OCD is just another form of crazy. Trust my crazy, not my other guys crazy.

"eye did" ... oh brother.

Are those analog BNC or digital BNC?

I know what you manufacture, and it is not electrical conductive diamond nanospheres. What part of DIAMOND IS NOT CONDUCTIVE was difficult to understand? How easy do you think people are to bamboozle here?

I manufacture electrically conductive spherical nanodiamond, and I'm the sole source.

This posts below is just disgusting behavior. You really should be ashamed, but I would say comments like this border on getting yourself into legal troubles.

@jafreeman just don't eat it, It killed Timmy and he knew it was a powerful carcinogen and also that nobody would buy it if he told the truth, so just don't eat it is OK with you. The other one knows it too and what does she have say for keeping hiding one little thing? 

Something just tells me this guy is here because he sees easy marks ... https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/diamond-lube-22446.html

And @twoleftears , if you don't like or want an over priced mass market cable, you can pick up a Liberty Quarter from the same seller, or any number of other trinkets. When you are too lazy to even create a custom sales profile, what does that say?

I must say, I do appreciate the creativity these "contact enhancer" companies use in their marketing material. I guess absent a shred of evidence (or science to support), they have to use something to justify the purchase. The "magnetic particle" one that takes 100 hours to align. That is my personal favourite. I am rather curious how they "align" in what is theoretically a continually varying magnetic field. If these geniuses could share how they turned a 2D dimensional structure such as graphene which is also a 2 dimension conductor into an effective 3 dimension conductor, they could make 10's of millions of dollars. They are sitting on a gold mine!

If you think this site is so important that people would waste their time on multiple profiles then you are even more deluded audiophiles than I am. I say, no wonder I see conspiracy theories brought up in so many threads.

I would ask what possible reason you would have for applying elemental boron to anything but I fear you would actually tell me.

Are you claiming that you both sourced and used Borophene?  Please tell me that is not what you are claiming @theaudiotweak 

Sorry, graphene—borophene is the new wonder material that’s got everyone excited | MIT Technology Review.

I have used this material blended with a few others as an acoustic enhancement applied to areas of my system and audio room. It has a very powerful effect and when first applied and listened to while it was still under cure it is like a sonic blast in the room.

What is jitter noise in a digital connection to a pixel based projector?

Two weeks ago it was conductive Nano Diamonds using boron diffusion. Then it was Nano diamonds wrapped in gold. Now its pure metallic composite.

Two weeks ago it was food grade oil. Now it is petrolatum. While that is edible, most of us would not consider it food.

A composite is two or more things, so what exactly is pure?

What possible value is there in blending a nano diamond lube into a contact cleaner?  This whole story sounds completely made up, just like all the impossible claims you made for your lubrication product, totally made up.

I don't know who Krissy is, but I hope she has the resources to sue you.

Hey, how is your buddy Chris St. Claire doing these days? I see his product all over the place.

@whostolethebatmobile , stop trying to look like you know what you are talking about.

In the very best conductor surfaces, you are talking surface roughness 200+ nm. With audio connectors, I expect 2+uM. Nanodiamonds are <10nm, so we are talking at least 260+ stacked to fill in the voids (they are round), and that is assuming 100% material, but this is an oil carrier with indeterminate active material, so who knows what you will get. What you won't get is any improvement in conductivity beyond maybe, just maybe, some whiping of an oxide layer, but ... for that you would be much better off with something larger and angular as these would not cut through the oxide layer .. it's a fail all around.

Two lab tests today have proven of great value, and that certain people here refuse to believe what is true no matter what evidence is presented, would not believe what happened nor have any interest in what I say anyway.

@nano-flo ,

YOU mean two tests that may or may not have occurred. Given that you are not posting any results or anything I will just assume that no tests occurred. Words are meaningless. Published results with details of the test are.  Having never published any other validated data on any of your other products, I cannot give you the benefit of the doubt. It would not be prudent.

Your post is bizarre.

If you are using component video @theaudiotweak that makes a lot more sense. I had a high end monitor that was really finicky pre-hdmi. I think it had a termination issue. You had to make sure the cables came straight out the back and away from what I assumed was the power supply location otherwise you would get a distinctive softening that would move across the screen. Tried several sets of cables and it never went away. Ditched the monitor eventually.

Never experienced glare in my digital. Maybe you need a new digital source or something is broken?

@holmz  - I only wish that was true.

Testing proved this, and the director saw something that made him ask if it was a superconductor. 

Publish results here with details or it didn't happen. You just come across as a charlatan. Sure he asked it if was a superductor. Do those lies work normally?

Pressure in electrical contacts is low. This is an area I know very well. Remember, actual materials scientist.

Personally, I wouldn’t trust anyone marketing anything "nano" who does not have a good handle on what "nano" is. (or math).  Again, from eBay:

A word about nano. Nano means billionth. Ten to the negative 12th.

High art @ghasley . This is not Chris' first kick at the can. He has gained experience from bamboozling in the automotive and general lubricants business too. From your playbook some similar mistakes were made. Personally if I see some make impossible claims for one product they sell I don't give them the them the benefit of the doubt on another I hold them to even greater standards.

I have been following this thread for the last week. Often read Audiogon over the years. Never felt the need to post, but this is just too good of an opportunity.

Did it ever occur to even one of you that Diamond is not a electrical conductor. It is an electrical insulator. Not just an insulator, but a very good insulator. Even in small spherical sizes.  

I would have real doubts about a nano scale diamond ball lubricant too. Diamond can be an excellent low friction surface, when both surfaces are coated with diamond. Things won't "roll" on nanoscale diamond balls. The balls would just dig into the surface.

I have to say, I loved some of the stuff from his website. The mechanics, and other mechanically inclined people may find some humor:

Drastic Plastic Nitro Fuel Dragster IL Tom Motry's race car rose from 6000HP to an estimated 8000HP after service.

That's some amazing breaking of the laws for thermodynamics.

But wait

Joe Manderino, (the head of maintenance) talked me into treating his 400HP Camaro, which afterward pulled its first wheelie ever of 6 inches off the ground, and beat a 750HP Chevelle in the quarter mile. On Joes third pass the Camaro pulled the wheels off the ground by 3 feet without a wheelie bar. 

Does anyone want to tell the creator of this story what the wheelie bar is for?

Of course, you have to feel for the misunderstood inventor (emphasis mine)

VanGuard Pai Lung, Inc. industrial knitting machines NC.  They were to be our pathway to world distribution in the textile industry. Use of our novel nanomaterial allowed them to extend mill warranty from 6 months to TWO years and forced the mills to run faster, smoother, cooler and quieter without wear. BTW, their volume of service calls plummeted as profits skyrocketed. I wish them nothing but love, but we are not interested in helping them further.

But strange, all these first hand accounts, but never a few bucks paid for ASTM-D6425 testing (or similar) a common process for high pressure lubricants.

I do love the chutzpah of the price list, a few extracted here ...

• $1,500,000.00 Locomotive equivalent of steam or diesel (call for review of service specifics) Immediate and permanent emission reduction and lower fuel costs
• $5,000,000.00 Swing or Draw Bridge 
• $25,000,000.00 Sea Cargo Vessel or Cruse Line Ship (stern to bow wear protection) 

Of course, with a product that will take your SEMI from 5 to 8.5 MPG (no, really they make that claim), the prices seem like a bargain.

Normally you test the product then you sell it.

My crystal ball tell me that one of the following will happen:

1. There will be no results published
2. You will have to sign and NDA to get the results (that should be public)
3. The results won’t be very good, but lots of excuses will be made
4. The results will be published in a way such that the experiment is highly questionable and cannot be replicated. I.e. all the critical information required in typical test such as this will be missing so as to make the results meaningless.

I am guessing 1 or 4 based on a history of his other products where no meaningful test results have been provided, what is provided is not really interpretable or usable due to lack of data, or excuses have been made why it is unavailable.

Who am I? It is really unimportant, I am just a rather intelligent guy with a materials science background who can tell you are making it up as you go.

I can also tell when someone is bamboozling, like where you say, "Some people claim it is like a room temperature superconductor", and claim there could be validity to that (there isn't), but then you put out something like this which clearly you don't understand and is contradictory,

If anyone is interested in putting this curious attack to an end - look up Type II-B diamond and now you have a slice of my secret,

Type II-B occurs naturally, but that is rather meaningless as we grow II-B all the time as diffusing boron in diamond, just like some other materials, turns it into a semiconductor.  However, semiconductors are very poor conductors unless they have an appropriate fields, and then there is the issue of the band-gap. The band gap for II-B boron infused diamond if 5.5ev, which is very high. That means virtually no semiconductor action, hence no conductivity at a metal-metal I/F of connectors where the voltage differential is in the millivolts.  You have obviously picked up some stuff along the way like all good "promoters" but you are lacking the underlying knowledge that goes with the words and terms you are using.

However, this is all quite meaningless babble. If it increases conductivity, it can be proven in about 15 seconds with a simple test.So where is the test and please no excuses. There are no trade secrets revealed from test results.

Oh, if I want II-B boron diffused diamond, I could make my own, I have access to CVD equipment. Nano particle gold, also dead simple to access and I even have contacts who have a patent on a process that does not use certain nasty chemicals. Nano particle gold underpins a very high volume very important medical device ...

It clarifies that you are making it up as you go, that's okay, I have been working on my side a long time and have seen many a claim come and go, most from actual material scientists. I am looking forward to your entertaining us with what your cable does "better".

Unfortunately, we have only ourselves to blame for stuff like this. As a community, we have allowed hucksters to claim whatever they want, with 0 proof, while spouting our dogmatic "trust our ears". We deserve what we get:

Note: he even ripped off the term "Perfect Path"

https://www.ebay.com/itm/154936890468

Now I am Krissy whoever that is? What an a-- . Another standard tactic. Can’t defend against the smart guy so make up an attack. I don’t know if you are totally deceitful or unbalanced.

I guarantee there will be no "EE" report next week or it will be so vague or poorly described to be meaningless.

@holmz unfortunately it is painfully obvious why Chris, after having wrung all the dollars he could from the 200MPG carburettor crowd is now targeting audiophiles.

The information is readily available that diamond is an insulator but people want to believe in magic, hence the 200MPG carburettor even though this little thing called thermodynamics revealed it would not work.

It is like the little kid and the stove, except some people keep touching the stove even after being burned.

With someone claiming, without hesitation, that a contact enhancer increased their audible volume or dynamic range is it any surprise these charlatans exist?

I would like to assume you are kidding.

After nanoflo completion I tried a TV in an adjacent room that runs off the mains fuse and the picture was sharper and brighter than before, had to tone sharpness and colour down a bit.

NanoFlo tm blind test produced a 100% success rating!

Chris, care to share the testing methodology for the blind tests?

Can’t wait to see the fuses...

Can I interest anyone in swamp land in Florida?

There will be no properly done blind testing, there will no properly done electrical testing. It’s the same as his snake oil claims w.r.t. automotive, like vehicles increasing in HP 30%, or fuel economy going from 5mpg to 8mpg for a semi. Anyone with a hint of thermodynamics or who knows the difference between fluid and contact lubrication/resistance will understand these claims are science fiction.

The only "test" that appears to have had any sort of control showed about 1.9% improvement, which is actually tolerable but can me matched by regular lubricants. For some reason, that result was quickly pulled. Strange huh?

Something tells me the leopard has not changed his spots and I would not jump in the cage with him .... he sees you as "food grade".

From Ebay,

A word about nano. Nano means billionth. Ten to the negative 12th. Most so-called “nano” products are actually micro (ten to the negative 9th) or even milli (ten to the negative 6th). NanoFlo™ is true nano. A thousand to ten thousand times smaller. The surface area available for conducting the audio signal is exponentially greater with NanoFlo™ than any other material currently available on the market. THIS IS THE SECRET TO ITS OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE!

I must say this site continues to be a treasure of strange behavior. There are some political discussions going on where I am sure you can offer "enlightening" additions to the dialog if you feel the need to go off on a tangent. When you are obviously susceptible to conspiracy theories I don't think you should be passing judgment on other's mental health.

oh boy ....

Oh come on @tsushima1 , you didn't really think there would be any published test results, at least not that would stand up to any scrutiny did you?  I admit it, I am clairvoyant predicting in previous posts there would be no test results. The gift runs in the family.

@whitefishpoint1175 Not spending alot of energy on this but it does help distract from thoughts of over-snacking, which itself took the place of nicotine many, many years ago.

Covid weight ... say no more, say no more.

@tommylion,

Lots of things do that. They generally are backed by real genius, and real science, sometimes art, and sometimes just unexpected common sense.

In the case of this product, all I saw was a huckster with a long history of simply impossible claims looking for his latest marks.

No, I make the analysis the claims are invalid, because diamond is an insulator, then after I brought this up, the "inventor" tried to claim it was boron doped diamond which is a semiconductor which would still in a contact location be an insulator, and after that was raised, he tried to say the diamond balls were covered with gold .... it was quite obviously he was making it up as he went along. Then big claims about physical properties that a high school student could measure but which he had not.  The previous history of the inventor was one of lying. That is a big red flag for me. It should be for anyone.

@whostolethebatmobile ,

I assume those numbers did not mean anything to you.

Within the context of a contact enhancer, they absolutely are absolutely always insulators. Sans atmospheric moisture, they are for all intents and purposes, an excellent insulator. Even with atmospheric moisture, they are still about a Billion times less conductive as a bulk material compared to copper. I generally think of something a billion times less conductive than copper as an insulator.

@whostolethebatmobile ,

Early in this thread (or earlier) I gave some of my background which is solid state physics current working on materials science for batteries and previously semiconductors. I won’t bore you with my degrees.

This is the problem when charlatans and good intentioned reference things they lack the background to understand. Diamond is an insulator. Detonantion diamonds even with a carbon layer, or gold surface treatment (they are working on that to improve lateral flow tests -- think Covid rapid tests), are still poor conductors. The conductive layer is thin compared to the bulk. Most of the conductivity comes from surface area, though in plastics you have different mechanisms.

A more appropriate article to reference is this one:

Conductivity of detonation microdiamond under pressure

The initial electrical conductivities were 2.5 × 10⁻⁵ and 2.5 × 10⁻⁷ Ohm⁻¹ cm⁻¹ under atmospheric conditions and in vacuo, respectively,

Note that higher value is from absorbing water (hard to do in oil).

Other studies showed even larger variation

The G value changed from 10⁻¹² to 10⁻⁵ Ohm⁻¹·cm⁻¹ at relative humidity range from 0% to 95%.

Since you are educating me on nanodiamonds and conductivity, perhaps you could relate these numbers to how they compare to copper?

Does it occur to people that there are people who understand these things in detail, certainly far better than some internet charlatan?

I will state my qualifications again with more detail. I have a PhD in solid state physics and work predominantly in material sciences and have worked in the semiconductor industry and now battery industry. If you consider that a call to authority, good, it was.

Posting links to things you don’t understand and/or quoting things you don’t understand (and are ultimately irrelevant) are not moving this discussion forward. It is akin to all the Internet epidemiologists trying to justify their lack of being vaccinated by posting case rate data that demonstrated nothing more than their inability to put into practice basic math.

All these posts illustrate is a lack of understanding of relative conductivity, and how semiconductors operate, not to mention a lack of effort and research skills to discover that boron doped diamond becomes a superconductor at temperatures <= 10 KELVIN,

This place is so crazy I don't even know if you are joking or not ....

Correct mapman, but anyone with some basic research skills can research that boron doped diamond is not superconducting till <10K. Anyone can research the conductivity of detonation diamond nano structures and see they are vastly less conductive than copper or similar metals. They see the charlatan claim a 5mpg to 8mpg increase for a truck (maybe it was 5.5mpg) and do some basic research on vehicle contact and fluid friction losses and know that is impossible. They can learn a bit about thermodynamics and contact and fluid friction losses and know that his massive horsepower claim for a dragster is impossible. They can see his claim that the owner of a company died due to claimed carcinogen in his product and know that this is not a good person. They see the claim that he would provide test results be reneged on and know he cannot be trusted. They can investigate surface roughness of connector and similar contacts and make some educated guesses about what it would take to fill those gaps to improve conductivity.

My statements hold up not because I have the qualifications to back them up, but because everything I said in the last paragraph is true and easily researched and verified. Some of it was easy for me because of my background so I see the numbers and know what they mean without further research, but nothing beyond someone determined to learn.

And yet I show above where he claims part of the formula is diamonds ... imagine that.

Do you have a patent number of a link to the patent?

@tommylion,

You are posting on a forum. Everything you get in return is by definition solicited as you are putting it out there for public comment. I think most people don't appreciate being lied to. I think most people don't appreciate people defending charlatans.

What was the name of the product you used @theaudiotweak ?

Daytime television level @audioguy85 

Wow, @soarnatti , I wish I did look that up. That my be the worst patent I have ever read. There is a reason why you hire a patent lawyer if you don't know how to write one yourself. All kinds of ramblings about lubrication, but then nothing in the claims about lubrication. Then you look at the claims below. 0.1nm and 2nm are encompassed by  0.01 and 10nm. 

There could be something in this patent, but any lawyer or other scientist could not just drive a truck through it, but a whole convoy.

3. The process of claim 1, wherein the spherical nanodiamond particles have diameters between about 0.01 and about 10 nm.

4. The process of claim 1, wherein the spherical nanodiamond particles have diameters between about 0.1 nm and about 2 nm.

As an outsider who does not get all the insider soap opera stuff, I must say, there are some vivid imaginations in this thread. Is anyone's stereo powered by a perpetual motion machine?

Speaking of weird ....