Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!iuvax!cica!gatech!udel!berryh
From: berryh@udel.EDU (John Berryhill)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Which is a better conductor: gold or silver?
Message-ID: <19729@louie.udel.EDU>
Date: 14 Jul 89 15:54:57 GMT
References: <14172@swan.ulowell.edu>
Sender: usenet@udel.EDU
Reply-To: berryh@udel.EDU (John Berryhill)
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 26

In article <14172@swan.ulowell.edu> sbrunnoc@hawk.ulowell.edu (Sean Brunnock) writes:
>
>  Hello. I need some outside help to settle a bet. 
>
>  Which is a better conductor gold or silver?

I was surprised to find that (according to my periodic table) the
conductivity of Ag is .630 X10^6 (ohm-cm)^(-1) while Au is only
.452 X10^6 (ohm-cm)^(-1).  The comparison may change with frequency,
although the fact that silver is more reflective indicates that
it probably wins at high frequency as well.  My periodic table, btw,
is published by Sargent-Welch Scientific.  If you want to check on
the figures, stop by ANY chemist's office and ask to see the CRC
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (a jumbled and arcane, but often
useful, grab-bag o' data).

That does not necessarily mean that silver is a better choice of
metal in all conductor applications.  The fact that silver tarnishes
while gold doesn't should tell you that the surface is probably more
likely to develop problems.  You wouldn't want to use it as, for
example, a card-edge connector, or a battery terminal.  Gold is
the conductor of choice for most applications that involve exposed
surfaces, the fact that it is used for the aforementioned applications
is the reason that your mailbox is filling up with messages telling
you that gold is the winner, but it ain't so.  Surfaces can be a
bitch and they'll get you every time.