Slashdot Mirror


Cancelling Out CPU Fan Noise

Percy_Blakeney writes "After realizing how noisy his computer was, a professor at BYU has created a new CPU fan that uses small microphones and speakers to cancel out its own noise. It isn't perfected yet -- it only nixes the whine, not the whoosh -- but it looks like it could be promising, especially given the professor's background: making jet engines quieter."

22 of 507 comments (clear)

  1. I should have patented it... by zeux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I though about it a long time ago because I know we are using the same kind of technology in the airports.

    Near the landing strips you can sometimes find some "sound reflectors" which just reflect the sound wave they receive from the planes. The sound is then cancelled by itself.

    I saw it once in an airport in France and it works really well and costs next to nothing. AFAIK there's no sound wave modification in that system but I'm not sure (maybe the surface of the reflectors is made in a certain shape to change the sound wave a little).

    But in this case it's different because the "box" must produce the counter sound wave. It's not just reflection, there is sound generation here. It means that the microphone and the speakers must be very precise or you just end up with more sound.

    But if this guy can do it with 20 bucks it means that it's much easier than I though.

    1. Re:I should have patented it... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have a question about active cancellation, as I've heard of it being used in other places. Does the cancellation of a noise of a given frequency have any potentially harmful effects that become less obvious through cancellation? For example, does a high-pitch tone that could cause hearing loss over time become more dangerous now that there are two high-pitch tones (albeit directly off-phase) now sounding, or is the cancellation that complete?

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    2. Re:I should have patented it... by Cosmic_Hippo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      For instance, you can buy noise-cancelling headphones, but the cancellation only works for your own ears, which gets the sound in just right right phase; to the people around you, there will be a perceptible noise coming from your headphones! Conservation of energy says you can't just destroy the energy of those sound waves. Most likely you're just sending extra-strength sounds waves somewhere else.

      I own a set of noise cancelling headphones and there is no perceptible noise being emmitted from them to the outside world. The noise cancellation circuitry takes the incoming signal and inverts it to cancel out the original incoming sound wave. Conservation of energy doesn't really apply. You aren't really destroying the energy of the sound waves, just cancelling it. Energy is spent on both the positive and negative signal. Although I just minored in acoustics so I'm probably missing something. Any professional opinion is appreciated.

    3. Re:I should have patented it... by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Any professional opinion is appreciated.
      Well, I do have a PhD in physics, but I should bow to your actual experience with the device :-)

      My guess is that the sound coming into your ears is only a tiny amount of power, so reradiating that power in all directions doesn't make any amount of sound that would be perceptible to someone a significant distance away. Your eardrums only have a surface area of a few square mm, the the amount of energy impinging on them is normally only a gazillionth of a watt. Your ears are amazingly sensitive devices.

      Conservation of energy doesn't really apply.
      I was obviously wrong in my prediction about an audible noise for people not wearing the headphones, but I'll bet both my testicles that it's not because conservation of energy is violated. You'd get the Nobel Prize if you found a violation of conservation of energy.

    4. Re:I should have patented it... by Cosmic_Hippo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Heh, I hope I wasn't implying that conservation of energy was being violated. I just though that destruction of energy and cancellation of the signal were different in this case. I think I worded it wrong. No testicles need to be wagered :-)
      The experience I've had with the equipment in class showed that the noise cancellation circuitry recorded the original sound wave, inverted it and fed it back into the speaker. The combination of positive and negative voltage basically told the speaker to output zero signal for that particular frequency. Nothing is destroyed, it's more like an electronic tug-of-war. It makes listening to music a lot more enjoyable, however it works.
      Thanks for the reply.

    5. Re:I should have patented it... by FallLine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well I'm no PhD in physics, but I (did stay at the holiday inn express last night^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H) do own a QuietComfort2 headphone set. I would agree that there is no discernible noise coming from outside the earphones. I suspect the explanation though is relatively very simple (or perhaps I'm just naive). The earphone cup is already quite muffled. The noise cancelling circuity only needs to "cancel out" a tiny amount of noise, that which would reach your ear by leaking through the insulation. Whatever noise is created by the cancellation speaker is quiet relative to outside background noise and will be further muffled by the headset before someone sitting next to you can hear it. In other words, whatever background noise you'd hear without the headphones is almost certainly (in real world applications) going to be orders of magnitude louder to a neighbooring passenger than the noise coming through your earphones.

    6. Re:I should have patented it... by xtal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You'd get the Nobel Prize if you found a violation of conservation of energy.

      Not mine, but.. compelling.

      Casimir Effect

      --
      ..don't panic
    7. Re:I should have patented it... by tiger99 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      No, the cancellation can only be partial and in certain positions. The problem is simply a matter of time delay, the speed of sound is not very high so for practical dimensions there is substantial phase shift. By using a lot of speakers and very complicated processing, you can make it better, but it is still in the form of an interference pattern, and will always show peaks in certain places. You would need to make the summation of the speakers look like the original source, but in antiphase, to everyone around, to get cancellation. The wavelength of sound at 1KHz is about a foot, if you use one speaker you need to get the difference in disatnce between everyone and the speaker very much less than 1 foot so they all see cancellation. The idea is to put the maxima where they do least harm. These systems only work on regular frequencies, you can't predict random noise, and so can't cancel it unless maybe the speakers are all very much nearer people than the original source so there is time to do the computation.

      A very greatly hyped and over-rated technology, which in some specific circumstances will provide a useful reduction (10dB?) in low-frequency noise, for example in the Dash8-Q400 aircraft, where propeller blade fundamental frequency noise is at 85Hz in the cruise (6 blades at 850 rpm, which is lower than most), and where people tend to sit in predictable places, it does quite well, although a fair part of the reduction is by trimming the relative phases of the two propellers (which should run in synchronism in steady flight, although this is not a safety-related function and might not always work, as it is not provided with any backup system), how that compares to the contribution from the speakers I don't know. The active noise suppression system can command the propeller controls to adjust the phasing, and indeed select which blades to synchronise, as they might be slightly unequal, of course it has only extremely limited control authority to avoid it becoming safety-critical, so it can only trim the relative angles very slowly. That is basically adjusting two noise sources so they make the least overall noise, inside the aircraft. I always had the suspicion that at certain precise positions outside (as presumaly happens with all twin-engined aircraft), the noise would be doubled, but it passed certification so it must have been acceptable. Probably much quieter than the average jet, Avro 146 excluded, anyway.

      At 85Hz, the wavelength is about 12 feet, so the problem is somewhat simpler, but still very complex....

      I am not a noise expert, but I can clain very intimate knowledge of the propeller sync system, called "syncrophase" in this case, being one of its main hardware designers. The propellers are synchronised at the desired angle, within about quarter of a degree, which is not bad considering there is no mechanical connection, the engine power is several thousand horsepower, and only a little pulse as each blade passes a sensor gets sent from the master controller to the slave. Oh! sorry, I forgot, can't use these words any more..... Back to the drawing board. Ground the aircraft in the interests of political correctness. Now, did it have any IDE drives on board?

      On a jet, by comparison, the fundamental frequency is much greater, and the engines can't be synchronised anyway, so these systems are not worth bothering with.

  2. Wow by michaelhood · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Active Noise Cancellation stuff is a really cool technology. I wonder if this could be applied to cars and other "larger louder" things in the future.

    1. Re:Wow by krosk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Most car noise these days is not from the engine running. Technology these days allows new cars to run incredibly quiet. Probably 99% of the noise you hear while traveling down the highway is road noise. Noise produced from your rubber tires against pavement. I saw a news flash a couple years ago about a new type of pavement that dramatically reduces that noise, but it's too expensive to be widely used.

    2. Re:Wow by Cornelius+the+Great · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Active Noise Cancellation stuff is a really cool technology. I wonder if this could be applied to cars and other "larger louder" things in the future."

      The 2003 Dodge Viper SRT/10 has side exhaust with active noise cancellation. It can be switched on/off to allow for "stealth mode" or a throaty sound- though I can't imagine why... I love the sound of a V-10.

      --
      Sigs are for losers
  3. Re:No need to worry. by hampton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Installing a Zalman HSF is exactly what I did. Highly recommended. Or (and), you can just buy a fan controller for the money (or both) to really quiet down your system.

    Where this would be really useful is for the whine of hard drives. It would be far better than the current system of enclosing it in some casing thus making it run even hotter.

  4. I could use this by crass751 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My laptop is so loud that if the fan(s) isn't/aren't running my roommate asks me if I turned it off. This thing generally has two fans running at times, and when it's really working hard, a third kicks in. My four year old desktop machine is much quieter than this thing.

    Stupid HP. Had to go sticking a desktop chip in a laptop. Oh well, it still runs circles around my roommate's silent Centrino-based machine.

  5. Absorbing technique instead by fembots · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In most offices, they don't use noise generators (ie Gossip Support Group) to cancel out talking noises, instead they put in a lot of plants, cubicles, which act to absorb most of the noises.

    If the noise is pointing at your directly, then you probably need a cancelling method. If it is a general-direction noise, it should be absorbed rather than trying to cancel it (where you need to find it in the first place).

  6. diy? by frankmu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    can you take apart the cheap "noise cancelling" headsets and do it yourself? i would imagine all the parts and circuitry are there. lets see if my wife will miss her airplane headset....

    --
    Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
  7. Re:Like the noise cancelling headphones? by Reverberant · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I thought the noise cancelling headphones worked because they were right against your ears.

    Well yes and no. Noise cancelling headsets are particularly effective because the ANC speaker and microphone are right next to your ears. This helps insure that the signal that arrives at your year can be sampled and inverted so that the sum cancels at the ear. It would be much harder to accomplish this with speakers and/or mics located away from the ear.

    However, remote mics/speakers may work if the noise source is highly directional, like a waveguide (I suspect that's happening here). If you can effectively cancel the sound at the orifice, you'll probably achieve a significant reduction in transmitted sound, no matter the location of the receiver.

  8. Re:It never ends though by shadowbearer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Damn funny post, irokitt.

    One day a fan on your computer fails, and you never noticed, because you couldn't hear the squealing of the tortured bearings...

    The interesting thing is with modern mobos (which control fan speed based on how hard the cpu is working/generating heat) you can actually tell to a point what's going on. I can set a compile going, go sit on the couch and read a book, and tell when it finishes (the cpu fan noise goes down and the hard drive noise goes up briefly - I run Gentoo where it writes the files at the end of the compile/emerge).

    SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  9. Re:Me too! by gosh_d · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You're forgetting that sound, being simply a pressure wave, travels a _lot_ slower than an electrical signal (6 orders of magnitude). If the mic is placed closer to the fan than the speakers, the speakers can have plenty of time to invert the signal and replay it. The distance is precisely chosen such that the speakers produce their noise simultaneously with the passing noise of the fan, even though it originated farther away. Delay's not a problem--no predicting needed.

    I had an interesting idea based on this (I don't know if it's actually used). Fixing the distance and delay may not be accurate enough to match the signals completely, so you could have a second mic which listens _after_ the cancellation for beats. Superposition of the two similar waves produces the "beats" that musicians use to tune an instrument. By observing the frequency of the beats, the microprocessor could adjust the delay to more perfectly cancel the noise.

  10. Not a new concept ... by scdeimos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... just a new application.

    Before CPU's came along, this sort of thing used to be done with BBD (Bucket Bridge Delay) circuits, replaying the sampled sound 180 degrees out of phase. Of course, this only worked with single-frequency tones and the BBD had to be clocked at just the right correct frequency. Cancelling white noise (ie: fan whoosh) is a somewhat more difficult problem.

    A number of "professional" aircraft pilot communications headsets have had active-cancelling (as in the article) built into earpieces (as opposed to the microphones) for several years, so as to reduce engine noise and pilot stress.

    Car buffs here might even remember that VW had a Concept Car in the nineties which had an (I think) Bose-powered active-cancelling system in the cabin, the purpose being to cancel road noise and engine bay noise so you could replace it with sound samples of your favourite sports cars: Ferrari's, Porsche's, etc. Not sure it ever took off, though. ;)

  11. Ears are sensitive indeed! by chadjg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My acoustics book said that if you put a person with normal hearing into a sound isolated anechoic chamber, and give them awhile to adjust, they will actually hear the blood flowing in their ear.

    Point being is that it would be completely pointless for them to be any more sensitive. Quite amazing really.

    --
    Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
  12. Re:Nope by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seperating audiophiles and thier money is like shooting fish in a barrel. I think there is a lot of placebo effect in high end audio. You just paid 800 bucks for a few meters of cable. It was a multi-thousand dollar system before the new cables. Do you think it could sound bad now?

    I'm lucky. I have very good hearing, but I'm pretty tone deaf. The medium priced stuff at Best Buy sounds just as good to me as the high end stuff at the specialty stores. There's no point for me to shell out the cash.

    -B

  13. A Cheaper Way by Kombat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My acoustics book said that if you put a person with normal hearing into a sound isolated anechoic chamber, and give them awhile to adjust, they will actually hear the blood flowing in their ear.


    An even cheaper demonstration is to simply plug your ears. It works better in an area that's already quiet, but if you simply plug your ears with your fingers, you'll hear the blood flowing in your veins and arteries. That's what that low, rumbling noise is that you'll hear.

    --
    Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.