John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
As I have said before, why does not this wonderful component only apear for sale on esoteric aduio sites, why has it not been used in other circuitry...why cant I buy them at RS, and why have they not been used on projects I have worked on where the noise suppression capabilities would be a great benefit...
 
As I have said before, why does not this wonderful component only apear for sale on esoteric aduio sites, why has it not been used in other circuitry...why cant I buy them at RS, and why have they not been used on projects I have worked on where the noise suppression capabilities would be a great benefit...

I am afraid that conventional measurements and conventional users cannot get the spirit of the part ...;)
 
Hello John, in this post http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/lounge/156700-jack-bybee-naq-never-asked-questions-5.html#post2015304 the following image is provided.
150526d1260990228-jack-bybee-naq-never-asked-questions-bybee.jpg

Could you please explain the test conditions and equipment.
The note on the image states that IMD is 'gone'.
Is this reduction in distortions what you and others subjectively perceive in high quality audio equipment, and what is the effect of the Bybee device in lesser quality 'mid-fi' systems.
Do you (or others) have any multitone IMD measurement results that you are able to provide please.
Passive IMD reduction in typical audio gear if true, would appear to be highly significant !.

Thanks, Dan.
edit: I note that there is a span of 17 seconds between measurements. Unless a superconducting nanosecond hypersonic soldering iron was used (can't provide details, the technology is classified but available from digikey), the test was clearly performed using either a switch hardwired in, or the wires were just wrapped by hand. So how can one be sure the results are not simply a consequence of bad layout habits forced by the quick change?

A few questions.
1. Why is the power sine clipped on the bottom?
2. Where was the device placed?
3. What kind of resistor was it? Is it a wirewound?
4. While the measurement is neutral to ground, which conductor has the hf signal? IOW, is it the safety ground or neutral which is picking up the signal.
5. Where was the voltage picked up? At the IEC, or at the wall outlet?
6. If neutral current were being measured, would this be visible?
7. If hot and neutral were both run through a toroid a few turns, would a pickup winding see this...IOW, is the setup producing a ground current.

The measurements provided are too simplistic to be of use in discerning what has changed.

Well, this is certainly not something you can try at home...
Why not? LN2 is available at welding supply houses, so any MgB2 or bsco conductor would suffice.

jn
 
Last edited:
A few questions.
1. Why is the power sine clipped on the bottom?
2. Where was the device placed?
3. What kind of resistor was it? Is it a wirewound?
4. While the measurement is neutral to ground, which conductor has the hf signal? IOW, is it the safety ground or neutral which is picking up the signal.
5. Where was the voltage picked up? At the IEC, or at the wall outlet?
6. If neutral current were being measured, would this be visible?
7. If hot and neutral were both run through a toroid a few turns, would a pickup winding see this...IOW, is the setup producing a ground current.

All of these questions have been asked before and John has declined to answer them.

Don't fall into the same trap I did- this isn't technology, it's performance art.
 
PMA, the graphs that I put up on the Bybee device, were done at AMES RESEARCH CENTER, here in Silicon Valley, CA about 20 years ago. They were done with a special line noise measurement instrument that was initially specified by Jack Bybee in his early commentaries about the purifier, so that people could verify the results, themselves, IF THEY CHOSE TO. It has been so long ago, even I have forgotten the specific test equipment specified. I can dig it up and put it up here, but for what reason?
I KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN, as it has happened so many times before, and it is an insult to Jack Bybee, and also to me, as I am his friend and colleague. That is why I do not like to bring it up, here.
 
Last edited:
It is too bad that you don't actually read my inputs on this device, JN, or most of your questions would have been answered. There were a series of tests made on the 'purifier' and I have not put the others up, because they only show ABSENCE of capacitance or inductance, rather than anything interesting. I was not there, nor did I know Jack Bybee when these tests were run. I copied them off and kept them, about 15 years ago.
After your 'criticisms' of Dr. Hawksford's measurements, I hardly think it useful for you to harass AMES Research Center as well for their test methods and approach.
 
All of these questions have been asked before and John has declined to answer them.

Don't fall into the same trap I did- this isn't technology, it's performance art.

It may indeed be performance art. However, given actual scope information which shows a difference, the questions beg to be asked, is the difference really there, and if so, is it a result of a poor test setup or the result of the lumped elements placed in series with the circuit?

IOW, if I place a suitable lossy inductor in series with the supply stuff, will I duplicate what was seen? Is it necessary to use a lossy ferrite, or do I use sufficiently thick copper wire that when it proximities, losses climb? Did the bybee proximity such that 6th harmonic is evident? What, no spectral analysis??

The neutral to ground voltage has too much 60 hz content and not enough 3rd. The test setup is a shambles. It matters not how high falutin the equipment is, it needs to be done right..

jn
 
It may indeed be performance art. However, given actual scope information which shows a difference, the questions beg to be asked, is the difference really there, and if so, is it a result of a poor test setup or the result of the lumped elements placed in series with the circuit?

When unexplained charts are posted with no detail on test methods or setup, and questions to pin down what the measurements are and what they mean are deflected with a sneer, you may safely go back to the planet Earth and let the performance art play out. Logic and evidence have no place here. "Facts" have already been dismissed by John as irrelevant.

I'll be kind and not refer to it as "fraud"; it really is performance art, Karen Finley without the chocolate.
 
It is too bad that you don't actually read my inputs on this device, JN, or most of your questions would have been answered.
I've never seen you answer many of my technical questions. I guess this is another of those episodes?
After your 'criticisms' of Dr. Hawksford's measurements, I hardly think it useful for you to harass AMES Research Center as well for their test methods and approach.

My discussions of Malcolm's analytical approach, the poor test methodology, and the contrived results stand by themselves. ALL the high level engineers and physicists I know of who examined his non peer reviewed magazine article agree with my assessment. I raised valid methodology errors, yet Malcolm "stands by his results", and you cheerlead.

As to "Ames Research Center", when it comes to actual testing using actual hardware, remember the phrase "GIGO"...Garbage in, garbage out. My questions arise as a result of rather significant experience on my part.

One of the most difficult things to do is measure voltage and current in very low impedance circuits at high dI/dt. Malcolm messed that up, and it appears Jack did too.

I can envision how a wirewound covered in a lossy material can alter signals, the use of a lumped element here is not sufficient in modelling as a result. I seek knowledge, don't divert as you normally do.

jn
 
Now, I have to laugh! JN you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. '-)

If by that, you mean pay no attention to the fact that the ac waveform is clipping, and that a low impedance circuit has a switch wired into it but yet ignore that as well.....

No, don't be silly.

From the waveform, I guess we can assume that Ames Research Center is incapable of measuring a 120 volt sine wave?

jn

ps...my questions are what good engineers with lots of experience ask. Why is it you did not ask them, and why is it Jack did not?
 
Last edited:
I thought you would say that. So the BQP doesn't actually do anything which a low value resistor would not do.


More quantum smoke blown in our eyes, unless you can show us the relevance of that paper to the BQP.

We were there last time, a little ground up nanotube stuff is supposedly "in the mix". Of course the paper has nothing to do with the macroscopic properties of a random pile of CNT's, but it does provide a smokescreen.
 
Perceived Noise Floor...

Copied from another thread...
The Bybee devices appear to reduce a certain kind of 1/f related modulation noise. This means that you have to have signal, to measure the noise, not just a static noise measurement, and apparently the ear (at least from my experience) is sensitive enough to hear the difference. It is darn difficult to measure, but apparently still possible with the right test conditions, even with my out-of-date HP3563.
Let me explain the problem. Most testing for noise does not require a signal present, so you just measure the Johnson or 1/f noise generated from the resistance or other sources. This does not bring out the noise that the Bybee addresses. Only with a signal, that then, has to be removed almost completely, does the noise difference show up on test instruments. The ear apparently does this naturally. Of course, many think that the ear can't hear such things. Oh well. Back to your zip cord.
Somewhere recently I read a paper discussing the concept of music noise floor, as opposed to absolute noise floor...Perhaps someone here can refresh me.
Reading between the lines it seems that the BQP helps to improve this perceived noise floor.
I have read varying reviews of the subjective effects....some negative, some positive, but all reviews do describe subjective changes.

Ok some questions...

- Who participating in this discussion thread have direct experience of BQP.

- Of those, has anybody done a 'Diffmaker" comparison, and what was the magnitude wrt the original signal of the derived difference.

- Ditto, what was the nature of the sound of the difference signal

Thanks, Dan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.