FTL evidence patent Einstein false science .................

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:32:49 +0200, "Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com>
wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote in
message news:v5pqov8b9bp3ssh2mp18duovn36m72j6v5@4ax.com...
On 15 Oct 2003 07:33:19 -0700, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote...

My test setup will be precisely as indicated in my previous post, and
if you wish for me to proceed you must still agree to the remainder
of my requirements, from my previous post, namely:

John, you shouldn't create two separate 50-ohm signal paths simply
by paralleling the two coax lines. Instead you need at least a
splitter, or better, a splitter with each output followed by a 20dB
attenuator to insure completely independent pathways. Furthermore
you need to measure the impedance of the line under test to verify
it's 50 ohms (higher impedances move closer to the speed of light).

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

Why not just drive the stupid thing from a signal generator and poke
the same hi-z scope probe on the input and output, and note the
waveforms? Since the FTL cable is flexible, presumably one can locate
the termination near to the source, at least to within scope probe
range.

Oh, in coax, the prop velocity depends on the dielectric constant of
the insulator, not on the impedance.

John




You are confusing EM waves propagation with transmission line waveform
propagation.

Don't tell me what I'm confusing.

The later depends on nominal RLC only!

Moron.

Also one must drive it with the signal that defines the coax segment as
"Electrically Short and Open Ended".

Right. Partial differentiation is the key to the illusion.

John

 

[Jim Weekes]

Simon Peacock wrote:

guys guys.. common now.. this same thing pops up every month or so.. don't
feed his ego.. we all know its false as its too cheap.. now if you want my
FTL drive.. I will deliver it yesterday free.. for only its speed in dollars


Sorry - that's too late for me!

Jim

"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bmdrbm$jc5$1@news.onet.pl...

"Rene Tschaggelar" <tschaggelar@dplanet.ch> wrote in message
news:fb1abe84266024bc784394abb6f08272@news.teranews.com...

Mathew Orman wrote:
For sale at eBay starting price: $100,000.00 !

Use the subject keywords to find it.

There is not sufficient information, eg about length, bandwidth
and such. Or can I just assume it to be 400m of the 100MBit type ?
Just in case I get it for 100k$ and it doesn't work,
do I get 200k$ back as stated in the 200% money back guarantee ?

Can you show some evidence of these 200k$ you're going to shell out ?

Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net


Yes,
after you show the evidence of the 100k$.

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

 

[Mathew Orman]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:ji4rov0t71vqc4nvk9r60vs5b6f9g95vnh@4ax.com...

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:13:25 +0200, "Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com
wrote:


I was thinking about attenuator that is constructed with two resistors.
But if one has expensive attenuator with 0 phase shift than that is
perfect.

---
If you claim to be playing with transmission lines capable of
propagating signals at superluminal speeds and you don't know what a
coaxial attenuator is, then I claim that you're not playing with a full
deck.

--
John Fields

There are several hundred patents on coax attenuators.
Do you know how the latest and most advanced one works?

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef in
bericht news:v5pqov8b9bp3ssh2mp18duovn36m72j6v5@4ax.com...

Why not just drive the stupid thing from a signal generator and poke
the same hi-z scope probe on the input and output, and note the
waveforms? Since the FTL cable is flexible, presumably one can locate
the termination near to the source, at least to within scope probe
range.

I have this *fantasy*, that it actually works as long as you keep it
rolled up, but starts to behave as any other ordinary piece of
cable, once you stretch it.

So it works, but the FTL properties vanish as soon as you use it

--
Thanks,
Frank Bemelman
(remove 'x' & .invalid when sending email)

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:58:02 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
<bemelmanx@euronet.nl.invalid> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef in
bericht news:v5pqov8b9bp3ssh2mp18duovn36m72j6v5@4ax.com...

Why not just drive the stupid thing from a signal generator and poke
the same hi-z scope probe on the input and output, and note the
waveforms? Since the FTL cable is flexible, presumably one can locate
the termination near to the source, at least to within scope probe
range.

I have this *fantasy*, that it actually works as long as you keep it
rolled up, but starts to behave as any other ordinary piece of
cable, once you stretch it.

So it works, but the FTL properties vanish as soon as you use it

---
Kind of like what it says on Band-Aids: "Sterility guaranteed unless
package is opened."

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:57:33 +0200, "Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com>
wrote:

There are several hundred patents on coax attenuators.
Do you know how the latest and most advanced one works?

---
No, and what's more, until I need to know I don't care.

--
John Fields

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
ents.com> wrote (in <16kqovo7mjemjcimd69usk87vh6m148pt9@4ax.com&gt about
'FTL evidence patent Einstein false science ............................
.........................................................................
...................................................', on Wed, 15 Oct
2003:

4. Accept the test results without question.


If you agree I'll invoice you for the reference cable and return freight
for your reference cable, and when your check clears I'll start the
tests at my convenience and, once I've finished, I'll post the results
and photos to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic.

I've come on this thread at a late stage, but your condition 4 is
unreasonable. This must be a *scientific* investigation, not an
engineering one, and it is established by custom that failure to
duplicate controversial results is always open to challenge. If it were
not so, it would be easy for charlatans to claim that they had falsified
what are, in fact, true results.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:29:21 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
ents.com> wrote (in <16kqovo7mjemjcimd69usk87vh6m148pt9@4ax.com&gt about
'FTL evidence patent Einstein false science ............................
........................................................................
..................................................', on Wed, 15 Oct
2003:
4. Accept the test results without question.


If you agree I'll invoice you for the reference cable and return freight
for your reference cable, and when your check clears I'll start the
tests at my convenience and, once I've finished, I'll post the results
and photos to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic.

I've come on this thread at a late stage, but your condition 4 is
unreasonable.
---

Hi, John, welcome back!

Yes, of course it is [unreasonable] and I've been waiting for Orman to
complain, but so far neither acceptance nor rejection of the test has
been proffered by him.

For your edification, he's claiming that he has coaxial cable which he
has configured to allow a a velocity of propagation of signal through
the cable of 10C and my rig is just designed to compare C through his
cable against C in an equal length of "normal" coax.

This must be a *scientific* investigation, not an
engineering one, and it is established by custom that failure to
duplicate controversial results is always open to challenge. If it were
not so, it would be easy for charlatans to claim that they had falsified
what are, in fact, true results.

Don't you think that it would be counter-productive (for the charlatans)
to claim that they had falsified true results?^)

Again, I agree about the unreasonableness, but my conditions were
designed to keep Orman from being able to argue, ad infinitum, about the
validity/accuracy of the test, therefore keeping him from using the test
as fuel to revive his dying fire.

I have no problem with anyone critiquing the test or test methods,
especially when for 20 meters of foam-dielectric RG58A/U type coax with
a velocity of propagation of about 0.75C one could expect a signal delay
of about 80ns through it, while through a 20 meter length of his, 8ns.

--
John Fields

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
ents.com> wrote (in <csqtov4na2o34qaeldv6lqrtfgv8qjn231@4ax.com&gt about
'FTL evidence patent Einstein false science ............................
.........................................................................
...................................................', on Thu, 16 Oct
2003:

Hi, John, welcome back!

Thanks.
Yes, of course it is [unreasonable] and I've been waiting for Orman to
complain, but so far neither acceptance nor rejection of the test has
been proffered by him.

Good move.

For your edification, he's claiming that he has coaxial cable which he
has configured to allow a a velocity of propagation of signal through
the cable of 10C and my rig is just designed to compare C through his
cable against C in an equal length of "normal" coax.

Yes, I gathered so, and there is bound to be a reasonable explanation.

This must be a *scientific* investigation, not an
engineering one, and it is established by custom that failure to
duplicate controversial results is always open to challenge. If it were
not so, it would be easy for charlatans to claim that they had falsified
what are, in fact, true results.

Don't you think that it would be counter-productive (for the charlatans)
to claim that they had falsified true results?^)

Not necessarily, if money or prestige is involved.

Again, I agree about the unreasonableness, but my conditions were
designed to keep Orman from being able to argue, ad infinitum, about the
validity/accuracy of the test, therefore keeping him from using the test
as fuel to revive his dying fire.

Yes, there has to be a limit to the challenge, but the history of
science is littered with cases where the truth outed only after many
years.

I have no problem with anyone critiquing the test or test methods,
especially when for 20 meters of foam-dielectric RG58A/U type coax with
a velocity of propagation of about 0.75C one could expect a signal delay
of about 80ns through it, while through a

It shouldn't be difficult to see 72 ns difference.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

 

[Nico Coesel]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:24:45 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:52:55 +0200, "Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com
wrote:


20 m long, 10MBit/sec, 6ns transient.

---
Never mind the bullshit, here's what I'd like to see:

PULSE GEN
+----------+
| OUT|-------+--[50R]----[50 OHM COAX]----------+
| GND|--+ | |
+----------+ | +--[50R]----[ORMAN BSCABLE]--+ |
| | | |
| +--+------------+ | |
| | TRIG A VERT|---------------+ |
| | | | |
| | B VERT|---------------------|
| +---------------+ | |
| [50R] [50R]
| | |
GND GND GND

The pulse generator is a voltage source with the output driving 50 ohm
resistors in series with the center conductors of two _equal_ lengths of
real 50 ohm and your BSFTL cable. You say you've got a working length
of 20 meters, so that would be fine.

Now you make the same mistake as Mathew. The pulse should be measured
at the output of the generator!

---
I don't see why.

Me too -now-.

Assuming that a pulse is launched into each cable at exactly the same
time and that both cables are the same length and exhibit the same
velocity of propagation, won't the resultant pulses reach the far ends
of their cables at the same time?

You're absolutely right. I should go to sleep when I'm tired...

--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Frank Buss
<fb@frank-buss.de> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Never mind the bullshit, here's what I'd like to see:

I don't think that this is enough to prove it. I'm sure you know that the
speed of a signal in copper is less than the speed of light:

http://www.jimloy.com/physics/electric.htm

Another source of error could be that the signal in the FTL cable could be
delayed for 1.5 wavelength, which appears to be 0.5 wavelength faster. So
you need a vacuum tunnel and a FTL cable parallel. First use a short tunnel
and short cable. Feed a signal in the tunnel (perhaps with laser light) and
in the cable. Calibrate the outputs to the same phase. Then use a longer
tunnel and a longer cable and test the outputs.

Good grief, just move a fet scope probe from one end of the "FTL"
cable to the other.

John

 

[Active8]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:21:14 -0700, John Larkin, said...

On 15 Oct 2003 07:33:19 -0700, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote...

My test setup will be precisely as indicated in my previous post, and
if you wish for me to proceed you must still agree to the remainder
of my requirements, from my previous post, namely:

John, you shouldn't create two separate 50-ohm signal paths simply
by paralleling the two coax lines. Instead you need at least a
splitter, or better, a splitter with each output followed by a 20dB
attenuator to insure completely independent pathways. Furthermore
you need to measure the impedance of the line under test to verify
it's 50 ohms (higher impedances move closer to the speed of light).

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

Why not just drive the stupid thing from a signal generator and poke
the same hi-z scope probe on the input and output, and note the
waveforms? Since the FTL cable is flexible, presumably one can locate
the termination near to the source, at least to within scope probe
range.

Oh, in coax, the prop velocity depends on the dielectric constant of
the insulator, not on the impedance.

John

but the impedance also depends on er so there's an indirect relationship

for cables of the same cross-sectional dimensions. as er approaches that
of air, the impedance *and* the VP go up, but not to 10C.

mike

 

[Active8]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:27:11 -0500, John Fields, said...

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:58:02 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
bemelmanx@euronet.nl.invalid> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef in
bericht news:v5pqov8b9bp3ssh2mp18duovn36m72j6v5@4ax.com...

Why not just drive the stupid thing from a signal generator and poke
the same hi-z scope probe on the input and output, and note the
waveforms? Since the FTL cable is flexible, presumably one can locate
the termination near to the source, at least to within scope probe
range.

I have this *fantasy*, that it actually works as long as you keep it
rolled up, but starts to behave as any other ordinary piece of
cable, once you stretch it.

So it works, but the FTL properties vanish as soon as you use it

---
Kind of like what it says on Band-Aids: "Sterility guaranteed unless
package is opened."


i don't know how they can claim that. there are expiration dates for

hermetically seald plastic *and* paper bags used to store instruments
that have come out of the autoclave.

mike

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Frank Buss <fb@frank-buss.de>
wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Never mind the bullshit, here's what I'd like to see:

I don't think that this is enough to prove it. I'm sure you know that the
speed of a signal in copper is less than the speed of light:

---
Orman claims that the velocity of propagation of EM energy through his
cable is 10C, which can be interpreted as meaning that for a 20 meter
length of his cable, a pulse will travel down it 10 times faster than it
would propagate in vacuo, or that it would propagate down his cable 10
times faster than it would through a non-FTL cable of the same length.

I believe he's said that his cable is similar to RG-58 which, with a
normal polyethylene dielectric, exhibits a Vp of about 0.66C. C, in
vacuo, is about 3ns per meter so, for a 20m length of normal RG-58, that
comes to 3ns*20m/0.66 ~ 91ns.

That means that for an equal length of his cable, one would expect that
the delay through it would be one tenth of that, or 9.1ns.

Since the pulse would travel through 20m of free space in 60ns,
What that means is that no matter how his claims are interpreted, a
pulse traveling down his cable will be traveling at a velocity exceeding
the velocity of the same pulse in free space and will have (worst case)
gotten to the end of his cable while the other pulse will only have
travelled 3m down the 20m length of RG-58.

That difference should be easy to see even with my primitive rig.

Another source of error could be that the signal in the FTL cable could be
delayed for 1.5 wavelength, which appears to be 0.5 wavelength faster.

---
It could be, but it would take a rank amateur to ignore that
possibility.

--
John Fields

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Mathew Orman wrote:

For sale at eBay starting price: $100,000.00 !

Use the subject keywords to find it.

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

Don't bother with this on eBay. I checked the future auction results
with my FTL internet connection and I already know what the winning bid
is.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
Parity on, dudes!

 

[John Popelish]

Active8 wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:27:11 -0500, John Fields, said...

Kind of like what it says on Band-Aids: "Sterility guaranteed unless
package is opened."


i don't know how they can claim that. there are expiration dates for
hermetically seald plastic *and* paper bags used to store instruments
that have come out of the autoclave.

I think you misunderstand the commercial meaning of 'guaranteed'. If
you can prove the presence of a microbe in a Band-Aid (without opening
the package), then they will refund the purchase price. If you open
it to look for microbes, all guarantees are nullified. Wasn't that
easy? ;-)

--
John Popelish

 

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <qv20pvc122jc7cuv8ps8b4nhe2ouc8clem@4ax.com>,
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com says...

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Frank Buss
fb@frank-buss.de> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Never mind the bullshit, here's what I'd like to see:

I don't think that this is enough to prove it. I'm sure you know that the
speed of a signal in copper is less than the speed of light:

http://www.jimloy.com/physics/electric.htm

Another source of error could be that the signal in the FTL cable could be
delayed for 1.5 wavelength, which appears to be 0.5 wavelength faster. So
you need a vacuum tunnel and a FTL cable parallel. First use a short tunnel
and short cable. Feed a signal in the tunnel (perhaps with laser light) and
in the cable. Calibrate the outputs to the same phase. Then use a longer
tunnel and a longer cable and test the outputs.

Good grief, just move a fet scope probe from one end of the "FTL"
cable to the other.

Please John! If his FTL cable worked you'd see the display on
your scope before you even hooked the probe to the cable.
Sheesh, these amateurs!

--
Keith

 

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <3F9035BB.59B1BF3D@Hovnanian.com>, Paul@Hovnanian.com
says...

Mathew Orman wrote:

For sale at eBay starting price: $100,000.00 !

Use the subject keywords to find it.

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

Don't bother with this on eBay. I checked the future auction results
with my FTL internet connection and I already know what the winning bid
is.

....and you beat it by $5, right? Please tell us in advance how
it went. BTW, how did Intel do with their FTL chips?

--
Keith

 

[Frank Buss]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

That difference should be easy to see even with my primitive rig.

You are right, I've tested it with this simple pulse generator:

http://www.frank-buss.de/tmp/schematic.gif

The test setup looks a bit chaotic:

http://www.frank-buss.de/tmp/testsetup.jpg

The ouputs of the inverters are connected to two normal RG58 network
cables. The other ends are connected with the BNC plugs directly into the
scope. The cable for channel one is 7m and the cable for channel 2 is 18m
and I can see the time difference (I have a 20 MHz scope, only, so it is
not very exact):

http://www.frank-buss.de/tmp/12m.jpg

That's 5 ns for 1 m, which is 200 km/s, which is 2/3 c. To verify it,
I've cut the 18m cable to 12m and it looks like this:

http://www.frank-buss.de/tmp/18m.jpg

35 ns for 5 m is 143 km/s, but could be because it is not very exact. But
the result is, if you have a fast scope or a long cable you can measure
the time difference. And while the signal is looking terrible with
overshoots, the time difference doesn't change, if you move the cable
around or wind it up.

Another source of error could be that the signal in the FTL cable
could be delayed for 1.5 wavelength, which appears to be 0.5
wavelength faster.

---
It could be, but it would take a rank amateur to ignore that
possibility.

I think with your setup, with triggering the scope from the input signal
and short pulses with long pauses, it will be difficult to produce such
an error

I'm looking forward already to your results with the FTL cable. Perhaps
you have a better scope and more knowledge in high frequency technology.

--
Frank Buß, fb@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de

 

[Mathew Orman]

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.19fa6ddb171c3cc298a7d3@enews.newsguy.com...

In article <qv20pvc122jc7cuv8ps8b4nhe2ouc8clem@4ax.com>,
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com says...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Frank Buss
fb@frank-buss.de> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Never mind the bullshit, here's what I'd like to see:

I don't think that this is enough to prove it. I'm sure you know that
the
speed of a signal in copper is less than the speed of light:

http://www.jimloy.com/physics/electric.htm

Another source of error could be that the signal in the FTL cable could
be
delayed for 1.5 wavelength, which appears to be 0.5 wavelength faster.
So
you need a vacuum tunnel and a FTL cable parallel. First use a short
tunnel
and short cable. Feed a signal in the tunnel (perhaps with laser light)
and
in the cable. Calibrate the outputs to the same phase. Then use a
longer
tunnel and a longer cable and test the outputs.

Good grief, just move a fet scope probe from one end of the "FTL"
cable to the other.

Please John! If his FTL cable worked you'd see the display on
your scope before you even hooked the probe to the cable.
Sheesh, these amateurs!

--
Keith

You are trolling!

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com