John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 2803 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 8th October 2012, 02:41 PM   #28021
RNMarsh is offline RNMarsh  United States
diyAudio Member
 
RNMarsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: 2457 Cascade Trail; Cool, CA. 95614
Default Keep about 1 inch away

Quote:
Originally Posted by fas42 View Post
What distance from steel reduces the effect to audibly zero? Find that, make a cube of thin steel with double those dimensions and use spacers to position the components to be in the middle of the cube.

May look awkward, but certainly cheaper ... !

Frank
The answere is about 2-3 cm distance -- signal carrying wires from ferrous metals. -RNM
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th October 2012, 03:10 PM   #28022
diyAudio Member
 
jneutron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: away
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpapag View Post
Jneutron
I really hadnít noticed this part of your post.
I am surprised that I see H and B changing roles.
That's because I normally work air and non ferrous. Sorry bout that..

You are indeed being more accurate. For a magnetic circuit, such as a gapped core, H will indeed be constant through the loop, whereas B will be dependent on mu..

j
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th October 2012, 05:47 PM   #28023
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
Well, it seems that no affordable 'breakthroughs' have been made with shielding. Kind of disappointing, but it might reinstate why the CTC Blowtorch preamp cases were so thick and made with aluminum. Copper or silver would cost much more, of course.
To understand or estimate shielding thickness, shielding articles or reference books by OTT are very useful, for people who want to understand WHY aluminum shielding has to be so relatively thick.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th October 2012, 06:11 PM   #28024
diyAudio Member
 
Steve Eddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
To understand or estimate shielding thickness, shielding articles or reference books by OTT are very useful, for people who want to understand WHY aluminum shielding has to be so relatively thick.
Simple. The permeability of aluminum is about the same as that of air, so it can only shield against magnetic fields through eddy current losses. The thicker the material, the greater the losses.

se
__________________
The Audio Guild
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th October 2012, 06:22 PM   #28025
diyAudio Member
 
jneutron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: away
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post
Simple. The permeability of aluminum is about the same as that of air, so it can only shield against magnetic fields through eddy current losses. The thicker the material, the greater the losses.

se
Yabut...do you really understand...

It's only been stated about a bazillion times here..

j
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th October 2012, 06:24 PM   #28026
S.A.G. is offline S.A.G.  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Milano
John,

for an "out of the box" approach to chassis and enclosure design you may want to have a look at what HP did in the 90's here:

http://www.hpl.hp.com/hpjournal/94aug/aug94a2.pdf

Should be affordable even to DIYers...

Regards

Giorgio
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th October 2012, 06:37 PM   #28027
bcarso is offline bcarso  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canoga Park, California
Wavebourn mentioned the notion of multiple perforated nonferrous nested shields a while back. Has any one had experience with those, or is in a position to analyze their effectiveness?

Of course for magnetic fields the most important thing is loop area. After that is made as small as practicable, orientation and distance. With a given piece though, once the best job is done with the internals, one is at the mercy of the end user.

The sense of value conveyed by the mass of the equipment is also quite significant to the end user's perceptions. I recall a business associate hefting a small powered loudspeaker and openly scoffing at how light it was. He had not heard of neodymium magnets and judged things from his experience with ceramic or alnico magnet motors.

I will say that having heavier speakers does help to prevent them from bouncing around as much. I'm about to use double-sticky tape on some ones on my desktop in lieu of weighting them down with tungsten.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th October 2012, 07:02 PM   #28028
diyAudio Member
 
Steve Eddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron View Post
Yabut...do you really understand...
Don't need to understand it. Just have to have the right books sitting on my bookshelf.

se
__________________
The Audio Guild
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th October 2012, 07:42 PM   #28029
diyAudio Member
 
jneutron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: away
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.A.G. View Post
John,

for an "out of the box" approach to chassis and enclosure design you may want to have a look at what HP did in the 90's here:

http://www.hpl.hp.com/hpjournal/94aug/aug94a2.pdf

Should be affordable even to DIYers...

Regards

Giorgio
From the looks of it, that packaging doesn't shield magnetically, nor even electric field shielding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcarso View Post
Wavebourn mentioned the notion of multiple perforated nonferrous nested shields a while back. Has any one had experience with those, or is in a position to analyze their effectiveness?
Use ferrous nesting. Layers of ferrous material will behave anisotropically.

The layers closest to the source will try their darndest to divert the field through that layer. Gaps of mu=1 will tend to isolate the steel layers. If you had 50% packing factor of sheets mu=1000 with equal thickness paper sheets, then the effective mu along the sheets would be 500, but normal to the sheets it's very close to 1.(well, 2).

But one of the biggest offenders with respect to chassis is control of the current paths.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post
Don't need to understand it. Just have to have the right books sitting on my bookshelf.

se
Got that right..

How's it goin steve?

jn

Last edited by jneutron; 8th October 2012 at 08:04 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th October 2012, 09:31 PM   #28030
diyAudio Member
 
Steve Eddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron View Post
Got that right..

How's it goin steve?
Busy busy busy. You?

se
__________________
The Audio Guild
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:14 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2