NASA is funding a new type of wire that can transmit power 10 times
better than normal wire. Will this make a difference in Audio?

http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,67350,00.html
--
I.Care
Address fake
until the SPAM goes away

I.Care wrote:

NASA is funding a new type of wire that can transmit power 10 times
better than normal wire.

http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,67350,00.html


hmm. We'd better define better! And with that hard to define effect
"mobility", I wouldn't bet the house on it.

It looks like the major advantage is the light weight.

Of course that may be somewhat negated by the other promise of carbon -
the carbon ribbon that will allow us to build a space elevator!

Will this make a difference in Audio?

The audio geeks will be able to make up stuff for years about this......


- Mike KB3EIA -

On 27/04/2005 9:32 PM, Mike Coslo wrote:
I.Care wrote:

NASA is funding a new type of wire that can transmit power 10 times
better than normal wire.

http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,67350,00.html



hmm. We'd better define better! And with that hard to define effect
"mobility", I wouldn't bet the house on it.

It looks like the major advantage is the light weight.

Of course that may be somewhat negated by the other promise of
carbon - the carbon ribbon that will allow us to build a space elevator!

Will this make a difference in Audio?


The audio geeks will be able to make up stuff for years about this......

Indeed. There's enough snake-oil being sold to audiophiles as it is.

Unless and until stereo mags and listeners actually do proper
double-blind tests, I think we can assume that this wire (if it ever
goes into general production) will be yet another way to liberate
hundreds of dollars a foot from gullible consumers.

clvrmnky wrote:
On 27/04/2005 9:32 PM, Mike Coslo wrote:

I.Care wrote:


NASA is funding a new type of wire that can transmit power 10 times
better than normal wire.

http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,67350,00.html



hmm. We'd better define better! And with that hard to define effect
"mobility", I wouldn't bet the house on it.

It looks like the major advantage is the light weight.

Of course that may be somewhat negated by the other promise of
carbon - the carbon ribbon that will allow us to build a space elevator!


Will this make a difference in Audio?


The audio geeks will be able to make up stuff for years about this......


Indeed. There's enough snake-oil being sold to audiophiles as it is.

Unless and until stereo mags and listeners actually do proper
double-blind tests, I think we can assume that this wire (if it ever
goes into general production) will be yet another way to liberate
hundreds of dollars a foot from gullible consumers.

What?!? Put all those manufacturers of accessories out of business?

What would we do without the cleaner for your CD's that makes them
sound better. A real product.

Or inch thick speaker cables between microscopic IC/Transistor/tube
wiring, and going to tiny speaker coils.

Interconnects cables made of both silver and copper wire to enhance
both low and high frequencies.

"Oxygen free" copper cables.

"directional" cables - hey, do these have a rectifier in them?


The list goes on and on...


The goofiest claims of some antenna manufacturers and affectionados are
quite tame by comparison.


- Mike KB3EIA -

"I.Care" wrote in message
.net...
NASA is funding a new type of wire that can transmit power 10 times
better than normal wire. Will this make a difference in Audio?

Does this mean that the resistance per ft for nanotubes is 1/10th that of
copper?
Are they comparing this performance by weight or by volume of wire
("pound-for-pound", or "cross-sectional-area" )
Then we have to talk about tensile strength of this stuff for
supporting its own weight between trees to use as an antenna
Then ya gotta conjure up a way to solder the feedline to it. (or make
feedline out of it)

"Hal Rosser" wrote in message
...

"I.Care" wrote in message
.net...
NASA is funding a new type of wire that can transmit power 10 times
better than normal wire. Will this make a difference in Audio?

Does this mean that the resistance per ft for nanotubes is 1/10th that of
copper?
Are they comparing this performance by weight or by volume of wire
("pound-for-pound", or "cross-sectional-area" )
Then we have to talk about tensile strength of this stuff for
supporting its own weight between trees to use as an antenna
Then ya gotta conjure up a way to solder the feedline to it. (or make
feedline out of it)

If the resistance is 1/10th that of copper then it should be possible to
manufacture helical inductors with Qs approaching 10,000. Not only that,
but open wire transmission lines would have very low loss, therefore making
it feasable to feed antennas with very small electrical dimensions. How to
handle the votages involved would be something else!

Frank

What evidence is there that they've defeated skin effect? If they
haven't, the advantage drops to the square root of the DC advantage
(e.g., a little more than 3:1 if the DC advantage is 10:1). Also, I
wonder if the bulk resistivity of these gadgets remains constant with
frequency like solid copper, or rises with frequency like
superconductors. If it rises with frequency, then the advantage becomes
less yet, potentially even becoming worse than copper at some frequency.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Frank wrote:
"Hal Rosser" wrote in message
...

"I.Care" wrote in message
st.net...

NASA is funding a new type of wire that can transmit power 10 times
better than normal wire. Will this make a difference in Audio?

Does this mean that the resistance per ft for nanotubes is 1/10th that of
copper?
Are they comparing this performance by weight or by volume of wire
("pound-for-pound", or "cross-sectional-area" )
Then we have to talk about tensile strength of this stuff for
supporting its own weight between trees to use as an antenna
Then ya gotta conjure up a way to solder the feedline to it. (or make
feedline out of it)


If the resistance is 1/10th that of copper then it should be possible to
manufacture helical inductors with Qs approaching 10,000. Not only that,
but open wire transmission lines would have very low loss, therefore making
it feasable to feed antennas with very small electrical dimensions. How to
handle the votages involved would be something else!

Frank

Roy, you are a pessimist.

================================

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
What evidence is there that they've defeated skin effect? If they
haven't, the advantage drops to the square root of the DC advantage
(e.g., a little more than 3:1 if the DC advantage is 10:1). Also, I
wonder if the bulk resistivity of these gadgets remains constant
with
frequency like solid copper, or rises with frequency like
superconductors. If it rises with frequency, then the advantage
becomes
less yet, potentially even becoming worse than copper at some
frequency.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Frank wrote:
"Hal Rosser" wrote in message
...

"I.Care" wrote in message
st.net...

NASA is funding a new type of wire that can transmit power 10
times
better than normal wire. Will this make a difference in Audio?

Does this mean that the resistance per ft for nanotubes is 1/10th
that of
copper?
Are they comparing this performance by weight or by volume of wire
("pound-for-pound", or "cross-sectional-area" )
Then we have to talk about tensile strength of this stuff for
supporting its own weight between trees to use as an antenna
Then ya gotta conjure up a way to solder the feedline to it. (or
make
feedline out of it)


If the resistance is 1/10th that of copper then it should be
possible to
manufacture helical inductors with Qs approaching 10,000. Not
only that,
but open wire transmission lines would have very low loss,
therefore making
it feasable to feed antennas with very small electrical
dimensions. How to
handle the votages involved would be something else!

Frank

Reg Edwards wrote:
Roy, you are a pessimist.

In my career doing electronic instrumentation product development, I
learned to look for all the potential problems I could think of, as
early as possible. A lot of them turned out to be non-problems, and
could then be ignored. But the ones which were real had to be overcome,
or at least had to have a good probility of being overcome, before the
project could proceed. If it couldn't be, another approach usually had
to be found or the project abandoned -- or at the very least an
alternative approach had to be identified in case the problem couldn't
be overcome. Too often, a naive ("optimistic") project manager wouldn't
do this, and would run into a project-killing problem 90% of the way
into the project. That can be a disaster, and I've seen it happen many
times. Of course, it's ok to go into a project knowing there's a
potential program-stopper, as long as you know it up front and are
willing to accept the consequences if it can't be overcome. This is the
approach often taken by startup companies, but the high risk of failure
is too often conceled from the suckers, um, investors. A great number of
announcements of revolutionary technology tend to ignore, deny, or
minimize potential problems, limitations, and risks. So I don't consider
it pessimistic at all to assume they exist. Once in a while, the serious
problems are overcome and a new and useful technology emerges. More
often, nothing emerges but a lot of investors with thinner wallets and
more critical outlooks.

I really hope the nano-tubes will bring us amazingly high Q coils. Then
all we'll have to do is figure out how to keep them far away from
anything else. Gee, maybe some new magical field-masking technology will
emerge in the nick of time to solve that problem. There, was that better?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

ONLY if his caution in accepting this notion is proven wrong is it
pessimism... otherwise it is wisdom!!! grin

Warmest regards,
John