PS Audio Noise Harvester

Actually, an incandescent light bulb presents a resistive (non-reactive) load to the power line.

A parallel capacitor produces the same result (by different means) as a series inductor; they both increasingly attenuate increasingly higher frequencies -- the cap by shunting, and the choke by blocking.

For example, if C1 (from my drawing) were a 0.047 microfarad capacitor, its reactance at 60 Hz would be about 56 kilo-ohms, but its reactance at 6000 hz would be about 560 ohms -- 1% of its former value!

(And at 10 kHz, C1 would have a reactance of 338 ohms.)

Thus, the reactance of C1 decreases with a proportional increase in frequency. This is the basis of its high-frequency filtering action.
Right. Now what's the impedance of the noise source?

If the noise source impedance is equal to the reactance of the capacitor, then you get a reduction of ~3dB (1/2 the amplitude of the noise, that is.) If the noise source impedance is lower than the reactance of the capacitor, you get less reduction.

Only if the noise source impedance is equal to or higher than the reactance of C1 will you get a significant noise reduction on the line.

Now also note that the advertising video claims that the noise harvester will reduce interference caused by a dimmer on the same circuit. That noise has a primary frequency of 60Hz, plus a boatload of harmonics. By the time you get up to the 8000Hz range of the noise harvester, the amplitude of the harmonics will have dropped enormously. The proof of just how little energy there is up around 8kHz is that the blinky has visible pauses between flashes when the dimmer is on. A blinky powered on a AA battery that flashed at that speed would run for weeks if not months.

With the harvester having a reactance of 56Kohm at 60Hz, it isn't going to do you any good against the buzzing of the dimmer. You'll have noticed in the video that they don't have their speaker on at the same time the dimmer is on. Reason being that they know full well that the harvester is BS.
 
I have the same info you have. It's fairly obvious that the toroid is operating in step up mode, given the winding shown in the photo and realistic limits on the permeability.

By rectifying the output into a 4v load (or so) the reflected impedance in bridge conduction would be quite low at freqs >100khz. After the amplified "noise" has dropped below the diode bridge clamping level (determined by the cap/zener or whatever), the toroid is operating no load so you just have the winding inductance in a tank with the series caps. This would provide a slightly dampened response that appears to be about 8-10khz and is consistent with their waveforms. It looks like the scope picture was from the secondary after the high freq 10 v/v gain of the toroid.
This also lets them make the claim, legitimately though highly hyped, that the LED is dissipating harvested "noise."
Nope.

The scope pictures are supposed to be of the noise being reduced. One is (so Mr. McGowan claims) of the power line without the noise harvester, and the next is of the power line with the noise harvester.

As noted earlier, if the scope picture were from the power line you would see a clear curvature of the trace. The trace is - except for the spike - dead flat.

When this was pointed out to Mr. McGowan, he informed us that the scope pictures were made using a special filter that removed the 60Hz so that just the noise was visible. Technically, that's possible. No problem at all when you have a frequency separation as large as 60Hz and 8000Hz. It does, however, sound like an excuse. Neither the video nor the web site mention such a thing. They both refer to measurements of the power line. Mr. McGowan had also first tried to claim that triggering on the higher frequency noise would remove the lower frequency components from the trace. After he was told that this was not so he came up with the filter story. He also claimed that a scope could not measure powerline voltages as they were too high - more BS.

All of this ignores the PSAudio claim that the noise harvester would dissipate 8 watts of noise power through the LED. The complete device itself might waste that much power, but there's no way in heck that the LED is going to dissipate that much.
 
(And at 10 kHz, C1 would have a reactance of 338 ohms.)
Which is obviously not much of a load to a power line. Now we can speculate at the power line's impedance at 10 kHz, but it won't help the NH one bit because either it is low, in which case the NH poses very little load to the noise, or it is high, in which case it may lower the noise where it is plugged in, but then it will have little effect on other outlets.

At the very best it is a 50c capacitor in an expensive package.

I don't even think it can be used as a reliable noise indicator.

It is a scam.

Hans
 
Also the filtering, if any, is not instantaneous, the filtering is some distance from where the equipment is plug in.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Which is obviously not much of a load to a power line. Now we can speculate at the power line's impedance at 10 kHz, but it won't help the NH one bit because either it is low, in which case the NH poses very little load to the noise, or it is high, in which case it may lower the noise where it is plugged in, but then it will have little effect on other outlets.

At the very best it is a 50c capacitor in an expensive package.

I don't even think it can be used as a reliable noise indicator.

It is a scam.

Hans

Scam, yes.

Noise detector, yes.

Reliable noise detector, no. Its frequency range is too limited and there's no telling at what level it triggers.

Expensive POS for the gullible. Stated for the umpteenth time.
 
Expensive POS for the gullible. Stated for the umpteenth time.

Yep. Which was my exact thought when I started this thread. You did a great job in making this thread interesting again. Thanks!
 
Nope.

The scope pictures are supposed to be of the noise being reduced. One is (so Mr. McGowan claims) of the power line without the noise harvester, and the next is of the power line with the noise harvester.

As noted earlier, if the scope picture were from the power line you would see a clear curvature of the trace. The trace is - except for the spike - dead flat.

When this was pointed out to Mr. McGowan, he informed us that the scope pictures were made using a special filter that removed the 60Hz so that just the noise was visible. Technically, that's possible. No problem at all when you have a frequency separation as large as 60Hz and 8000Hz. It does, however, sound like an excuse. Neither the video nor the web site mention such a thing. They both refer to measurements of the power line. Mr. McGowan had also first tried to claim that triggering on the higher frequency noise would remove the lower frequency components from the trace. After he was told that this was not so he came up with the filter story. He also claimed that a scope could not measure powerline voltages as they were too high - more BS.

All of this ignores the PSAudio claim that the noise harvester would dissipate 8 watts of noise power through the LED. The complete device itself might waste that much power, but there's no way in heck that the LED is going to dissipate that much.

The toroid secondary approximates a 10x v/v gain combined with a high pass from the front end caps. This eliminates most all of the 60hz and explains the fairly high voltages of the "noise." When McGowan speaks of noise reduction he is clearly referring to the short peak, with principal freq components well over 100khz, which is reduced in amplitude. What he doesn't mention is an increase at 10khz when the secondary is no longer clamping and so it goes into a decaying sine wave.

As for dissipating 8 watts, of course the led can do that - briefly. Just not for long or at any significant duty cycle. In any case it's a poor use of terms and essentially meaningless. However, I agree that no significant fraction of the noise power is dissipated by the led.

It's not much different than just paralleling caps on the line - except less effective which is pathetic since a shunt filter is poor to start with.
 
It should be noted that they also have claimed that if your friends down the street or the block are using the vacum, computer or fridge that the NH would reduce all that noise coming in as well. I will find the exact quotes from PSAudio and pst them.

Does any one want more hi rez pics of the inside of the NH?
 
Well, if the thread's deceasing anyhow, I'm going to go ahead and edit my poem. From the reactions of several readers, I've realize I made a serious error, leaving the latter passages open to an alternate interpretation that rather muddles the point. The error is not having clearly distinguished between the "sun" the ship is falling into, and the distant "destination star" that was supposed to be the ship's originally intended destination.

So, herewith:

The Voyage of the U.S.S. Audioprise, 2nd Edition Recut
or
Clarity: The Final Frontier

"Engine room to Captain!" came the signal from below.
"There's been a wee disruption in the anti-matter flow.
The engine's down, the warp core's cracked, our force field's lost its force,
The life support is failing, and we're drifting off our course."

The Captain, seated in his chair, his bridge crew close at hand,
Alert to every detail that affected his command,
Received the news with stoic mien and educated ear,
Then spoke into the intercom to tell the Engineer:

"Scotty, your bass is terrible, it's lacking constitution.
It sounds like RF noise is causing loss of resolution.
Your soundstage is too narrow and your midranges sound masked.
Haven't you wrapped your mike cord up in rawhide like I asked?

"Aye, Sir, I have," said Scotty, "But that's not important now.
We need to find replacement parts and make repairs somehow.
The ship's computer's gone insane, diverting all our power,
And giant space amoebas will consume us in an hour."

The Captain turned his chair around to face the Science Station,
And said to Spock, "We need your help to solve this situation."
"Aye aye, Captain," said Spock. "I'm sure we have no need to fear.
Remember, Mr. Scott is nothing but an engineer."

"He knows just Basic Physics, which I mastered in a week.
We need Advanced Physics to find the answers that we seek.
I have no doubt, with my knowledge, our problem I'll unravel
By gazing in this viewport, which is focused on my navel."

"Good thinking, Spock," the Captain said, approval on his face.
"Your Vulcan lack-of-logic is a credit to your race."
"Indeed," said Spock. "From my perspective, it's a great unkown
How humans manage to survive being so logic-prone."

"Excuse me, Sir," Uhuru said, with all her usual poise.
"It's obvious to me that the whole problem must be noise.
Tell Mr. Scott to glue a jar of pebbles to his head,
And replace all of the fuses with link sausages instead."

"Thank you, Lieutenant," said the Captain. "Any more ideas?
How about you, Doctor, have you any panaceas?"
McCoy said, "Don't ask me, I'm sure old pointy-ears knows best.
I'm a doctor, not a poet, so I've nothing to suggest."

Just then, the Helmsman sat up straight, concern upon his brow.
"Six Klingons, in attack formation, off the starboard bow!"
"Red alert!" the Captain said. "Shields up, without delay.
Hey, why does the Red Alert sound thin, with such a long decay?"

"What Klingons?" said the Engineer, arriving on the scene.
"The scanners show no Klingons, and there's nothing on the screen."
The Captain said, "Why Mr. Scott, there's no need to be jealous.
Our senses convey more than your machines can ever tell us."

"Tha' makes na sense at all," said Scotty, tearing out his hair.
"If scanners show no Klingons, then there be nae Klingons there!
The viewscreen that you're looking into, functions in this manner:
The circuits form an image from the data from the scanner!"

"Fire Phasers!" said the Captain, and the beams stabbed at the void.
"A hit!" yelled Sulu. "Two of the Klingon ships have been destroyed."
"Fire at will," the Captain said, "but limit the attack.
Three shots destroys them all, but after four shots, they come back."

It seemed like only moments 'til the unseen battle ended.
The crew was filled with pride in their great ship so well defended.
That is, all but the Engineer, who muttered with chagrin
As all the instruments still showed amoebas closing in.

Then Spock stood up abruptly from the viewer he'd been viewing,
And said, "I have an answer to the problem I've been brewing.
Captain, direct the viewscreen toward the planet Ceti Sigma,
And I will tell you how I've solved the Engineer's enigma."

"That dot of light's the distant planet where we mean to go.
Stare at it, without blinking. You'll begin to see it grow.
Please notice, as you watch it, that it starts to look much clearer.
From that, I think we can conclude, it's really getting nearer!"

And one by one, as each crewman stared at that point of light,
Each of them came to realize Advanced Physics must be right!
"You've saved us all!" the Captain said. "You saw what we all missed.
You've proven that our problems couldn't possibly exist!"

The crew rejoiced again in celebration. Even Scotty laughed,
As he headed to the bay and started up the shuttlecraft.
The ship was never seen again, but there were shed no tears
By those who reached their distant worlds -- all of them engineers.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
VCO???

I've seen here some "smart" guy posting a SCH about the Noise Harvester.
Actually, I've seen a whole bunch of "smart" guys here. ;)
VCO?-Is that a Voltage Controlled Oscillator ???
Now, How the hell a VCO makes the LED blink randomly?
How is a VCO makes the LED blink less and less by plugging in more and more harvesters.
Dude!-You are just so wrong on that one and please do not embarrass yourself further with the crap like that! :)
Cheers,
 
I've seen here some "smart" guy posting a SCH about the Noise Harvester. Actually, I've seen a whole bunch of "smart" guys here. ;)


Thank you.

;) VCO?-Is that a Voltage Controlled Oscillator ???


Correct.

Now, How the hell a VCO makes the LED blink randomly?


When the controlling voltage is randomly generated, such as with line noise.

How is a VCO makes the LED blink less and less by plugging in more and more harvesters.


The cumulative filtering effect of each C1 in each "Harvester" reduces the line noise as more and more "Harvesters" are imposed across the line. With reduced line noise, there is less energy to power the VCO. The end result is a lower blinking rate.

Dude!-You are just so wrong on that one and please do not embarrass yourself further with the crap like that! :)


I am neither wrong nor embarrassed.



Slainte!
 
Well, I have to admit that you're not embarrassed but believe me totally WRONG! :)
Actually I'm thinking you're maybe a vacuum cleaner sales guy, since you don't really have a whole lot of idea about the "product" but U R pushin' it hard that is for sure.
Anyway, Mr. VCO, I have no further comment from this point and I'll let you rest with your "not too academic theory". ;)
Cheerio
 
Well, I have to admit that you're not embarrassed but believe me totally WRONG! :)

Then correct me by proving your assertion, if you can...

Actually I'm thinking you're maybe a vacuum cleaner sales guy, since you don't really have a whole lot of idea about the "product" but U R pushin' it hard that is for sure.

No, I'm an electrical engineer. And I'm not pushing the product at all. I think it's over-priced and a waste of money for what it does.

Anyway, Mr. VCO, I have no further comment from this point and I'll let you rest with your "not too academic theory". ;)

Definately not an academic theory, but a reasoned engineering analysis that is based upon the available data. If you can provide a complete schematic, then I'll work from that. Otherwise, you've not contributed much to either side of the debate.


Flake.
 
Last edited:
Have the skeptics in this thread found the truth yet or do they still live in ignorance?
I have been busy listening to crazy sound from further ERS Paper tweaking. 3 tweaks in a row I got the biggest improvement I ever heard, and it didn't cost a thing. Guess who are the ones missing out.


04.JPG
 

Back
Top Bottom