|   Careful reading skills could keep egg off your face | Warren Warren
Nov 27, 2001 6:28 PM | | This is to all who immediately jumped on the bandwagon, attacking me for claiming that a solid wire of the same DIAMETER would carry more current than a stranded one. Some of you even went to the extreme of explaining all the various guages/gauges/gages, and criticizing my lack of knowledge. Please go back and read this original post carefully. NOWHERE in this post did I mention GUAGE, GAUGE, or GAGE. ONLY DIAMETER! Damn, I'm good! I should have been a lawyer instead of an engineer. I could have been making twice as much! Your apologies will be accepted.
Warren Warren "speaker wire" 11/20/01 6:33pm |
| re: Careful reading skills could keep egg off your face | mtrycrafts
Nov 27, 2001 8:53 PM | | ". ONLY DIAMETER! Damn, I'm good! "
Really? No, you are hardly good. And, since you were discussing wire and current capacity, gauge is necessary to use, even if you didn;t specifically indicate that, it is assumed for a valid reason. So, you are hardly any good. |
| re: Careful reading skills could keep egg off your face | Warren Warren
Nov 28, 2001 3:03 AM | | You know what happens when you assume? Don't be such a sore loser. Actually, don't be such a loser! |
| re: Careful reading skills could keep egg off your face | Warren Warren
Nov 28, 2001 3:42 AM | | BTW, there is a reason that I choose my words carefully. Another grave error that you make in your assumption is that everyone on these boards is American. Do you know what the "A" in "AWG" stands for? Many other countries use diameter rather then AWG to measure wire. In fact, many of the nicer systems that I have seen posted on here come from places such as Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Israel, and none of those countries use AWG, but they all understand diameter. Just another Mtry ASSumption- as worthless as his "facts". |
| re: Careful reading skills could keep egg off your face | mtrycrafts
Nov 28, 2001 11:20 PM | | Well, maybe you need to check those wire standards how they are really apply to wire gauge. Don't assume. |
| re: Careful reading skills could keep egg off your face | FLZapped
Nov 28, 2001 5:20 AM | | Well, that's all well and good, but since we don't buy wire by diameter, but by gauge, you left off the important fact that the wire manufacturers have compensated for the differences between stranded and solid wire of the same gauge.
-Bruce |
| re: Careful reading skills could keep egg off your face | Warren Warren
Nov 28, 2001 4:07 PM | | Please read my second response to Mtry. Also, I have seen some fantastic systems from Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and many others posted here. Lo siento mucho a todos mis amigos que olvidado! (An apology to my Spanish/Portugues freinds that I forgot to mention in the other post) |
| re: Careful reading skills could keep egg off your face | FLZapped
Nov 28, 2001 6:42 PM | | Nice attempt at dodging your lack of writing skills. -Bruce |
| re: Careful reading skills could keep egg off your face | Warren Warren
Nov 28, 2001 6:50 PM | | "Why can't we all just get along?"
I promised the moderator I would behave and refrain from more personal attacks. I suggest you try the same! |
| re: Careful reading skills could keep egg off your face | FLZapped
Nov 29, 2001 5:17 AM | | You could have avoided all the trouble if you were not exaulting yourself to the heights of ego masturbation.
Since you are going for your PhD, an ommission like the one you committed will cause your review board to climb all over you. Not only because it was common knowlege that this had been taken into account, but because you also failed to recognize your audience.
I will refrain from attacking you should you refrain from suffocating us with your ego.
-Bruce |
| OK, Warren. Here we go | Norm Strong
Nov 28, 2001 9:35 PM | | What is the ratio of the areas of a 7-stranded wire and a solid wire of the same outer diameter? Suppose we increase the number of strands to infinity. Does the ratio now converge, and if so, to what value? |
| OK, Warren. Here we go | Eyespy
Nov 28, 2001 10:41 PM | | Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark. |
| OK, Warren. Here we go | Warren Warren
Nov 29, 2001 7:19 AM | | Okay, I take it you liked the film "Tommy Boy"? |
| Hey Eyespy? | Warren Warren
Nov 29, 2001 4:19 PM | | What's going to leave a mark? Don't tell me you doubted my veracity, just like moderator Adam? That hurts! Hey, 99% of engineering is just applying the math. The other 1%, which is the really hard one, is imagination! Formulas are formulas, and you just plug in the numbers. Of course there is the rare engineer who comes up with a new formula, but I am not one of them. This is why I have said over and over that there MAY be an audible difference in cables. It is relatively easy to determine the electrical properties of a transmission line using standard theories. The hard part is taking the theories and develop the transmission line in the first place. A simplified formula for capacitance, for example, is Ka/D, where K is the dielectric constant-in this case the insulating material used in the construction of the cable-be it teflon, pvc, whatever. "a" is the surface area of the said dielectric, and D is the distance between the 2 conductors. You could then take this number, and plug it into the formula for capacitive reactance, which is how the cable will respond at a certain frequency. You also have formulas to determine inductance, inductive reactance, impedance, etc. The reason I have never posted any "numbers" or "facts", especially as pertaining to audibility, is that there are so many different types of cables out there, and each one will measure differently. If someone would like to know what the characteristics of thier particular cable are, they just need to plug in the numbers and use basic algebra. Also, as you will notice when using these formulas that many of them are frequency dependant- so characteristics exhibited at one frequency will be drastically different at another. This is all I've been trying to say since I've begun posting on this board. The math will prove (theoretically speaking) that cables will exhibit different properties at different frequencies. Whether or not it is audible is another story entirely. I believe it MAY be, but have never bothered to run a critical DBT. I do like cables and interconnects that to me seem to follow solid transmission line principles, whether or not they "Sound" good. If anyone would like specific recommendations, or is just curious what I use, please email me, but please don't ask here! |
| Hey Eyespy? | Eyespy
Nov 29, 2001 5:02 PM | | Just injecting a little good natured humor and levity. |
| Hey Eyespy? | Eyespy
Nov 29, 2001 5:12 PM | | I have replied at the original post before I read this one. |
| Too Easy | Warren Warren
Nov 29, 2001 5:14 AM | | Come on Norm, I thought you were an engineering teacher. This is basic 7th grade geometry! Going back to the penny example, and using real numbers because there are some out there that can't grasp the theory without numbers attached. Let's say that a penny has a diameter of .5 inches. That means it's radius is .25 inches. The formula for determining the area of a circle is pi x r squared. For convenience, we will define pi as 3.14159. This gives the area of our penny as .19635 square inches. Multiply that by 7, and you have a total surface area of 1.37444 for a seven penny conductor cable. Now, going back to a solid. We determine that the diameter is 3 pennies wide, or 1.5 inches. Therefore the radius is .75 inches. Again using our formula for the area of a circle, we come up with 1.767144. Its not too hard to see that 1.767144 is substantially larger than 1.37444, and in this instance the ratio is roughly 1.285 to 1. Of course, as you approach infinity, the ratio will converge, but it will NEVER be 1 to 1. |
| PS- I don't care what the diameter of a penny is (NT) | Warren Warren
Nov 29, 2001 5:45 AM | | |
| Oops- My semantic mistake | Warren Warren
Nov 29, 2001 7:18 AM | | Actually, the word converge is somewhat misleading, as the 2 ratios will approach each other, but never actually be equal. |
| Very good | Norm Strong
Nov 29, 2001 1:15 PM | | 9/7 is the correct answer. And when the number of strands goes to infinity, the number becomes 0.9487 to 1. |
| Very good | Warren Warren
Nov 29, 2001 3:15 PM | | BTW, for any would-be critics saying that my math is wrong, the 9/7 is the same thing as 1.285 to 1. Since I work in the RF field, and am constantly dealing with VSWR, I prefer my ratios in a :1 basis. Personal preference, same answer. BTW Norm, how did you quantify infinity so precisely? I would like to see the math on that one!
Just kidding! |
| Very good | Eyespy
Nov 29, 2001 5:05 PM | | Warren,
There are only two things that are infinate: stupidity, and The Universe. And I'm not so certain about The Universe. Hehe. :-) |
| |
