Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!ron
From: ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.audio,sci.physics,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Mercury Filled Speaker Wire
Message-ID: <14647@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Date: Fri, 11-Sep-87 12:09:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.14647
Posted: Fri Sep 11 12:09:28 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Sep-87 17:50:27 EDT
References: <3816@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> <578@uthub.toronto.edu> <3827@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>
Distribution: rec
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 15
Xref: mnetor rec.audio:3200 sci.physics:2141 sci.electronics:1270

> > Metals are metals.  Electricity flows in the same way through all metals.
> > This includes copper and mercury.
> > 
>    Crap.  Then there should be no difference between coaxial cable, twisted
>    pair and transmission lines in terms of signal propagation.  BUT THERE
>    IS!

You are both arguing different sides of the picture.  In the Copper Vs.
Mercury debate, there is essentially no difference other than resistance.
So the material there is unimportant.  The difference indicated about
coax v. twisted pair v. transmission lines (shows an inadequate knowledge
of the subject right there, transmission lines do not belong in a group
with examples of themselves).  Theoretically, if you had the same resistance,
dialectric, and relative conductor spacings (and shape) you'd get the same
performance regarless of what the conductor was made of.