Talk:Noise (electronics)

Unwanted

The opening says Electronic noise is an unwanted signal characteristic, but that is not true. There are applications for using (and generating) noise. Otherwise you wouldn't have things like [1] [2] [3]. They're mostly for crypto, but I think I've seen uses in ham-radio (can't dig up the info ATM). Yngvarr (c) 12:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

- Noise does refer to unwanted signal characteristics, technically. This is not true in common usage. The examples provided refer to specific spectra whereas "noise" is not a specific spectrum. Some types of noise do have colors used in their name to identify different spectra, however, none of these is also represented by a particular pattern in the time domain. In the frequency domain there is only one graphical representation.

• Most sources of "random" noise are not random. Rather they reflect a fingerprint of the frequencies inherent to the environment from which the noise is taken. random.org provides a detailed explanation of this and it provides tests that can be used to determine if input is truly random. Atmospheric noise and the non-linear disruptions that can be measured when a clean, constant voltage is applied in reverse across a bipolar junction, are random. Signals that can be used as random sources from inside a pc are not random because they reflect, in part, the synchronous noise produced from crytals and from state changes on the several bus lines.

• "White" noise is a reference to a broadband signal where are frequencies in the spectrum of interest are represented at an identical intensity. "Pink" noise is similar, but the intensity varies in a complementary way to "normal" human hearing. That is, the intensity of each frequency sounds as though they are at the same intensity.

• "Useful" noise comes in most colors used to refer to colors in the visible spectrum.

• Ham receivers can be used to listen to atmospheric noise proabbly has little use in an intelligible Ham signal. Rather, noise comprises the "noise floor" of the signal-to-noise ratio. Some cryptographic methods use noise to generate randomness in a hash table that is later used to create a cipher. The "random" aspect of noise suggests it cannot be reproduced later so decryption couldn'tnot happen. If any random value worked, the cipher would probably not be of much value. UUIDs are an example of a random value in a hash table. The second column would be whatever you wanted to represent as a UUID, such as a social security number.

Kernel.package (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's all well and good but we need a definition based on a reliable source. I am restoring a defintion consistent with what's in the first chapter of Motchenbacher & Connelly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvng (talk • contribs) 17:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

We now have a 4th paragraph in the lead While noise is generally unwanted, it can serve a useful purpose in some applications, such as random number generation or dither. This is paritally supported by Noise (electronics) § Dither. ~Kvng (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Effects of noise

I think it will be appropriate that a description of the effects of noise be also included in the article. This could be in the form of noise that produces a noise emf or a noise current. Many students of electrical and electronic circuits would be interested to know what the resulting effect is; how exactly is the real or wanted signal affected by the emf or current fluctuations. Sridhar10chitta (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Sridhar Chitta:

Good obsrvation and still not covered in the article. Effects include communications error. Hiss in audio systems. Jitter in digital signals. ~Kvng (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Audible?

I dont know if this belongs here, but couldnt find anywhere more relevant. I present an anecdote only because of a lack of known terms for it: I will hear constant buzzing of electronics. I can her it change frequency during power surges. It was incredibly obvious during the days when CRT displays were everywhere. Going to places empty of such electronics, like a desert, would very obviously not have this noise.

If this is the place for this, then I think a section on audible electronic noise would be very useful here. If this isn't the right place for this, my apologies, though I would ask to be corrected and given the actual term for this. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you have an unusual electrical sense. Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Several electronic components can produce high frequency sounds due to magnetic or electrostatic forces present in electronic devices, which put the components under mechanical resonance. In the case of old CRT monitors, the line output transformer is the dominant source for a high-frequency sound at a frequency of close to 16 kHz (the horizontal scan rate), which is generally audible for younger people.

No, this shouldn't go into this article (and it isn't noise, technically). Hope that helps, Nageh (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's audible. Is there an article for these types of noise, including processor noise? 96.231.17.131 (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we do have an article for that type of noise:

A few people have ears sensitive enough to hear magnetostriction noise (which is acoustic) at 15,734 Hz (for NTSC systems) or 15,625 Hz (for PAL systems) cathode ray tube#High-frequency audible noise. Many people have ears sensitive enough to hear magnetostriction noise at 60 Hz (US) or 50 Hz (Europe) in transformers directly connected to mains.

The ceramic capacitor#Microphony article also mentions a "reverse microphonic effect" that can produce acoustic noise, as wells as "microphonics" converting mechanical vibrations into unwanted electrical noise.

I imagine that some of our readers may want to know about the acoustic noise coming from some electronic devices, have no idea that it is called "magnetostriction", and end up here at this "Noise (electronics)" article.

What's a good way to tell those readers that maybe one of those other 3 articles may be what they are really looking for?

--DavidCary (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Noise (electronics) edits

(transferred from user talk)

G'day, I hope that you are going to go back to the Noise (electronics) article and copyedit it, because what you reinstated is dreadful. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Partly you are right. The thoughts are to combine the new content - which is different from Electromagnetic compatibility - with the "Noise Reduction" section. Its not wrong now, i have to think maximum a few days. Difficult! The whole article, and even more, nearly all noise related article are NOT GOOD. A lot of work, hours, we will see if i start this. Tagremover (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

First version done. Tagremover (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I suggest merging noise generator into noise (electronics). Currently there seems to be a lot of overlap between the two articles -- both articles have descriptions of thermal noise, shot noise, avalanche noise, etc. Imagine a single article covering all three of (1) physical sources of noise, (2) techniques to minimize unwanted noise, and (3) techniques to deliberately amplify and collect "noise" as a noise generator. I suspect such an article will much shorter than the total length of 3 separate articles to cover the same topics, and so it simplifies things to cover them all together in one article. --DavidCary (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not oppose the suggestion. I am looking at noise from another angle, that of a user. From that perspective, the electronic noise article is about interference with a message, whereas noise generation appears to be about generic messages of a known strength, to a user. Thus a noise generator could be used for calibration, for example, to test the sensitivity of a communications circuit. Thus merging of the articles involves explaining at least two different topics in the same article, notwithstanding the common sections. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 04:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think they work best as separate topics. Yes, the noise generator articles talks about how various electronic devices and noise mechanisms can be used, but it's still a pretty separate topic. Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree; two articles makes sense. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. Although intertwined, they are separate topics. Glrx (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. I don't see how merging will improve coverage. Weaving noise generator into this article is going to make things more complicated for contributers. Both articles need improvement. Noise (electronics) especially deserves attention as it is a high priority topic for three wikiprojects. Once we're further along we can have another look at this proposal. ~KvnG 14:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not clear that merge is the best way to address the problems mentioned in the proposal. Let's try improving the articles individually first. Reducing overlap will need to be done if a merge is performed. Why not do it now? ~KvnG 16:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – they're different topics. It would be helpful to reduce overlap though. The NG page does not need to explain the different noise mechanisms, but should refer the reader to this page. That should keep the NG page shorter and more focussed. As stated by KvnG, this page is high importance, as it will (I assume) receive more attention. GyroMagician (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.