Subject: Re: Reducing contact resistance for low volt use?
Summary: What do you think of these ping times eh?
Reply-To: You can't see me, and I pass right through planets...
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <6kQb$vCMX2G+Ew15@jmwa.demon.co.uk> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 15:48:27 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 10:48:27 EST
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:43:24 +0000, John Woodgate
>I read in sci.electronics.design that DarkMatter endoftheuniverse.org> wrote (in <46um1vsdnlu4debc8pnmfk8dhmqf2s619j@4ax.
>com>) about 'Reducing contact resistance for low volt use?', on Wed, 8
>>If one looks at the silver atom, it
>>appears obvious that it is the best conductor. The nucleus is
>>shrouded by 46 electrons, not counting MR. valence, El Looso Electro
>On that basis, gold and cesium should be better conductors, having that
>one valence electron shielded from the nucleus by even more electrons.
>But they aren't.
What is the arrangement? The two 18 electron shells in silver are
probably part of it being the best.
Look at the second shell on all of your metals. Oddly, those same,
more loosely arranged second shells seem to be part of what makes
those metals so oxide inhibiting. Gold and Platinum being the best,
though not in that order.