AVE...
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem...
Indeed, a resistor covered with bulls***t claims. Why are you so reluctant do admit that this purifier is a hoax? Are you selling them or what?
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem...
Respectfully- the more you try to defend yourself with lack of true evidence, the more you confirm the Bybee is a resistor and nothing more.
SY: in my mind you have done one of two things-
1. Confirmed the Bybee is a fraud.
2. Forced Jack to reveal the facts on his top secret invention in order to keep selling them at any reasonable volume. Subjectivity be damned.
Sure, there is a sucker born every minute, but having a large forum like DIYA helps educate the masses. I sincerely hope the sales on this product fall into the abyss.
What I showed is a low pass filter without the resistive loss normally found in such filters. For example an AC IEC cord with connectors attached from my measurement is about .185 ohms. The AC service to a typical outlet is .1 ohms (.3 maximum as per NEC Code.) As the AC current draw from a linear power supply is typically (from my measurements) about 4x the average current and only drawn at the peak of the AC voltage cycle, where the top is already a bit flat due to other electronic loads. So the .285 ohms behaves as 1.14 ohms. A stereo 120 watt amplifier that is 60% efficient will draw a peak current of 13.33 amps! So there would be a power loss of 6%, just due to the power wiring.
If I wish to add a noise filter to my incoming power line that would add resistance to the AC power path. My measurement of a filter that is sized for the above 120 watt stereo amplifier showed it added .2 ohms of resistance.
So which filter would you rather have in line with your amplifier? One that causes 2.2% power loss or this version which would cause .033% loss?
A second use could be as a filter coming out of a device such as a CD player. A properly sized filter should have no effect on the audio but should keep any EMI from the digital circuits causing problems down the road.
So why did I show this circuit. Well from what I have seen it resembles a Bybee Device turned inside out. Does Bybee really have some magic metal coating instead of plain copper? Does the Bybee even act as a low pass filter? I don't know.
Sy did a reasonable number of tests that showed no difference between a Bybee and a resistor. Did he find any differences?
At some level even two resistors show some differences.
What I learned was that my gizmo actually provided a useful basis for a low pass filter (assuming some source impedance.) I was surprised that it actually had a useful amount of loss! I also found that looking at the spectrum was not useful to me. My RF spectrum analyzer was not sensitive enough to measure the device with my light bulb noise source. My audio FFT did not really go high enough. My best results were with a digital scope used to store a single pass of noise.
Now if someone wants to tell me adding such a filter to their audio system in some way improves it, that is fine with me. If they tell me it makes no difference that is okay also.
Now why does a light bulb make noise and what is the upper frequency limit of the noise? Why is keeping noise out of audio equipment a good idea?
If I wish to add a noise filter to my incoming power line that would add resistance to the AC power path. My measurement of a filter that is sized for the above 120 watt stereo amplifier showed it added .2 ohms of resistance.
So which filter would you rather have in line with your amplifier? One that causes 2.2% power loss or this version which would cause .033% loss?
A second use could be as a filter coming out of a device such as a CD player. A properly sized filter should have no effect on the audio but should keep any EMI from the digital circuits causing problems down the road.
So why did I show this circuit. Well from what I have seen it resembles a Bybee Device turned inside out. Does Bybee really have some magic metal coating instead of plain copper? Does the Bybee even act as a low pass filter? I don't know.
Sy did a reasonable number of tests that showed no difference between a Bybee and a resistor. Did he find any differences?
At some level even two resistors show some differences.
What I learned was that my gizmo actually provided a useful basis for a low pass filter (assuming some source impedance.) I was surprised that it actually had a useful amount of loss! I also found that looking at the spectrum was not useful to me. My RF spectrum analyzer was not sensitive enough to measure the device with my light bulb noise source. My audio FFT did not really go high enough. My best results were with a digital scope used to store a single pass of noise.
Now if someone wants to tell me adding such a filter to their audio system in some way improves it, that is fine with me. If they tell me it makes no difference that is okay also.
Now why does a light bulb make noise and what is the upper frequency limit of the noise? Why is keeping noise out of audio equipment a good idea?
Zig, thanks for the kind words, but I doubt that anyone who would have fallen for this before would be dissuaded. Personally, I was more curious than anything else and quite disappointed by the mundane outcome.
Ed, in what way would this differ from using a few ferrite beads (or one of those ferrite clamps) here and there? Is it more efficacious?
Ed, in what way would this differ from using a few ferrite beads (or one of those ferrite clamps) here and there? Is it more efficacious?
I would like to point out that the ORIGINAL measurement made of the Bybee device, over 15 years ago showed a REDUCTION of AC noise as measured with an AC line analyzer. Yes, the measurement is subtle, BUT it is real. Jack stated that the measurement device was a BMI 8800. The measurement itself was 'dated' and calibrated. Seems real enough to me. What is missing? Not much, especially when SY develops a noise source developing Johnson noise (100K resistor) and not Excess noise. The Excess noise shown is AFTER the Bybee filter and in the test equipment, itself. At least, that is how I read it. The Bybee is NOT magic, it cannot lower noise of signal that does not pass through it, AND it ignores Johnson noise, no wonder there is no significant difference.
Stu,
In theory the ferrite beads should work at a lower frequency, but also over a limited frequency range, probably with a greater attenuation. They also may have more power limitations. But their effective load is not very linear. Then there is the problem with any DC offset causing either outright failure or noise (buzzing sound.)
Besides it is hard to make your own beads or adjust them for your design goals!
ES
That seems obvious.
Moreover, it has also been convincingly argued that it cannot lower noise of a signal that DOES pass through it either. So what's left then?
jan didden
Any chance you could repeat your noise measurement with a ferrite substituted for your macrame gadget?
Jan,
The answer is very clear it can improve your perception of a musical reproduction!
Personally I think Mr Bybee is serious about his offering, and find no reason for the personal attacks. Engineering issues are best settled with testing. Even though most folks understand it is impossible to prove a negative, Sy's results do not support the device's claims. But the possibility always exists, there is some aspect of their performance that has not yet been discovered.
ES
HMMMMMMMMM I just read Johns post.. What happened to the output of the PSU measurements that were taken from the CES2000(?) CD demo that Jack had loaned his original purifiers too??? I know it showed a clear reduction in noise on the Dc rails of the PS, but I don't know who took measurements or where they went to. I had a copy somewhere but I do believe a computer crash back in "04 wiped them, not sure> I'll look. PS.. Jan,(did you ever go thru the Bryston schems) Do you or John want to volunteer to look at some amp schems and help a non EE out to get it repaired and the gain structure fixed??lol Just to jog you memory.. John this it the guy in TN who helped Jack some in the beginning.
Sy,
I find this reply a bit baiting John. Excess noise today refers to noise that is current induced and above what should be expected from thermal noise. John is apparently using it to mean 1/f noise which with our knowledge of it's behavior we can clamp or reduce. That is not the same as eliminate.
Your results stand for what you showed and what you did. If you used a 1/f source and measured no change that would eliminate this chain of argument. Of course there will always be some test you did not perform, so there will always be some uncertainty.
Emotionality does not belong here, it is better expressed while listening to music.
ES
Ed: No emotionality intended (or felt). If you claim you're violating the Second Law, which is what John (like it or not) is saying, you'd better have some evidence. Damn good evidence, if you're claiming that your hifi gadget overturns a hundred+ years of well-established physics. What has been presented by John is exactly... nothing. Just more claims. No evidence.
Not for a while, I burned out my noise source light bulb running it hot enough to get pretty pictures. The replacement is much quieter. So I will need to find my wideband preamp before I can run more curves.
I have not had much luck using ferrite beads to remove radio stations from commercial sound systems. I have had the best results using AC line filters mad by Panasonic and sold by Digikey when I have had problems. The high current ones on speaker lines and the very smallest on microphone lines. They do affect the quality of the desired sound, but it sure is better than listening to Rush during a church service.
The next time I do an EMI service call I will try both just for fun.
I tried to explain this earlier, possibly in the other thread, but it might have been glossed over. The reduction in AC noise measured by the BMI 8800 is not due to the Bybee, and I guarantee you this test could not be repeated. If you like, I can let you use my Dranetz 656 or our PX5, both of which are similar instruments with better measurement capabilities. Whatever results were obtained, the test procedure was flawed (or fraud).
Any device that changed the AC noise in the manner shown (it was not subtle) by your waveform plots would have easily been measured by SY's procedure. You showed LP filter behavior in the kHz range. Plain and simple.
I challenge anyone to produce a passive LPF at 2 kHz without measurable L or C parameters. You are claiming magic if you consider your 15 year old test valid.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.