grain boundries move at room temperature. Did you know that?
Seen the pictures and pretty scary what occurs with silver under an electon microscope.....Yes it migrates.....
Aluminum does it on integrated circuits, apparently the electrons carry (drag, bounce, who knows) the metal along the current direction. That limits current density for the on chip interconnects.Pure tin plating grows whiskers, filaments that grow upwards off the surface. Major hybrid failure mechanism way back.
Did you mean movement WHILE it's in the 'scope?
Read the book, John Es.
Book sounds interesting. Might look it up. But right now, I was just wondering if he was talking about movement as a result of the electron beam.
Why second guess? Just read the book. We have a succession of criticisms from you of Hawksford, Hummel, etc, and now Forward, without you reading the info. in full. You just look for 'potential' problems. Please read the information, contact the principal authors if you have a problem with it, then we would love to hear your criticisms.
##Why second guess? Just read the book.##What second guessing are you talking about? I asked a simple question. And I repeat "did (rcrump) mean silver moving with the beam on or off". I keep looking that over, I still can't find the "criticism" in that question.
##We have a succession of criticisms from you of Hawksford, Hummel, etc, and now Forward,##
If you had actually read the posts, you would see that the only criticism's I've posted are regarding your attitudes toward others.
The fact that Hawksford may have inadvertantly misread a measured result (one I challenge anybody to make correctly) is not a criticism of him, it is a "possible" correction to an incredibly difficult measurement. The fact that you were unable to recognise his measurement error is also without meaning, I only backed into the error by chance in '97. The fact that you dangle Hummel endlessly, stating that it's the "new level of physics", but when you are challenged to answer a first semester level basic physics question regarding that theory, you state you don't understand it well, "I'm a circuit designer, not a physics professor", that is also without meaning. Most people don't know.
It is obvious to everyone who follows this asylum and can read english, that I have not criticized either of these people. Why you are making this up is beyond me.
And now you are stating that I have been critical of Forward (or Forwood)? Do yourself a favor...Re-read the entire string, top to bottom. Look for any comments by me regarding him, his book, his analysis, his pictures, his social life, his wife, his dog, his car....ANYTHING!!!! ANYTHING AT ALL. Your making it up as you go along, John. If this is how you consistently deal with others, it's no wonder you reject peer review.
##You just look for 'potential' problems##
No, I do not. But, you see criticisms where they don't exist. That will not stop me, or anybody else, from questioning errors. I do not live in fear that you will take offense to any inquery.
##then we would love to hear your criticisms. ##
No, that I do not believe that of you. You have shown time and time again your inability to accept criticism, even where none existed.
Unlike you, I will read an article such as Hawksford (which you were very nice to provide me, thank you), and if I am lucky enough to be able to spot a glaring error, I will question it.
THAT is what the real world of physics is about. Learning, questioning, communicating. Not what you are doing.
I did not lose sight of the fact that you have not questioned my statement that Hawksford may have measured with a test setup error. Why is that? Shoot the messenger? Ignore the message?
Your considerable experience and expertise would be better spent asking the question: Gee, is it possible it was an error in measurement technique? And if so, how do I measure it accurately. And, most importantly, what are the ramifications if it truly is an error, as that "erroneous" measurement anomoly matched the computer model of the skin effect so perfectly. Perhaps he had to iterate the model several times to match what was measured. Doesn't mean he's stupid, doesn't mean he's dishonest, may just mean he didn't catch a test anomoly. Period. And without people like you critically evaluating my hypothesis that it could be a test error, I will not have any feedback as to the correctness of my assertion. Please, question it, look it over for mistakes, post technical comments about it.
Don't spend time looking for ghosts in my posts, there aren't any. Spend time truly being open to the subjects being discussed. And actually thinking through and evaluating what is said... by me and by anyone else. Please.
Oh, and you pulling that reference (Forwood) rabbit out of your hat!!!
Well done; I still stand by my assertion that you are a good source of info and expertise. If only you would be nicer to people.Regards, John
I should have said 'Forwood'. By the way, if you had read the chapter, then you would note that they TURNED OFF THE BEAM between pictures.
Let's see...I read rcrump's post at 14:41, you posted your comment at 17:20....that's 2 hours, 40 minutes. Why would you say "By the way, if you had read the chapter, then you would note that they TURNED OFF THE BEAM between pictures." Unlike you, most of us don't have this book sitting on a shelf in our reference library. So I could not have obtained the book, nor read the chapter as you state. And my god, 210 dollars? whoa, You must have a tremendous amount of money invested in source books. I still stand by my assertion of your value.You are attempting to draw an inference that I steadfastly refuse to read any book to better myself. Unfortunately (or actually, fortunately), we all can tell time. And I read...."Hawksford article" comes to mind.
And, you really didn't answer the question I was trying to ask. Not "was the beam turned off between the pictures", but was the beam energy itself responsible for the migration of the silver.
Cheers, John
John Es, I thought that you worked at a physics laboratory. Don't they have a library where you can find books like this? I have my own library, but sometimes I go to the University of California engineering library for info. Do you have a university nearby?
For the record, the reason for this book and this particular chapter is a detailed study of the structure of atomic lattices.
p 314 "A striking property of high-angle grain boundaries in pure polycrystalline copper (99.999% Cu) is that they are mobile in thin-foil electron microscope specimens at room temperature and rotate during observation, prefferentially at the surface intersections, to become more steeply inclined to the plane of the specimen surfaces. This occurs because an inclined boundary traversing a thin-foil specimen experiences a driving force to rotate and become normal to the surfaces of the specimen so as to decrease its area and thus decrease its overall energy."
p315. " The surface intersection along BB (figure 6.18) is very irregular and this irregularity is not a result of electropolishing, but is associated wtih the generation of defects. Figure 6.19(a) shows another portion of the boundary of figure 6.18. Immediately after recording this image, the microscope was switched off and figure 6.19(b) shows the same portion of the boundary after 20 hours at room temperature. Clearly, further rotation of the boundary has occurred."
p316 "In fact, defects of this type are sometimes observed to 'pop out' of the specimen and others to be generated as the boundary continues to move."
##John Es, I thought that you worked at a physics laboratory. Don't they have a library where you can find books like this##Yes, I do. And if the library at the lab does not have a title, they can get it.
But, at 14:40 asylum posting time, on the east coast, I was at home, and unable to look for a book at the library, as the library maintains normal business hours.
But your explanation of the process is much appreciated. I recall interviewing a mech PhD about 13 years ago, and he had mentioned something like this pertaining to his thesis. He didn't have an explanation for it, though, and it wasn't thin foils.
But, boy...for boundaries to move at room. Neat, and certainly consistent with tin whisker growth..Did they repeat with silver?
There is an edge to edge eddy current gradient in foils...And resultant magnetic forces that could affect the boundaries. Hmmm. I wonder if it is a magnetic energy induced effect, or if the images in the foil from e-field can move the boundaries. Course, that's a burn in related question you would be more qualified to answer.
Thanks again for the info, John.
Cheers, John
Check Amazon. com for Forwood. They have it 'used' for $18.00 as of today. SUCH A DEAL! Heck, I paid $30.00 for it at 1/2 price books. ;-)
DC only goes one way and takes every bit of 50% longer to break in wire than AC.....Best thing to do with pure insulated silver wire is take the spool and use it as a leg for a light bulb (40-60w) for a couple days MAXIMUM prior to soldering it in place.....The will take the sonic edges off pure silver very nicely......
you shouldn't need to worry much about a 4 inch piece of hook-up wire.
Yes, it's possible that it would have some positive break-in. The problems I see with this is that the music signal is really an AC signal in both the interconnects and the speaker wires. Then, if break-in for silver wires is hundreds of hours (and I agree that it is), you would need to use a battery for hundreds of hours (maybe reversing direction half the time) to break-in the cable. That is a lot of batteries. And finally, the signal from a battery would not be varying in both frequency and amplitude (s music does) somewhat limiting the similarities of thr break-in process.So far the only ways I have heard of that are somewhat successful at shortening the break in time on a system are cable cookers (that do what you are attempting to do with the battery, but much stronger signal [stronger than a normal interconnect signal in an attempt to shorten break-in time]and installing the cable in an auxillary application (like using your cable-tv box)to break-in a cable before installing the cable in it's final destination. This is popular with power cords especially where refridgerators or computers are used to break in power cords.
... Paul
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: