Comments on: A little friendly rivalry http://www.timpeterson.org/blog/2007/04/19/6/ Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:08:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: ImSnyper http://www.timpeterson.org/blog/2007/04/19/6/comment-page-1/#comment-22 ImSnyper Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:43:00 +0000 http://www.timpeterson.org/blog/2007/04/19/6/#comment-22 flippn' genius, whoever figured that one out btw. <br /> Simple, but elegant, and quite thorough! (Provided your twisted pair picks up identical noise) flippn’ genius, whoever figured that one out btw.
Simple, but elegant, and quite thorough! (Provided your twisted pair picks up identical noise)

]]> By: ImSnyper http://www.timpeterson.org/blog/2007/04/19/6/comment-page-1/#comment-21 ImSnyper Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:40:00 +0000 http://www.timpeterson.org/blog/2007/04/19/6/#comment-21 pwn 'im in the face Tim! pwn ‘im in the face Tim!

]]> By: TimPeterson http://www.timpeterson.org/blog/2007/04/19/6/comment-page-1/#comment-20 TimPeterson Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:33:00 +0000 http://www.timpeterson.org/blog/2007/04/19/6/#comment-20 That's the basic idea, but there's <a href="http://www.ukslc.org/Technical_Articles/Sound/Balanced_Lines.html" target="_blank"> more than that </a> . The shield is also the ground, against which the two opposite copies of the signal are referenced. At the receiving end, the + and - signals are subtracted, which has the effect of canceling out any noise that occurred equally on both wires, since the two wires always have the opposite signal from each other. He took issue with the fact that I conveyed it as being an act of subtraction that kills the noise that's shared between the wires, whereas the book's definition simply said the difference of the two signals was used, and the noise was blocked, which he thought meant noise only occurred on one wire. That’s the basic idea, but there’s more than that . The shield is also the ground, against which the two opposite copies of the signal are referenced. At the receiving end, the + and – signals are subtracted, which has the effect of canceling out any noise that occurred equally on both wires, since the two wires always have the opposite signal from each other. He took issue with the fact that I conveyed it as being an act of subtraction that kills the noise that’s shared between the wires, whereas the book’s definition simply said the difference of the two signals was used, and the noise was blocked, which he thought meant noise only occurred on one wire.

]]> By: HawkeyeAZ1 http://www.timpeterson.org/blog/2007/04/19/6/comment-page-1/#comment-19 HawkeyeAZ1 Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:15:00 +0000 http://www.timpeterson.org/blog/2007/04/19/6/#comment-19 So your response was something to the effect of 1 wire to shield from noise, the other 2 to carry the signal (+ and -). *shakes head* <br /> <br /> Congrats on being thmart! So your response was something to the effect of 1 wire to shield from noise, the other 2 to carry the signal (+ and -). *shakes head*

Congrats on being thmart!

]]>