None of the above!
It's Chakra. The actual full mantra is Ooh Khah Chakra..... Bjorn Skifs was greatly influenced by the Beatles excursions into Eastern religion and was studying with SWAMI PARAMPREM at the time this cover of B.J. Thomas's 1969 "Hooked on a Feeling" was recorded. I believe I read it in his biography but I am not sure.
It's Chakra. The actual full mantra is Ooh Khah Chakra..... Bjorn Skifs was greatly influenced by the Beatles excursions into Eastern religion and was studying with SWAMI PARAMPREM at the time this cover of B.J. Thomas's 1969 "Hooked on a Feeling" was recorded. I believe I read it in his biography but I am not sure.
Re: Exercise caution in your daily affairs
Then where is it?
Whitlock says that when the two conductors are equidistant from the source, then the voltage across them due to magnetic field interference will be identical. But the measurements indicate that there's no voltage across them. Either differentially or common-mode.
Whitlock also implies that a varying magnetic field will induce a voltage across just a length of wire. So I took the first loop (the one without the resistors) and clipped off one end so there was just two parallel conductors spaced 7/8" apart.
I situated them so that one conductor was right up against the one leg of the current loop and the other was 7/8" away from it, which if Whitlock's implication is correct should have produced a sizeable differential voltage between the two.
Nada.
So it appears that the following statement is absolutely correct:
Noise induced by varying magnetic fields will be differential and not rejected by a balanced circuit, which rejects common mode noise.
There will be either a differential voltage, or there will be no voltage (i.e. when theta equals 90 degrees).
So in terms of noise induced into the cable by way of magnetic field coupling, it wouldn't matter whether the interface is balanced or unbalanced. The induced voltage will be differential and will be passed on by either type of interface.
So if one is using long runs of interconnects and is worried about magnetic field coupling to the cable, then it seems there's no use worrying about whether you're using balanced or unbalanced inputs and outputs, the noise induced into the cable by way of magnetic field coupling will be a function of the cable.
se
Fred Dieckmann said:
Then where is it?
Whitlock says that when the two conductors are equidistant from the source, then the voltage across them due to magnetic field interference will be identical. But the measurements indicate that there's no voltage across them. Either differentially or common-mode.
Whitlock also implies that a varying magnetic field will induce a voltage across just a length of wire. So I took the first loop (the one without the resistors) and clipped off one end so there was just two parallel conductors spaced 7/8" apart.
I situated them so that one conductor was right up against the one leg of the current loop and the other was 7/8" away from it, which if Whitlock's implication is correct should have produced a sizeable differential voltage between the two.
Nada.
So it appears that the following statement is absolutely correct:
Noise induced by varying magnetic fields will be differential and not rejected by a balanced circuit, which rejects common mode noise.
There will be either a differential voltage, or there will be no voltage (i.e. when theta equals 90 degrees).
So in terms of noise induced into the cable by way of magnetic field coupling, it wouldn't matter whether the interface is balanced or unbalanced. The induced voltage will be differential and will be passed on by either type of interface.
So if one is using long runs of interconnects and is worried about magnetic field coupling to the cable, then it seems there's no use worrying about whether you're using balanced or unbalanced inputs and outputs, the noise induced into the cable by way of magnetic field coupling will be a function of the cable.
se
The baby made me do it!
"Interesting. Makes sense."
I'm sorry, it was a complete fabrication...... I just wanted in on some of the DB fun. No harm or malice intended. Maybe it was a bit intricate in details for a joke.
I believe your interference source has an electric field also and some common mode noise can be received by such things as imbalance in the common mode rejection of your test set up.
Again... Sorry,
Fred
"Interesting. Makes sense."
I'm sorry, it was a complete fabrication...... I just wanted in on some of the DB fun. No harm or malice intended. Maybe it was a bit intricate in details for a joke.
I believe your interference source has an electric field also and some common mode noise can be received by such things as imbalance in the common mode rejection of your test set up.
Again... Sorry,
Fred
Re: The baby made me do it!
Hahahaha! Was it? Well it was a good fabrication. Had just the right balance of plausibility and a shadow of doubt.
Oh I can see how you can get a common-mode voltage from an ELECTRIC FIELD (i.e. capacitive coupling). But the issue in question has been about magnetic fields (i.e. inductive coupling). And thus far I can find no evidence that magnetic fields induce anything but a differential voltage in the cable.
Don't be. I enjoyed it. Thanks.
se
Fred Dieckmann said:
Hahahaha! Was it? Well it was a good fabrication. Had just the right balance of plausibility and a shadow of doubt.
Oh I can see how you can get a common-mode voltage from an ELECTRIC FIELD (i.e. capacitive coupling). But the issue in question has been about magnetic fields (i.e. inductive coupling). And thus far I can find no evidence that magnetic fields induce anything but a differential voltage in the cable.
Don't be. I enjoyed it. Thanks.
se
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.