cyroparts don't understand their own process?

[Skylab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hey Donald, How do they suck the air out of a tube without breaking it? In a light bulb the oxygen is displaced with argon, I believe. But light bulbs aren't in a vacuum.

The last bit of air is removed when the tube is fired up and metal placed on the getter (normally barium, I believe) reacts to any stray air in the tube and eliminates it.

 

[Currawong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hey Donald, How do they suck the air out of a tube without breaking it? In a light bulb the oxygen is displaced with argon, I believe. But light bulbs aren't in a vacuum.

What Skylab said, but before that, you can see a video of tubes being made on Youtube (ha!).

 

[sanderx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berlioz /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, the processes are separate. Either the metal can be heat treated, or cryogenically treated. For an illustration of the cryogenic process, I can't think of a better place than CryoParts own website: CryoParts Why Cryo?

umm... I thought this thread was about issues with that page? So why refer back to it?

 

[Berlioz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sanderx /img/forum/go_quote.gif umm... I thought this thread was about issues with that page? So why refer back to it?

Firstly because the give an explanation of their cryogenic treating process, which some people on this thread were confused about.

One poster thought that the parts were heat treated and then cryogenically treated, which is not the case. I only linked to that page so people could at least read what CryoParts say they do.

Secondly, if you read carefully you'll see that CryoParts actually does admit that there is no scientific explanation for the results supposedly seen in the treatment of cables.

In fact, the OP's quote was somewhat of a misquote in my opinion. While the quoted section from the page was indeed full of errors, the rest of the page is pretty good. Compared to a lot of other online audio retailers I've viewed, this one is not that bad. There are certainly more blatant attempts at scamming out there.

 

[DaveHao]

It seems no scientific explanation seems to be the standard in the audiophile industry, not the exception.

 

[Catharsis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Doug /img/forum/go_quote.gif Considering metals such as copper do not even form molecules, but instead exist as nuclei in a sea of electrons, perhaps they are more correct than you are, Spartan! I never did too well in physics myself, but I did excel in chemistry

Err...that's totally incorrect.

How bout:

Cu02 (Copper Oxide)
CuS04 (Copper Sulfate)
C34H31CuN4Na3O6 (Chrlophyllin)

This list goes on and and on and on. Copper most certainly bonds with other elements to make molecules.

 

[Catharsis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spartan777 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I might have gotten something wrong, being a physics major doesn't mean I get everything right- ovbiously However, I do not believe temperature has any *meaningful* (sorry for not clarifying before) effect on atomic bonds at the temperatures we are talking about. Molecular, yes, atomic no. You have to get into the millions of degrees to have enough energy to significantly affect the atomic bonds of copper. This all seems like an insignificant issue to most, but what bothers me is the fact that they claim to understand exactly how their 'cryo' process works, how it improves sound, and the fact that they berate other anonymous competitor's who "sell cryo-treated audio parts do not have an intimate knowledge of the DCT process." I'm not questioning the personal integrity of anyone here, and I'm not even making any hard claims about cryo, I'm just skeptical, and this apparent confusion about temperature doesn't seem to bode well for them. I would be glad if the cryoparts people looked at this, and either explained why I'm wrong or corrected their description. And like I say, temperature can have an affect on atomic bonds, but not significantly at the temperatures we are talking about (from what I can see), let alone significantly enough to modify the acoustics of the signal that is carried through the copper. At the very least, this is getting me more familiar with chemistry.

Spartan is right.

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to mess with the strong nuclear force? Those protons and neutrons that make copper..well...copper are held by the strong nuclear force, and it's going to take a hell of a lot more than some deep freeze to mess with it. Nuclear fission perhaps, but not a deep freeze. Copper is an element, and temperature doesn't undo the fact that it's copper. If you altered the subatomic chemistry of copper you would either have a radioactive isotope or something besides copper.

 

[Catharsis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif They don't have to correct their explanation, many scientists have used the same exact degree of literary license of calling molecular level changes atomic level changes. Not even your beloved scientists know exactly how DCT works, and if you read scientific papers on deep cryo treatment and had any critical reading skills you wouldn't be whining about cryo-parts. I have some field work for you, my would be physicist. Instead of saying deep cryo treatment doesn't make sense to you within your limited understanding of the matter, why don't you actually research it. I think it's cute you are pattering on this forum for people to enlighten you, but deep cryo treatment is (gasp) one of a great multitude of things for which science hasn't given a satisfactory explanation. And the only way you will be able to realize that fact is to stop beseeching authority for answers and do some research yourself.

You say our beloved scientists don't understand the great complexity of DCT and how difficult and advanced it is, and yet here you have some niche cable company understanding DCT as though they had hired the brightest minds at CERN. Give me a break buddy; you're talking out your butt.

You can't flipping make subatomic changes without changing the element itself. This is basic chemistry. You can change molecular structure, but not atomic structure. It's high school chemistry, alter (i.e. add or subtract) a single proton or neturon and you have something besides copper.

 

[haloxt]

Impressive reading skills.

 

[Bop]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catharsis /img/forum/go_quote.gif You can't flipping make subatomic changes without changing the element itself. This is basic chemistry. You can change molecular structure, but not atomic structure. It's high school chemistry, alter (i.e. add or subtract) a single proton or neturon and you have something besides copper.

Ever heard of Isotopes?

 

[leeperry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catharsis /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you altered the subatomic chemistry of copper you would either have a radioactive isotope or something besides copper.

it kinda sounds scary...but would it improve the low level details and bass accuracy? it might all be worth it in the end! maybe we could find some russian peeps to offer radioactive cable services.

 

[upstateguy]

Wow, I forgot about this thread......

The key to this whole argument is your belief system.

If you believe that dipping something in magic sauce will make it sound better, it will.

USG

 

[haloxt]

Canare uses irradiated plastic for improved dielectric, which I think is a good step forward in radioactive audiophile products. But let's try to remember, neither I nor cryoparts claimed there are subatomic changes from DCT, someone just has to read more carefully.

 

[SB]

Ya but you also have to watch out for quantum tunneling.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Canare uses irradiated plastic for improved dielectric, which I think is a good step forward in radioactive audiophile products. But let's try to remember, neither I nor cryoparts claimed there are subatomic changes from DCT, someone just has to Believe more carefully.

FIFY

USG