[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 19 KB, 400x300, n06gold-bars.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3560172 No.3560172 [Reply] [Original]

My friend and I always get into science related questions and conversations considering his father is a biologist and I just have a real interest in most fields of science.

More to the point we were arguing whether gold would make a better conductor than copper. I am not exactly sure where I originally heard it (probably science class) ,but I was pretty sure gold was the better conductor, or rather named a super conductor. Am I wrong?

>> No.3560177

>super conductor

nope.

Can't you use google?

>> No.3560181

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity#Resistivity_of_various_material
s
Silver, then copper, then gold.

A superconductor conducts with little to no resistance compared to any of these. We don't have any that operate at room temperature yet, unfortunately.

>> No.3560192

>>3560181
Superconductors are exactly no resistance, not little resistance.

>> No.3560203

>>3560172

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity

copper: 5.96×10^7 S/m
gold: 4.52×10^7 S/m

copper conducts better, yet gold has a higher reduction potential so it wouldn't corrode as fast
however gold costs ridiculisely more than copper so pick copper

>> No.3560206

>>3560192
:o
I was under the impression there was virtually no resistance, note nonewhatsoever.

>> No.3560208

>>3560181
GRAPHENE

>> No.3560221

>>3560208
>>3560192
you two can argue for a bit and we'll watch/learn.

>> No.3560229
File: 19 KB, 250x250, 1312734688802.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3560229

>Biologist
>Science

>> No.3560230

>>3560221
Nah, he's right, true superconductivity is zero resistance, but graphene's pretty fucking close, and does it at room temperature right out of the box.

>> No.3560234

>>3560229
>Costanza
>heterosexuality
>>3560230
presumably it can only take pretty low voltages though, right?

>> No.3560238

>>3560234
I'd imagine, but they're finding new ways to stack sheets of it so that it doesn't just morph back into graphite. At one atom thick, you can stack, well, a lot of sheets in a very small space.

>> No.3560255

brb making 0 gauge gold wiring
spending $300k a foot

>> No.3560307

So if I put my finger on the wire of a 'superconductor' in a circuit and switched the circuit on, so there was an electric current passing through it, would I get an electric shock or not?

I figure that the superconductor has less resistance than my finger, so I wouldn't be affected. Or am I being retarded?

>> No.3560362

>>3560307

Your finger will freeze off. You will feel a burning sensation.

>> No.3561619

well why do you think that we use gold in computers? there gotta be someway that its works out i ust can´t remember how. i mean if copper worked better don´t you think we would use that instead? but if it generally is a better conducter idk i am honestly not bothered but even if it were it would be too darn expensive to make large amounts of wiring in gold. (thats why we use copper) but what i do know is that diamond is a better heat conductor than copper if that might help.

>> No.3561629

If copper is a better conducter, then how come CPUs use gold (which I assume is more expensive)?

>> No.3561639

>>3561629
gold is used for high-quality electrical contacts because it doesn't react or corrode.

>> No.3561656

Funny how most pseudo-scientists seem to think gold is a superior conductor...

>> No.3562137

gold is not a superconductor but it is better than copper

/thread