Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!sprite.berkeley.edu!shirriff
From: shirriff@sprite.berkeley.edu (Ken Shirriff)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Gold saves energy.
Keywords: gold
Message-ID: <1991Jun5.052524.5825@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 5 Jun 91 05:25:24 GMT
References: <sehari.676081817@du248-12.cc.iastate.edu> <2788@umriscc.isc.umr.edu> <16640@darkstar.ucsc.edu>
Sender: root@agate.berkeley.edu (Charlie Root)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 14

In article <16640@darkstar.ucsc.edu> haynes@felix.ucsc.edu (99700000) writes:
>One table I have shows the resistivity of gold is 1.4 greater than copper,
>and aluminum is 1.6 greater.

I think this discussion of resistivity is missing the point; what matters
is resistivity relative to cost.  If material A costs 10 times as
much as material B but has half the resistivity, you're probably
better off making cables out of B that are twice as thick than using cables
of A.  (Assuming the material cost is the only significant cost.)

In any case, I don't see what the sense of gold-plating the wires would
be; that sounds like rec.audio voodoo.

Ken Shirriff			shirriff@sprite.Berkeley.EDU