|
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: You poor man~nT posted by cpotl on August 13, 2014 at 15:05:28
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.
Follow Ups:
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: