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

"Frank Buss" <fb@frank-buss.de> wrote in message
news:bmq1ln$qga$1@newsreader2.netcologne.de...
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
Click to expand...
Frank,
since you done so much work
you deserve a free sample.
Email me your shipping address and I will send you a student kit
the same kind that I am selling at eBay.

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
 
"Frank Buss" <fb@frank-buss.de> wrote in message
news:bmr06r$chi$1@newsreader2.netcologne.de...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:

since you done so much work
you deserve a free sample.
Email me your shipping address and I will send you a student kit
the same kind that I am selling at eBay.

Thanks. In your eBay offer you sell 2m FTL cable and 2m reference cable:


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3142&item=2958461021

I don't need the reference cable, because I have much RG58 from pre-
twisted-pair-era (a cable reel with more than 50m), but I need a longer
FTL
cable to make my measures meaningful with my limited equipment. Could you
send me 20m FTL cable instead of the "student kit"? After testing I can
send it back to you. Looks like you are living in Germany, so postage
charges are no problem for me. Send me an eMail and I'll reply with my
address.

--
Frank Buß, fb@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
Click to expand...
I can do that but only after the 20m samples comes back from USA and that
might take few weeks.
My email is:
orman at tyrellinnovations dot com


Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
 
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:

since you done so much work
you deserve a free sample.
Email me your shipping address and I will send you a student kit
the same kind that I am selling at eBay.
Click to expand...
Thanks. In your eBay offer you sell 2m FTL cable and 2m reference cable:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3142&item=2958461021

I don't need the reference cable, because I have much RG58 from pre-
twisted-pair-era (a cable reel with more than 50m), but I need a longer FTL
cable to make my measures meaningful with my limited equipment. Could you
send me 20m FTL cable instead of the "student kit"? After testing I can
send it back to you. Looks like you are living in Germany, so postage
charges are no problem for me. Send me an eMail and I'll reply with my
address.

--
Frank Buß, fb@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
 
Mathew Orman wrote:
"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!
Click to expand...
Coming from you...ROTFLOL

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
 
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:22:06 -0400, Keith R. Williams
<krw@attglobal.net> wrote:


jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com says...

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!
Click to expand...
---
Sheesh, indeed!

FTL doesn't mean reversing the flow of time, and it's entirely possible
(and easy) to exceed the speed of light not confined to a vacuum. Take,
for example, an energetic Beta particle travelling through water. If
the particle's speed exceeds the speed at which light travels through
water it causes Cerenkov radiation to be emitted, much like an object
travelling through air at faster than the speed of sound in air will
cause a shock wave to be generated which manifests itself as a sonic
boom.

Orman, however, doesn't seem to be peppering the dielectric of the cable
with energetic paticles of any kind, so it doesn't seem likely that his
cable will provide evidence of superluminal behavior. If it does,
hovever, I would expect that the evidence would be Cerenkov radiation
emanating from the dielectric, a phenomenon he seems not to have
considered.

http://www.nuc.umr.edu/~ans/cerenkov.html

http://dept.physics.upenn.edu/balloon/cerenkov_radiation.html

--
John Fields
 
In article <bmqonv$iee$1@news.onet.pl>, orman@nospam.com says...
"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!
Click to expand...
Simply joining your party.
Sincerely,
Click to expand...
Can't be!

--
Keith
 
In article <7lg2pvghd9q2jsiav9gerk2orevr696re3@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:22:06 -0400, Keith R. Williams
krw@attglobal.net> wrote:


jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com says...

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!

---
Sheesh, indeed!

FTL doesn't mean reversing the flow of time, and it's entirely possible
(and easy) to exceed the speed of light not confined to a vacuum.
Click to expand...
Well, I consider FTL == >C, which is a constant. Even if you
limit "FTL" to a cable faster than RG58 (yawn, open core, ladder
line, etc.), well you 'taint going to get it 10x faster without
exceeding (6x) C.

Take,
for example, an energetic Beta particle travelling through water. If
the particle's speed exceeds the speed at which light travels through
water it causes Cerenkov radiation to be emitted, much like an object
travelling through air at faster than the speed of sound in air will
cause a shock wave to be generated which manifests itself as a sonic
boom.
Click to expand...
Ok, but that's still doesn't give us a cable with a propagation
delay a tenth that of RG<whatever>. I wanna see the Cherenkov
radiation coming from the *vacuum* when his cable is connected to
it.

Glowing blue coax cable would be neat though. ;-)

Orman, however, doesn't seem to be peppering the dielectric of the cable
with energetic paticles of any kind, so it doesn't seem likely that his
cable will provide evidence of superluminal behavior. If it does,
hovever, I would expect that the evidence would be Cerenkov radiation
emanating from the dielectric, a phenomenon he seems not to have
considered.
Click to expand...
I want to see it from the *ends* as the signal propagates into
real space (rather than the imaginary space between Orman's
ears).

--
Keith
 
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 14:57:25 -0400, Keith R. Williams
<krw@attglobal.net> wrote:

---
Sheesh, indeed!

FTL doesn't mean reversing the flow of time, and it's entirely possible
(and easy) to exceed the speed of light not confined to a vacuum.

Well, I consider FTL == >C, which is a constant.
Click to expand...
---
It isn't. It varies all over the place depending on the characteristics
of the medium through which it's propagating, and finds a _limit_ when
it propagates through a vacuum.
---


Even if you
limit "FTL" to a cable faster than RG58 (yawn, open core, ladder
line, etc.), well you 'taint going to get it 10x faster without
exceeding (6x) C.
Click to expand...
---
You're preaching to the choir.

Perhaps you misunderstood, but I was chiding you for:

"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!"

which has nothing to do with FTL phenomena.
---


--
John Fields
 
In article <hjc3pvkt9sa20s1ufbpsitpnnf5hlfq9un@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 14:57:25 -0400, Keith R. Williams
krw@attglobal.net> wrote:

---
Sheesh, indeed!

FTL doesn't mean reversing the flow of time, and it's entirely possible
(and easy) to exceed the speed of light not confined to a vacuum.

Well, I consider FTL == >C, which is a constant.

---
It isn't. It varies all over the place depending on the characteristics
of the medium through which it's propagating, and finds a _limit_ when
it propagates through a vacuum.
Click to expand...
I disagree! 'C' is a *CONSTANT*. If you which to play with er,
then that's your choice, but *C* is a constant.
---


Even if you
limit "FTL" to a cable faster than RG58 (yawn, open core, ladder
line, etc.), well you 'taint going to get it 10x faster without
exceeding (6x) C.

---
You're preaching to the choir.
Click to expand...
Ok, but 'C' is still a *CONSTANT*.

Perhaps you misunderstood, but I was chiding you for:
Click to expand...
I doubt it.

"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!"

which has nothing to do with FTL phenomena.
Click to expand...
Do you have any clue what would happen if FTL were possible?

Yes, we would be looking at *time* travel. Tacheons are
postulated to explain such weirdness.

You're focused on proving his simpleton's cable is "faster" than
RG(whatever). You've missed the point. It cannot be faster than
*light*. Faster than RG(whatever) is easy. Six times faster
than RG is going to make things "interesting". However the nit-
wit's claim has nothing to do with a "reference cable".

--
Keith
 
Don Klipstein wrote:
In article <7lg2pvghd9q2jsiav9gerk2orevr696re3@4ax.com>, John Fields
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:22:06 -0400, Keith R. Williams
krw@attglobal.net> wrote:


jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com says...

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!

---
Sheesh, indeed!

FTL doesn't mean reversing the flow of time, and it's entirely
possible (and easy) to exceed the speed of light not confined to a
vacuum. Take, for example, an energetic Beta particle travelling
through water. If the particle's speed exceeds the speed at which
light travels through water

Also consider the speed of light in water! Varies with frequency,
but at most frequencies where electromagnetic waves propagate much it
appears to me to be less than 78% of the speed of light in vacuum,
and never exceeding the speed of light in vacuum!
Click to expand...
This is actually, a bit misleading. The speed of light, i.e a photon is
*always* c. No exceptions, ever. The space between atoms, which is where
photon actually move, is a vacuum. Light only appears to slow down
because photons are absorbed and reemitted with a delay.


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
 
In article <7lg2pvghd9q2jsiav9gerk2orevr696re3@4ax.com>, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:22:06 -0400, Keith R. Williams
krw@attglobal.net> wrote:


jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com says...

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!

---
Sheesh, indeed!

FTL doesn't mean reversing the flow of time, and it's entirely possible
(and easy) to exceed the speed of light not confined to a vacuum. Take,
for example, an energetic Beta particle travelling through water. If
the particle's speed exceeds the speed at which light travels through
water
Click to expand...
Also consider the speed of light in water! Varies with frequency, but
at most frequencies where electromagnetic waves propagate much it appears
to me to be less than 78% of the speed of light in vacuum, and never
exceeding the speed of light in vacuum! At low frequencies the speed of
electromagnetic waves in water is less than 20% of the speed of light in
vacuum.

it causes Cerenkov radiation to be emitted, much like an object
travelling through air at faster than the speed of sound in air will
cause a shock wave to be generated which manifests itself as a sonic
boom.

Orman, however, doesn't seem to be peppering the dielectric of the cable
with energetic paticles of any kind, so it doesn't seem likely that his
cable will provide evidence of superluminal behavior. If it does,
hovever, I would expect that the evidence would be Cerenkov radiation
emanating from the dielectric, a phenomenon he seems not to have
considered.

http://www.nuc.umr.edu/~ans/cerenkov.html

http://dept.physics.upenn.edu/balloon/cerenkov_radiation.html

--
John Fields
Click to expand...
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
 
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 07:58:26 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

This is actually, a bit misleading. The speed of light, i.e a photon is
*always* c. No exceptions, ever. The space between atoms, which is where
photon actually move, is a vacuum. Light only appears to slow down
because photons are absorbed and reemitted with a delay.
Click to expand...
With that explanation I think I can see how the >c could work.

Just have to convince the atoms to invest in a photon futures market.
They emit a percentage of the photons now expecting that the absorbed
photons will show up at the usual time in about the expected amount. You
have to be sure your transmitter delivers in a steady predictable manner
or the market will collapse and the photons may not propagate at all.

You will also get more attenuation because the atoms need to make a
profit for the market to work.
 
Rex wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 07:58:26 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

This is actually, a bit misleading. The speed of light, i.e a photon
is *always* c. No exceptions, ever. The space between atoms, which
is where photon actually move, is a vacuum. Light only appears to
slow down because photons are absorbed and reemitted with a delay.


With that explanation I think I can see how the >c could work.
Click to expand...
Oh?

Just have to convince the atoms to invest in a photon futures market.
They emit a percentage of the photons now expecting that the absorbed
photons will show up at the usual time in about the expected amount.
You have to be sure your transmitter delivers in a steady predictable
manner or the market will collapse and the photons may not propagate
at all.
Click to expand...
This is not FTL information flow.

You will also get more attenuation because the atoms need to make a
profit for the market to work.
Click to expand...
There are lots of ways to get effects FTL. This is well known, and
trivial. e.g. shine and swing a flashlight's beam across the stars. The
spot can travel at an arbitrary speed. However, it doesn't transmit
information from star 1 to star 2. You can also make an "effective"
motion of charge move FTL. Just independently sequence separate fields
correctly, but this is also not real FTL, as in a cause generating an
effect.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
 
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 00:23:25 -0400, Keith R. Williams
<krw@attglobal.net> wrote:



You're focused on proving his simpleton's cable is "faster" than
RG(whatever). You've missed the point. It cannot be faster than
*light*. Faster than RG(whatever) is easy. Six times faster
than RG is going to make things "interesting". However the nit-
wit's claim has nothing to do with a "reference cable".
Click to expand...
---
Keith, before you get your panties in a bunch trying to make sense of
something I _didn't_ say, let's see if I can clear it up for you.

In the first place, Orman stated that his cable is basically a piece of
50 ohm cable similar to RG-58, and that the velocity of propagation of
EM through his cable is 10C.

Now, because of the way he worded it, 10C could be taken to mean 10C
with reference to C in vacuo (3E9 meters per second) or C in the
dielectric of a piece of RG-58 cable, about 2E9 meters per second.

Now, if you calculate 10C with C = 2E9m/s, (the slower of the two
possibilities) the Vp through the cable comes out to 20E10, still faster
than C in vacuo so no matter what, he's claiming a pulse will propagate
down his cable faster than it would in free space. With me so far? OK.

Now, although it's my personal belief that his cable will not exhibit
FTL behavior, my test setup will easily determine whether it does or
not. The 20 meters of RG-58 used for a reference is just that, and will
only serve to indicate that a pulse launched earlier has travelled
through 20m of coax. Look at it this way: If I connect 20m of RG 58 to
a 50 ohm source and terminate it with a 50 ohm load, then launch a
pulse into it, I'll expect to see the leading edge of the pulse appear
across the 50 ohm termination about 91ns after I launch it. Now let's
say that I trigger a scope with the pulse as it's being launched and
that I connect the far end of the cable to the 50 ohm input of a fast
scope. If I have the sweep time set for 10ns per box and launch a pulse
down the cable I should see the leading edge of the pulse appear at
about 9 boxes from T0. Now, assuming I connect Orman's cable to the
pulse generator properly and launch a single pulse into both cables at
the same time, if Orman's cable is performing as specified, I should see
the leading of the pulse emanating from his cable at about 0.9 boxes and
the leading edge of the pulse emanating from the RG-58 at about 9 boxes.

Matter of fact, for Orman's cable to exhibit FTL behavior with C=3E9m/s,
his leading edge would only have to appear slightly before 6 boxes, so
no matter what he means by 10C I can shoot him down.

As for the rest of your rhetoric, get a fucking clue.

--
John Fields
 
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:29:19 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


Now, if you calculate 10C with C = 2E9m/s, (the slower of the two
possibilities) the Vp through the cable comes out to 20E10, still faster
^^^^^
Click to expand...
20E9, 2E10


--
John Fields
 
In article <sCqkb.184$nL.105@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>, Kevin Aylward
wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
In article <7lg2pvghd9q2jsiav9gerk2orevr696re3@4ax.com>, John Fields
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:22:06 -0400, Keith R. Williams
krw@attglobal.net> wrote:


jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com says...

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!

---
Sheesh, indeed!

FTL doesn't mean reversing the flow of time, and it's entirely
possible (and easy) to exceed the speed of light not confined to a
vacuum. Take, for example, an energetic Beta particle travelling
through water. If the particle's speed exceeds the speed at which
light travels through water

Also consider the speed of light in water! Varies with frequency,
but at most frequencies where electromagnetic waves propagate much it
appears to me to be less than 78% of the speed of light in vacuum,
and never exceeding the speed of light in vacuum!

This is actually, a bit misleading. The speed of light, i.e a photon is
*always* c. No exceptions, ever. The space between atoms, which is where
photon actually move, is a vacuum. Light only appears to slow down
because photons are absorbed and reemitted with a delay.
Click to expand...
Speed of electromagnetic waves in a medium is C divided by the square
root of the product of permeability and dielectric constannt of that
medium.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
 
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Now, if you calculate 10C with C = 2E9m/s, (the slower of the two
possibilities) the Vp through the cable comes out to 20E10, still faster
^^^^^
20E9, 2E10
Click to expand...
2.998*10^8 m/s, or roughly 3E8 m/s

or exactly 1 lightyear per year, (for cosmological calculation it can
be advantageous to have the speed of light as 1, it makes many
calculations a lot easier).


--
Roger J.

(My email address is a spam trap, don't use it)
 
In article <66f5pv4eob255o7v3ca8gv1fq9ke0qn3ei@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 00:23:25 -0400, Keith R. Williams
krw@attglobal.net> wrote:



You're focused on proving his simpleton's cable is "faster" than
RG(whatever). You've missed the point. It cannot be faster than
*light*. Faster than RG(whatever) is easy. Six times faster
than RG is going to make things "interesting". However the nit-
wit's claim has nothing to do with a "reference cable".

---
Keith, before you get your panties in a bunch trying to make sense of
something I _didn't_ say, let's see if I can clear it up for you.
Click to expand...
My panties certainly aren't bunched. They remain in my wife's
drawers. ;-)

In the first place, Orman stated that his cable is basically a piece of
50 ohm cable similar to RG-58, and that the velocity of propagation of
EM through his cable is 10C.
Click to expand...
10C = 10*C, where 'C' is a universal constant, not subject to
municipal nor HOA rules.

Now, because of the way he worded it, 10C could be taken to mean 10C
with reference to C in vacuo (3E9 meters per second) or C in the
dielectric of a piece of RG-58 cable, about 2E9 meters per second.
Click to expand...
Ok, but 10x RG<whatever> is *still* well above (6.6times, IIRC)
the SPEED_OF_LIGHT. Propagation simply somewhat faster than some
arbitrary piece of coax is simple to demonstrate and indeed
rather boring.

Now, if you calculate 10C with C = 2E9m/s, (the slower of the two
possibilities) the Vp through the cable comes out to 20E10, still faster
than C in vacuo so no matter what, he's claiming a pulse will propagate
down his cable faster than it would in free space. With me so far? OK.
Click to expand...
Way ahead of you, in fact.

Now, although it's my personal belief that his cable will not exhibit
FTL behavior, my test setup will easily determine whether it does or
not.
Click to expand...
Good grief, it wouldn't take too much of a setup to show this.
Indeed it would take quite a setup to show *faster* than light
propagation!

The 20 meters of RG-58 used for a reference is just that, and will
only serve to indicate that a pulse launched earlier has travelled
through 20m of coax.
Click to expand...
I don't think it shows much of anything, but you're free to
follow Orman's prescribed test. I want to see what happens with
a single edge. A TDR would be an interesting tool, as well.

Look at it this way: If I connect 20m of RG 58 to
a 50 ohm source and terminate it with a 50 ohm load, then launch a
pulse into it, I'll expect to see the leading edge of the pulse appear
across the 50 ohm termination about 91ns after I launch it.
Click to expand...
Ok. The numbers work.

Now let's
say that I trigger a scope with the pulse as it's being launched and
that I connect the far end of the cable to the 50 ohm input of a fast
scope. If I have the sweep time set for 10ns per box and launch a pulse
down the cable I should see the leading edge of the pulse appear at
about 9 boxes from T0.
Click to expand...
Ok, why aren't we looking at the launched pulse? I don't see the
"reference" coax as being particularly interesting here.

Now, assuming I connect Orman's cable to the
pulse generator properly and launch a single pulse into both cables at
the same time, if Orman's cable is performing as specified, I should see
the leading of the pulse emanating from his cable at about 0.9 boxes and
the leading edge of the pulse emanating from the RG-58 at about 9 boxes.
Click to expand...
If his FTL exists (and we both agree he FOS) I wouldn't know what
to expect. Your .9 "box" is a simple Newtonian explanation, but
I'd be looking for something sourced by the load (I.e. negative
time).

Matter of fact, for Orman's cable to exhibit FTL behavior with C=3E9m/s,
his leading edge would only have to appear slightly before 6 boxes, so
no matter what he means by 10C I can shoot him down.
Click to expand...
He's so full of holes now it doesn't matter how many more boxes
he falls into.
ü
As for the rest of your rhetoric, get a fucking clue.

Fair enough. I didn't know anyone here was so serious about such
nonsense. Gotta have fun when the sun shines.

--
Keith
 
Don Klipstein wrote:
In article <sCqkb.184$nL.105@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>, Kevin
Aylward wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
In article <7lg2pvghd9q2jsiav9gerk2orevr696re3@4ax.com>, John Fields
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:22:06 -0400, Keith R. Williams
krw@attglobal.net> wrote:


jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com says...

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!

---
Sheesh, indeed!

FTL doesn't mean reversing the flow of time, and it's entirely
possible (and easy) to exceed the speed of light not confined to a
vacuum. Take, for example, an energetic Beta particle travelling
through water. If the particle's speed exceeds the speed at which
light travels through water

Also consider the speed of light in water! Varies with frequency,
but at most frequencies where electromagnetic waves propagate much
it appears to me to be less than 78% of the speed of light in
vacuum, and never exceeding the speed of light in vacuum!

This is actually, a bit misleading. The speed of light, i.e a photon
is *always* c. No exceptions, ever. The space between atoms, which
is where photon actually move, is a vacuum. Light only appears to
slow down because photons are absorbed and reemitted with a delay.

Speed of electromagnetic waves in a medium is C divided by the
square root of the product of permeability and dielectric constannt
of that medium.
Click to expand...
Misleading. Only the "effective" speed is given by the above. Photons
*always* travel at C. Period.

The is no real "electromagnetic wave". *All* EM phenomena is the result
of photon momentum exchange (QED). An electromagnetic wave is just a
simplified, continuous approximation to the real discreet nature of EM
phenomena.

salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top