Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #425054 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-15 18:57 +0000 |
| Last post | 2017-07-22 17:58 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 148 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-15 18:57 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 19:36 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-15 19:52 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 20:11 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 00:49 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:25 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-17 22:34 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 14:53 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:49 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 16:05 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-16 12:24 +1000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-16 11:14 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-16 11:18 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-16 12:35 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 10:07 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:09 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 13:24 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:36 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 19:22 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 18:47 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 00:48 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 14:56 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:50 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-17 22:37 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:08 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 13:26 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:36 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 16:55 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 01:09 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 14:59 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:51 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 16:01 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 11:59 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 16:52 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 14:33 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 20:05 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-17 18:10 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 23:59 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-17 22:33 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 04:03 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-17 18:23 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 00:00 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-17 22:33 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 04:04 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-19 20:03 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 01:14 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-18 17:08 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-18 12:38 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-18 17:44 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-18 12:47 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-18 17:54 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-19 20:25 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-19 21:19 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-19 20:22 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-20 16:55 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 17:36 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-18 17:55 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-18 15:36 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-18 21:36 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-19 20:21 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-19 20:32 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-20 16:52 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 14:58 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:52 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:40 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:49 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 19:13 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:03 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:53 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:53 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 16:56 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 00:57 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:11 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:55 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-16 20:35 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:40 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-16 21:19 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 19:30 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 16:59 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:14 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:56 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-17 02:02 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 02:02 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:21 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:59 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:17 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-17 15:55 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 11:01 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 16:09 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 11:58 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 01:01 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:22 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 01:45 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:33 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 11:04 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 19:25 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 20:11 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 17:01 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:19 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 01:10 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 08:41 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:34 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 11:05 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 16:07 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 11:56 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-17 22:06 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 18:01 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-17 22:27 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 16:58 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:26 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:47 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 17:01 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 00:46 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 08:43 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:35 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 11:06 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 16:59 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-17 18:15 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 00:02 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-17 22:35 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 04:05 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-19 20:04 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 01:15 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-19 21:43 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-19 21:23 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 03:42 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 11:29 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 17:27 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-20 19:17 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 00:15 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-20 21:20 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 01:41 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-21 09:55 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-15 21:46 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 02:13 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 05:49 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 15:26 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 12:45 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 17:10 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 13:43 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 18:07 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 15:10 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 19:32 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 17:32 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 22:11 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-22 10:51 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 17:55 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 17:58 -0500
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 18:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. |
| Message-ID | <okdoiv$1v82$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
jimp wrote: > In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark > <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> > wrote: >> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >> material that can carry more current. > > We have such a material and it is called silver. Gold is much better, something you don't know.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 19:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8f7q3e-q7s.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #425054 |
In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: > jimp wrote: > >> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >> wrote: >>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>> material that can carry more current. >> >> We have such a material and it is called silver. > > Gold is much better, something you don't know. Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter Silver 1.59 X 10-8 Copper 1.68 X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion resistance. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 19:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okdrq8$98u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425060 |
jimp wrote: >> Gold is much better, something you don't know. > > Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter > Silver 1.59 X 10-8 Copper 1.68 X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity > Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion > resistance. That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases exponentially. Go to school.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 20:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ig9q3e-7ds.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #425063 |
In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: > jimp wrote: > >>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >> >> Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 Copper 1.68 X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >> resistance. > > That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases > exponentially. Go to school. Babbling nonsense. Corrosion is an issue only where the metal is exposed as in switch, relay, and connector contacts. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 00:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <596af072$0$15572$c3e8da3$9deca2c3@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #425068 |
On 07/15/2017 04:11 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: > In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >> jimp wrote: >> >>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>> >>> Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 Copper 1.68 X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>> resistance. >> >> That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases >> exponentially. Go to school. > > Babbling nonsense. > > Corrosion is an issue only where the metal is exposed as in switch, relay, > and connector contacts. Usual Babbling senile ignorance and drooling. Ass electrtical silver is exposed to air and silver oxidizes. Chimp is too poor to have ever had to polish silverware. Nothing but usual Chimp trolls.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 18:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <alns3e-me7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #425108 |
In sci.physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: > On 07/15/2017 04:11 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>> jimp wrote: >>> >>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>> >>>> Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 Copper 1.68 X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>> resistance. >>> >>> That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases >>> exponentially. Go to school. >> >> Babbling nonsense. >> >> Corrosion is an issue only where the metal is exposed as in switch, relay, >> and connector contacts. > > Usual Babbling senile <sniP> The resident troll chimes in with the usual ad hominems looking for attention. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 22:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <7383330.NyiUUSuA9g@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #425108 |
benj wrote: > On 07/15/2017 04:11 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>> jimp wrote: >>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>> Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 Copper 1.68 X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>> resistance. >>> That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases >>> exponentially. Go to school. >> >> Babbling nonsense. >> >> Corrosion is an issue only where the metal is exposed as in switch, >> relay, and connector contacts. > > Usual Babbling senile ignorance and drooling. Ass electrtical silver is > exposed to air and silver oxidizes. So does gold, but less easily. (It is a common misconception among laymen that oxidation only means reactions with oxygen.) Both gold and silver are considered noble metals, but gold is the most noble of them: it “does not [even] react with oxygen at any temperature and, up to 100 °C, is resistant to attack from ozone.” <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Chemistry> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver#Oxides_and_chalcogenides> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 14:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okij1r$11hn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425068 |
jimp wrote: >> That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases >> exponentially. Go to school. > > Babbling nonsense. > > Corrosion is an issue only where the metal is exposed as in switch, > relay, and connector contacts. That's why alloys are used, not pure silver. Idiot. You contradict yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 10:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <okim9o$1854$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425304 |
On 7/17/2017 9:53 AM, Winfred Plumer wrote: > jimp wrote: > >>> That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases >>> exponentially. Go to school. >> >> Babbling nonsense. >> >> Corrosion is an issue only where the metal is exposed as in switch, >> relay, and connector contacts. > > That's why alloys are used, not pure silver. Idiot. You contradict > yourself. > you mention "alloy", can you be more specific ? alloy w 2% steel, or .... 15% phosphate ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 16:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okin88$11ho$16@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425323 |
Serg io wrote: > you mention "alloy", can you be more specific ? > alloy w 2% steel, or .... 15% phosphate ? Does not matter, serg, the point is that alloys can only decrease its conductivity characteristics. I believe jimp and benj confuse siver with stainless steel or something. I don't know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 12:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <et0125Fktk9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #425063 |
On 16/07/2017 5:52 AM, Garfield Dieter wrote: > jimp wrote: > >>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >> >> Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 Copper 1.68 X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >> resistance. > > That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases > exponentially. Go to school. > Rather weak attempt to weasel out of a mistake caused by a strange popular notion that because silver is a better conductor than copper, and costs most, gold must be better then silver because it costs more. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 11:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okfhqh$die$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425099 |
Sylvia Else wrote: >>> Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter Silver 1.59 X 10-8 Copper 1.68 >>> X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>> resistance. >> >> That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases >> exponentially. Go to school. > > Rather weak attempt to weasel out of a mistake caused by a strange > popular notion that because silver is a better conductor than copper, > and costs most, gold must be better then silver because it costs more. > Sylvia. You are an imbecile mam. Not only that, but uneducated and inexperienced. Silver is strict avoided in electronics also because the capacitance and induction induced in circuitry by that corrosion. Use your brain before you post, lady mam.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 11:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okfi1m$die$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425123 |
Garfield Dieter wrote: >>> That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases >>> exponentially. Go to school. >> >> Rather weak attempt to weasel out of a mistake caused by a strange >> popular notion that because silver is a better conductor than copper, >> and costs most, gold must be better then silver because it costs more. >> Sylvia. > > You are an imbecile mam. Not only that, but uneducated and > inexperienced. > Silver is strict avoided in electronics also because the capacitance and > induction induced in circuitry by that corrosion. Use your brain before > you post, lady mam. "inductance" of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 12:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okfmiv$itb$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425123 |
The nymshifting troll, posting as Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> writes: >Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter Silver 1.59 X 10-8 Copper 1.68 >>>> X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>> resistance. >>> >>> That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases >>> exponentially. Go to school. >> >> Rather weak attempt to weasel out of a mistake caused by a strange >> popular notion that because silver is a better conductor than copper, >> and costs most, gold must be better then silver because it costs more. >> Sylvia. >You are an imbecile mam. Not only that, but uneducated and inexperienced. >Silver is strict avoided in electronics also because the capacitance and >induction induced in circuitry by that corrosion. Use your brain before >you post, lady mam. Admit it, nymshifter, you got caught in a mistake. Copper corrodes even worse than silver, yet it is used all over the place. The reason for that is because silver is simply too expensive compared to copper. Gold is an even worse conductor and even more expensive, so it is used only where its superior corrosion resistance is necessary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 10:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <okfvf5$12iv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425138 |
On 7/16/2017 7:35 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > The nymshifting troll, posting as Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> writes: > >> Sylvia Else wrote: > >> Silver is strict avoided in electronics also because the capacitance and >> induction induced in circuitry by that corrosion. wrong. It costs too much. It is used in some high power tuning components in RF and microwave. Many connectors are silver plated to reduce losses. most silver corrosion does not effect performance. > Copper corrodes even > worse than silver, yet it is used all over the place. The reason for that > is because silver is simply too expensive compared to copper. Gold is an > even worse conductor and even more expensive, so it is used only where its > superior corrosion resistance is necessary. Cost is the major factor in material selection. Most all of the "gold" connectors you see out there are not gold at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 18:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okga5j$1hls$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425168 |
Serg io wrote: >>> Silver is strict avoided in electronics also because the capacitance >>> and induction induced in circuitry by that corrosion. > > wrong. It costs too much. It is used in some high power tuning > components in RF and microwave. Many connectors are silver plated to > reduce losses. most silver corrosion does not effect performance. That's alloys, not silver. Stay cool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 13:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <okgb02$1kvg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425182 |
On 7/16/2017 1:09 PM, Winfred Plumer wrote: > Serg io wrote: > >>>> Silver is strict avoided in electronics also because the capacitance >>>> and induction induced in circuitry by that corrosion. >> >> wrong. It costs too much. It is used in some high power tuning >> components in RF and microwave. Many connectors are silver plated to >> reduce losses. most silver corrosion does not effect performance. > > That's alloys, not silver. Stay cool. > no, it is silver. they tarnish. google "silver mica capacitors" https://www.tedss.com/Catalog/Browse?inCategory=SILVER%20MICA%20%3E%20TRANSMITTING connectors; https://www.radiodan.com/Henry/parts/coaxconnectors.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 18:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okgbo8$1ksj$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425186 |
Serg io wrote: >>> wrong. It costs too much. It is used in some high power tuning >>> components in RF and microwave. Many connectors are silver plated to >>> reduce losses. most silver corrosion does not effect performance. >> >> That's alloys, not silver. Stay cool. > > no, it is silver. they tarnish Shut up, you know nothing, just moving your lips.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 19:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <c0rs3e-o38.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #425195 |
In sci.physics Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> wrote: > Serg io wrote: > >>>> wrong. It costs too much. It is used in some high power tuning >>>> components in RF and microwave. Many connectors are silver plated to >>>> reduce losses. most silver corrosion does not effect performance. >>> >>> That's alloys, not silver. Stay cool. >> >> no, it is silver. they tarnish > > Shut up, you know nothing, just moving your lips. Yet another babbling idiot for the kill file. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 18:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <okgttr$jao$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425195 |
On 7/16/2017 1:36 PM, Winfred Plumer wrote: > Serg io wrote: > >>>> wrong. It costs too much. It is used in some high power tuning >>>> components in RF and microwave. Many connectors are silver plated to >>>> reduce losses. most silver corrosion does not effect performance. >>> >>> That's alloys, not silver. Stay cool. >> >> no, it is silver. they tarnish > > Shut up, you know nothing, just moving your lips. > how do you know he is moving his lips? Are you using a Remote Viewer ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web