|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.140.165.108
In Reply to: RE: sigh, posted by cpotl on August 13, 2014 at 14:24:45
~!
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
Follow Ups:
We are clearly talking at cross purposes. What is your calculation that gives you a factor of 2 1/2 *larger* for copper than for silver? My calculation is (using X for chi):
X(silver) = -2.6 x 10^{-5}
X(copper) = -1.0 x 10^{-5}
Therefore X(silver)/X(copper) = 2.6
In other words, the susceptibility of silver is larger than that of copper by the factor 2.6. This means for a given applied magnetic field, the silver will have an induced magnetisation that is larger by the factor 2.6.
What is your calculation?
Chris
"I am sorry Ken. I do not understand"
-2.6 vs -1, with those numbers being negative wouldn't that mean that silver is less susceptible and will have an induced magnetisation that is smaller by the factor 2.6 than copper in the presents of the same given applied magnetic field?
WRT transformer secondaries, what does this mean in terms of induced voltage?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Hi Tre,
The induced magnetisation M is proportional to the applied field times the susceptibility. For a given applied field, the *strength* of the magnetisation is proportional to the absolute value of the susceptibility. M will be parallel to the applied field if the susceptibility is positive, and anti-parallel if it is negative. But the strength of the magnetic polarisation induced by the external field will be proportional to the absolute value of the susceptibility.
Thus silver will have a larger magnitude of induced magnetisation than copper.
If you used your definition, then you would also say that a pure vacuum (susceptibility =0) had a larger induced magnetisation than silver, and by your arithmetic the magnetisation of the vacuum would be -2.6/0 = infinity times bigger than the magnetisation for silver. Even though the vacuum cannot magnetise at all!
You need to take the absolute values here, in order to discuss which material magnetises more than another. And you shouldn't turn the fraction upside down just because the quantities are negative.
This is all really pretty academic, since the susceptibilities in both cases are tiny! I don't for one moment imagine that there will be any observable audible effects in the OP's set-up due to this!
Chris
"This is all really pretty academic, since the susceptibilities in both cases are tiny! "
I don't understand this stuff but I assumed that.
I still don't understand this stuff but thanks for trying.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
hey
This is all really pretty academic,
description nicely put from a factual perspective... but then...
since the susceptibilities in both cases are tiny!
I agree the numbers here are insanely small, but unless you have put in the effort to quantify what is audible or inaudible your "tiny" has no connection to the real world.
I don't for one moment imagine that there will be any observable audible effects in the OP's set-up due to this!
so you have formed your opinion and are using opinions of facts to justify it.
I guess I have to ask is how do you draw the line between audible and inaudible changes?
dave
"I guess I have to ask is how do you draw the line between audible and inaudible changes?"
Good question. OK, so we are agreed that silver magnetises more than copper does, by that factor 2.6 that we are probably by now sick of hearing about. But nobody here has yet proposed any mechanism by which this is supposed to be able to affect the signal passing through the wires. I was really waiting earlier to hear somebody's proposal for what effect we were supposed to be discussing. What magnetic fields, for example, are being imagined here as being the relevant ones? The magnetic fields generated by the audio currents flowing in the wires? Stray magnetic fields from nearby power transformers? The earth's magnetic field? And then, how is any of this supposed to affect the passage of the audio signal through the wires? By what mechanism is it supposed to depend on "how magnetic" the wires are?
Since I have no idea what mechanism anybody has in mind, I don't see how one can yet begin to make specific estimates. All I can say is that with these effects, whatever they are, going on in a short piece of wire with about 0.1 ohms resistance, and the audio signal feeding into a high impedance input in the audio amplifier, I just can't see how any conceivable effect, yet to be proposed, is going to be anything other than utterly insignificant.
Chris
BENGHAAAZZZZIIII!
That's why.
-Henry
Diamagnetism is the property of an object which causes it to create a magnetic field in opposition to an externally applied magnetic field, thus causing a repulsive effect. Specifically, an external magnetic field alters the orbital velocity of electrons around their nuclei, thus changing the magnetic dipole moment. According to Lenz's law, this opposes the external field. Diamagnets are materials with a magnetic permeability less than μ0 (a relative permeability less than 1).
Consequently, diamagnetism is a form of magnetism that is only exhibited by a substance in the presence of an externally applied magnetic field. It is generally quite a weak effect in most materials, although superconductors exhibit a strong effect.
Diamagnetic materials cause lines of magnetic flux to curve away from the material, and superconductors can exclude them completely (except for a very thin layer at the surface).
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
Right, I agree about what diamagnetism is. The magnetisation vector is equal to the susceptibility chi times the magnetic field vector. So it will be antiparallel to the applied external magnetic field vector in the diamagnetic case.
The magnetisation characterises the extent to which the substance is responding to the external applied field. The vacuum, for example, has chi=0, and so the external magnetic field produces no magnetisation at all in that case.
The larger the magnitude of chi, the larger the magnetisation that is induced by the given external magnetic field.
The magnetisation of silver will be larger by the factor 2.6 than the magnetisation of copper. Thus silver is being "more influenced" by the magnetic field than copper is.
How are you arriving at a figure of something being 2 1/2 times larger for copper? What is that "something" you are calculating? What is your calculation?
Chris
The magnetisation of silver will be larger by the factor 2.6 than the magnetisation of copper. Thus silver is being "more influenced" by the magnetic field than copper is...
No.
sigh, you do not understand. Do you not see -2.6? Copper being -1? ergo
Silver is 'less magnetic'. Sure am glad we are not discussing quantum mechanics and differential equations.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
So you would say that the vacuum is even more magnetic than copper? By what factor would you say the vacuum is more magnetic than silver?I would still like to see your calculation, whereby you claim that copper is more magnetic than copper by a factor of 2 1/2. Are you saying 2.6, in fact? How does the ratio copper/silver end up with the 2.6 in the numerator in your calculation? (If that is what you are claiming.)
Chris
Edits: 08/13/14
sigh, if you understood electron spin we would not be having this conversation... you do understand that, correct?
please scroll down to diamagnetism
Please follow the link.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
Please just present your calculation where you obtained the result that copper is 2 1/2 times more magnetic than silver. I think all our discussions that at present seem to be at cross purposes will be resolved if you will do that.Thanks,
Chris
Edits: 08/13/14
The facts have been shown to you time and again.
Wow. I pointedly gave you BEDROCK information for you to grasp the basic premise. Still. It is okay if you dig ditches for a living, there is no shame if you do so with your best effort.
You could just say, "I am sorry Ken. I do not understand"
I would respect you far more than I do now.
good night.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
I would politely like to ask you again, to present your calculation of the ratio for copper to silver. You gave a rather definite figure for what you claim the ratio is, and I presume you are claiming to calculate that from the data for the susceptibilities for copper and silver. I am sure that if you will please present your calculation, it will clarify a lot of things.
I can assure you that I understand the principles at play here perfectly well. I also think that we are simply talking at cross purposes, so please humour me, and show how you are arriving at your ratio.
Thanks, Chris
The ratios for all substances were set up long ago as you should already Know. Silver IS one of only two natural elements {that are stable} that go 'negative'.
The following is taking applied physics and explaining to You why it matters in our real world. The following is MY opinion and not fact {although facts ARE laced through it}.
Remanence is remanent magnetization {memory in time} left behind in a ferromagnetic material after an external magnetic field has been removed.
Within an output transformer A magnetic field is constantly being created and collapsing on itself @ the speed of light... at multiple frequencies...far more data than most surmise.
Because silver repels magnetism 2.6 times better than copper and CONSEQUENTLY has remanence smaller than any other FEASIBLE element on the planet. It has the ability to deliver the e n e r g y ... and get the hell out of the way... leaving no fingerprints on the sound... so to speak. A direct coupled amplifier via SS has it's own foibles, as does OTL. Let's just say Tubes sound more organic. Do silver transformers sound superior? My ears say yes. Can the math prove it? NOPE.
Has any testing been designed to show what I already KNOW. Not yet
Do I thing that little bit of silver added on for the DAC will make a difference? I don't know, I have been gobsmacked too many times in the past to arrogantly say ... no way.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
"Because silver repels magnetism 2.6 times better than copper"It sounds like you are now agreeing that the magnetisation in silver is larger than the magnetisation in copper, by that factor 2.6, as I was saying all along yesterday. I was very clear and precise in what I said, emphasising repeatedly that I was talking about the magnetisation.
And we can all agree, of course, that because silver and copper are diamagnetic, the magnetisation vector is antiparallel to the applied magnetic field, and thus it tends to oppose it.
Of course, the extent to which this occurs is really tiny, both in copper and in silver. But because the magnetisation in silver is larger than that in copper (by a factor of 2.6), it happens to a slightly greater extent with silver than with copper.
So, both silver and copper have an extremely small effect on the strength of the applied field, but silver has the larger effect because it is more magnetised.
The upshot is that the ratio of the magnetic field inside copper to the magnetic field inside silver is about 1.00002.
I have yet to see a proposal for why this should have any significant effect on the audio signal coming out of the DAC if silver rather than copper wires are used.
Chris
Edits: 08/14/14 08/14/14
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: