magnetic field

[BretCahill]

bigcat@meeow.co.uk (N. Thornton) in

Message-id: <a7076635.0309181744.5e1d86a7@posting.google.com> writes:

.. . .

To sue multiple infringers is worse. If thats your biz plan
you need to plan for that properly rather than have a vague notion
that you could do it and presumably money would pour in.

Very good point from the individual's point
of view.

On the other hand there is more to
intellectual property laws than just
guaranteeing an individual will get rich
quick.

The real purpose of patenting is to promote
the useful arts. If people DON'T patent
potentially worthwhile inventions the
incentive of investors and others to
promote technology is lost.

You don't patent just to help yourself; you
patent to promote the useful arts.

This doesn't mean you should patent
every invention, of course.

Without knowing much about your item there's not a lot to say.

Besides, everyone wants to see a new
invention.


Bret Cahill

 

[N. Thornton]

bretcahill@aol.com (BretCahill) wrote in message news:<20030922193549.29959.00000046@mb-m13.aol.com>...

bigcat@meeow.co.uk (N. Thornton) in
Message-id: <a7076635.0309181744.5e1d86a7@posting.google.com> writes:

On the other hand there is more to
intellectual property laws than just
guaranteeing an individual will get rich
quick.

In no sense do they guarantee this. It would be closer to the mark to
say they guaranteed the pat holder would lose money.

The real purpose of patenting is to promote
the useful arts. If people DON'T patent
potentially worthwhile inventions the
incentive of investors and others to
promote technology is lost.

You don't patent just to help yourself; you
patent to promote the useful arts.

Right, that's the purpose from one view. I guess we should consider
all views then. Whats the purpose from the patent lawyer's view?

This doesn't mean you should patent
every invention, of course.

Almost all inventions should not be patented. Few are worth it.

Besides, everyone wants to see a new
invention.

That's not a reason to patent tho. You can put your ideas on the web
free. A patent is purely a business move.


Regards, NT

 

[FEerguy9]

Let's see if I can get this on one page......
Electronic electricity repository is an energy concept that aims to accumulate
and store electrical energy from any source. The storage would be intended to
accommodate such things as electric vehicles, home heating, etc. The best
example is the EV - an electric car that would run on an ever-accumulating
power source. That is to say, any and all sources of electrical energy --
including diffuse sources -- would be collected, combined and stored in the
form of capacitance. But, wouldn't the capacitor plates be bigger than the
vehicle? Well, yes they would, unless a way to increase the surface area of
the plates *within a small perimeter* could be fashioned. The plates (and the
dielectric) *must* match exactly, to gain optimum charge. I suggest that
Scanning Tunneling Microscope Technology, or possibly even nanotechnology be
used to accomplish this -- whatever could configure roughly halfway to the
molecular level. Doing this -- configuring massive surface area within a small
perimeter -- is the heart of eer. It could involve steps, or grooves to 'tuck'
the surface areas away. BTW, this would necessarily require a *much* stronger
dielectric, which admittedly is taken on faith - but it could be many years
away.
The object is to configure the plates and dielectric so they all fit like
Jell-O in a mold, and to make these all small in perimeter -- while yielding
enormous surface area. That way, it is hoped, enough charge could be stored to
run an EV. Further, it is expected that about 15 sources of renewable energy
(solar, wind, wave, etc.) would be able to contribute to the 'eer pool' of
stored electrical energy. In time, renewable energy stored in this way could
effectively replace fossil fuels and batteries for vehicles.
The renewable sources need not necessarily have a device actually *on* the
vehicle; it is anticipated that such renewable devices could be located, say,
in or on a garage, and the electric charge transferred to the vehicle when
required.
I ask you -- with the advent of electric cars, might not this concept (if it
worked) pretty much end our dependence on oil?

NOTE: This idea absolutely, in no way, breaks the Second Law! No more than a
12v car battery does.




Frank Lincoln
FEerguy9@cs.com
eerguy9@aol.com
eerguy2000@yahoo.com

PS: In case you hadn't noticed, I am VERY weak with computers.



More, if you like..........

This is no more than a guess from a novice




Extra crispy revised edition......there are some mistakes in here

In one sentence, I am saying that a very, very advanced capacitor is possible,
and would accommodate most of the energy problems we have today -- basically it
would do the job that the energy function of oil now does.


An energy concept


Yes, there is a 21st Law of Thermodynamics. That is no knock on Faraday, just
a reference to the 21st century, and the new technology it has brought.

Simply stated, it is, "No energy concept involving renewables shall ever be
considered unless the word 'diffuse' is used, understood, and taken into
consideration."

Faraday could not have seen this coming. In his day, there was not the
multitude of diffuse renewable energy sources available, which can be converted
to electricity.

If human beings are ever to use renewable, natural energy sources, they will
have to take into consideration the diffuse nature of sunlight, wind, wave,
etc. I was actually surprised to find that Faraday, himself, used the word
"diffuse" in his writings. But, this was in reference to the spread of charge
on capacitor plates, and not the UN-concentrated free energy that is available
today for conversion to electricity.

There is NO way around this Law. By that, I mean that there in no way around
solving the "diffuse problem," before we are able to put renewable energy
sources to work in any effective way.



A goal......an idea......a prediction.......energy is easy........ there is no
crises.

We don't need oil.
We don't need batteries.
We don't need internal combustion engines.
We don't need fusion.
We don't need hybrids.
We don't need hydrogen-powered cars.
We don't need ethanol.
We don't need natural gas.
We don't need methane.
We don't even need efficiency.
We don't even need conservation.

All we need are the renewable energy sources that God - in His infinite wisdom
-- provided us.

Some could be used, some not. For a while. Eventually renewable energy
sources would be all we would need to power our EV's, and heat our homes. We
would have the luxury of choice, while at the same time powering our EV's with
them. All of them. Any of them. As long as they are able to generate any
amount of electricity.

To those who have read this before, and may have rejected it out of hand, let
me say that it is my strong belief that two major companies may be engaged in
pretty much the basic idea presented here. They have patents - I do not. In no
way do I - nor will I - attempt to claim any right whatsoever to this idea --
even though all my writing on it came from my own independent thinking for over
12 years. I wish them well. But, in case I am wrong about that effort being
made, I surely wish some interested party would help me connect this to the
people in government who say they want an energy solution. What they are
looking for is contained on this letter. I am THAT confident.

Note: I can see EER powering an automobile. That is almost a lock, in my mind.
Further applications are, perhaps, a little harder to deal with. Once a car
IS powered by EER, then all the entrepreneurs will take the rest to the logical
conclusion. For the most part, EER will be discussed in terms of an electric
vehicle.


EER in Brief


Electronic Electricity Repository (EER) is merely a concept at this time. There
is no business, no patent, and no money involved with this.

This involves solid state capacitors as a usable energy storage device for
electric vehicles, and other items. Conventional wisdom limits capacitors to
power surges, and the like. The full text of this concept will suggest a way to
make them fully competitive with the internal combustion engine, while not
violating the laws of energy density.

The easiest way to explain it is to use an electric vehicle as an
example. To power an EV with EER, an array of electronic devices --
perhaps solid-state capacitors, perhaps another device -- would
contain the electrical charge accumulated from a variety of sources
of electricity. Renewable energy sources are suggested, but *any*
source of electricity would work. With the questionable future of
battery-powered EV's, and fusion as an energy source, and the political debate
about fossil fuels, there are strong reasons to take a look at EER.

In fairness, many say it cannot be done. But, perhaps another war
-- or avoiding one -- could put the right minds to work on this concept. It
*would* provide a way to be independent of foreign oil, while providing a
structure for the transition to renewable forms of energy to power EV's - or
any other device powered by electricity.

This is merely a shell of an idea, but perhaps some further thought could help
bring it about.

Frank Lincoln....72430,2407......Feerguy9@cs.com
**************************************************************************
**************************



A TRIP TO THE STORE IN AN EER POWERED EV

Let's suppose that the EER concept is fully developed, and built
into an electric vehicle. Let's also suppose that the newest and best
technological devices -- some of which are now being used in EV's - are
integrated into the vehicle's design. What follows is a description
of what might possibly have happened during an everyday trip to the store
in such a vehicle. (This assumes the use of an *advanced* solid-state
capacitor).
Ms. Jones notices her "fuel gauge" as she starts her vehicle; it
tells her that her microchip capacitor battery is 85% full. This means
that of the vast number of microchip capacitors in her "battery," 85% are
charged with their very small electric capacitance.
She proceeds to the store, and returns home -- a quarter mile
trip. As she pulls in her driveway, she looks again at her gauge. It
reads 84%. She thinks that she used only 1% of her battery capacity for
her trip.
But, she is wrong.
She used 10% of her available charged capacitors for the quarter
mile trip. So, why didn't her gauge read 75% when she returned?
There were several devices built into her vehicle which were
replenishing used capacitors, almost as fast as she was using them. (All
figures below are guesses -- just to make the point.)

1. The advanced solar panel on the roof of her vehicle was, as
always during sunlight, continuously recharging at a slow, but
steady rate. Because she had happened to drive and park in
the sunlight, the solar panel recharged 5% of her capacitors.
2. The air scoops arranged in her vehicle's design -- although
accounting for some drag -- were directing the air through
small dynamos, which recharged another 2%.
3. The regenerative brakes on all four wheels replenished another
2% of the capacitors.

So, she did, in fact, use 10% of the available capacitor charges,
but 9% were replaced by the activity of her trip.
This is nothing like perpetual motion; it is merely taking
advantage of the natural surrounding energy to replenish the energy
spent on the trip.
It is even conceivable that her "fuel gauge" might have read a
higher percentage upon her return; a shorter trip on a windier and
sunnier day, in a more sunlit route and parking spot, and many more
occasions to use the brakes, might have made that possible. The Second
Law of Thermodynamics is not violated, because energy from outside the
vehicle was being absorbed along the way.
It is noted that a battery-powered EV could have done much the
same, but the weight difference would have changed the percentages, so
as to defeat the purpose.
Frank Lincoln CS# 72430,2407
**************************************************************************
**************************



It is understood that high energy density is something that has been sought for
many years -- the concept is nothing new. What is suggested here is the
possibility that modern technology may now be in the position to actually
attain it -- to a degree that could combine the many energy sources (new and
old) into a common pool.


GIVEN:
- Trench capacitors, at the present time, have nowhere near the capability to
deal with the degree of energy that would be required in Electronic Electricity
Repository.
- The area of the plates in a trench capacitor will, for the most part,
determine the capacitance -- not exclusively, but this is the factor that is
dealt with here as having the most potential for improvement. It is assumed
that progress in the other factors -- dielectric strength, dielectric
composition, etc., will continue, and will accommodate the supposition of
surface area increase made here.

HYPOTHESIS:
- The surface area of a trench capacitor plate can be greatly increased without
increasing the perimeter, or the space required to store the capacitor.
- Etching a groove on the plate surface will do this, to a small degree, and it
is done, to some extent, today. What is surmised, here, is that, as the
technology allows, many cross-grooves could be etched *within* the first
groove. Then, with increasing precision, these cross-grooves could, in turn, be
cross-grooved. And, then those cross-grooves cross-grooved. Each successive
cross-grooving would be progressively smaller - magnitudes smaller. This could
be repeated until the molecular level was reached -- each time increasing the
surface area of the plate, and thus the capacitance. An inexact estimate of the
number of times it could be repeated is 26. It is surmised that each groove,
cross-groove, and, etc., would be matched by a ridge, a cross-ridge, and, etc.,
on the opposite plate, with corresponding shapes for the dielectric. The
resulting configuration would yield a perfectly matching set of plates
(sandwiching an appropriately shaped, and expectedly advanced dielectric). Such
a configuration and material composition may not be possible at this time, but
the direction of efforts in their respective technologies may lead to their
development in the very near future. This concept is put forth in
*anticipation* of those developments.
- In theory, each successive etching would substantially increase the area of
the plates, and thus the capacitance *without increasing their size*, their
perimeter, or the volume of space needed for them. Again, the only barrier
seems to be at reaching the molecular level, after each groove is re-grooved,
perpendicularly, and then THAT groove is re-grooved, etc. This would take
advantage of all the "inner space" available between the plate surface, and the
molecular level. (Understand that in place of "etching," Scanning Tunneling
Microscope Technology might be applied -- or even nanotechnology, if that ever
becomes reality. The point is to configure the grooves -- by whatever method.)

BENEFITS:
- An almost endless storage system for electricity.
- A way to store electricity from *any* source, from renewables to a wall
socket.
- A possible solution to the search for a better power plant for electric
vehicles.
- A structure within which to make the conversion from fossil fuels to
renewables.
- A way to accumulate the "trickle" of the many forms of renewable energy, and
combine and store them in a practical way; a way that could give strength to
the many "weak" and diffuse renewable energy sources.
An attempt to generally suggest HOW to accomplish EER will be made; this will
be based on the feedback received so far on this concept. For the most part,
feedback has come from various forums in CompuServe. All major objections will
be mentioned, and a way around each one will be suggested.
ENERGY DENSITY - This appears to be the leading objection to EER. In the
strongest terms, it is postulated, here, that there is no sacred or permanent
universal limit to energy density -- there are only hurdles. There *are* limits
to present materials and there *are* limits to a given geometry, but no
universal scientific boundary that would stand forever and always. There are
certainly physical limits to the materials *now* being used, but, this concept
of EER does, indeed, depend upon progress in this area -- improvements in
materials are bound to happen. Unless human progress is at its maximum, there
is reason for such an expectation. Especially since -- many say -- technology
is doubling every day with computer technology, and since many of the best
resources in the world are focused on this type of science. (If anything like
this concept of EER ever happens, it will be as a natural development of such
materials -- and NOT a result of this effort; that is quite thoroughly
understood.)
It is suggest here that even without improvements in dieletrics, there may be
opportunity to vastly improve their capability with the one factor -- geography
of the plates.

Just as computers changed everything about information, some form of EER may
change the way energy is dealt with. The suggestion, above, regarding etching
grooves in trench capacitor plates, and then etching those grooves, etc., is
offered as a possible way to provide the structure that would enable a
monumentally higher energy density, than has ever been achieved. If the
geometry of the plates is configured as suggested here, and they are
identically wrinkled, it is expected that a very high energy density could be
achieved by taking advantage of the inner space. The accumulation of a massive
repelling force between plates is a problem for which no answer will be
attempted here. But, mechanics aside, it appears that developing technology
will, indeed, provide the tools necessary to configure the plates.

CAPACITOR LEAKAGE - Two points here: 1) Leakage in trench capacitors is not
nearly as big a problem as it was a few short years ago -- holding a charge for
an electric vehicle, for example, would be well within the cycle of usage. In
other words, an EV would be expected to be used often enough to use the charges
before they have time to leak. 2) The percentage of loss due to leakage could
logically be offset by overloading the capacitor bank by a like percentage.
This is somewhat of a built-in inefficiency, but in time, wouldn't the leakage
problem be expected to continue to improve?

ARCHING - The concern about electrical arching between the extremely small
dimensions created by the etching and re-etching can only be explained away by
a layman in this way: the extremely small dimensions would occur between parts
of the same plate - and *not* between the opposing plates. The surfaces of the
two plates would remain equidistant over the entire area. It is expected that
the extremely small dimensions would mainly occur between points on the same
plate, at the same potential -- and, thus, no arching would be anticipated.

ATOMIC LEVEL - In a pretty thorough analysis in the LEAP forum, it was
indicated that "the whole idea of a capacitor thus breaks down as we approach
atomic dimensions." (The following assumes abilities predicted by some as to
etching, Scanning Tunneling Microscope Technology, atomic force microscope,
lithography, or other methods.) If you make one groove (G1) in a capacitor
plate, that certainly does not approach atomic dimensions, yet it does increase
the surface area of the plate (without increasing its perimeter). Then, if you
go back and make another groove (G2) WITHIN G1's SURFACE, you are closer -- but
still not near the atomic level. Then if the surface of G2 is etched (or STM'd)
with G3, you are closer yet; closer -- but still a long way from the atomic
level. How far? Well, the number 26 seems to hold up as the number of times
you could re-etch grooves, before you hit bottom.
(Each successive etching step would be, say, a hundred times smaller than the
previous one. G3 is a hundred times smaller than G2. G2 is a hundred times
smaller than G1, and etc. G26 would be the smallest, and would begin to enter
atomic dimensions.)
Now, backing up, let's say you made a hundred tiny grooves on the surface of
the original plate -- so you have 100 G1's. Within each G1, you etch 100 much
smaller G2's. Within each G2 you etch 100 G3's, which are yet, again, much
smaller. This is a million grooves at the 3rd of 26 steps. If you could
continue on in this way for 26 re-groovings of the grooves, how many grooves
would you have at the 26th step? And, by how much would you have increased the
surface area of that plate? And how much more dipole moment effect would now
take place? And how much more ability to hold charge would you have? If the
number 26 makes you cranky, stop at 20, or 12.
The point is this: there is a tremendous amount of "inner space" available
*before* you reach atomic level. Perhaps an optimum number could be safely
reached. Even 12 would seem to provide a monumental increase in charge storage
ability. Subject to mathematicians' scrutiny, there may be 10^24 grooves, when
you are only halfway down to atomic level, and free of the terrible things that
happen there. At the halfway point, you have monumentally increased the surface
area, without threatening stability. Assuming that the dielectric follows the
shape of the plate exactly, have you not vastly increased the number of
molecules subject to polar realignment in the electric field? Could it be said
that, even though the individual dipole moments would stay at the same in
magnitude, there is an opportunity to create a tremendously larger number of
them, by taking advantage of the inner space available?

MASS PRODUCTION - Some of these techniques to reform very small structures are
very slow and very expensive. Some question was raised as to their adaptability
to a mass production situation. As with any change in technology, first efforts
are not usually efficient. But there seems to be enough advantages to EER so
that the forces of supply and demand would push the costs down. Once in the
competitive market, improvements in technique could be expected.

GROOVES TOO SMALL? - A statement made in one of the forums was, "There is a
limit to how small the grooves can be before they don't work any more." As this
was from a good source, it is taken seriously. If some of the logic, above,
doesn't account for this, there may be difficulty, here.

DISCHARGE TIME - Capacitors normally discharge very quickly, so wouldn't they
make a rather bad storage device? No detailed answer will be attempted, here,
but can't this be controlled with a very low discharge current, with a high
resistance?

Electricity is -- or can be -- the common denominator for all energy sources,
from solar to hydro. It is for exactly this reason that EER could employ each
and every energy source. All the new renewable technology could be "fed" into
EER - without exception. Yet, at the same time, conventional sources could
contribute to it -- every drop of oil and every lump of coal on this planet
could be used, purposely. Could this captured energy not then be put to use, as
needed, and when needed, by controlling the energy bursts to simulate
conventional electricity flow?

*******************

The technology that would be needed for EER *seems* to be within sight - with
some faith required, perhaps, for the materials. Basically, it is the ability
to sculpt materials at the molecular level which brought about this revised
approach to EER. I have never seen the etching process, nor STM; this whole
concept of extremely small sculpting to obtain extremely high surface area is
drawn from my imagination -- and the little I have read about these processes.
I am motivated by the extreme advantages that would come about, and the
apparent ability to accomplish this; if not on a production basis, then at
least on a prototype basis, to start. I'm certain there are still technical
errors in this effort -- it is hoped that the general idea was communicated
with some adequacy. This *seems* possible - or within reach - to me, and it
*seems* as though it would bring about profound benefits, and it *seems* to me
that it is a logical way to approach energy at this point in time.

But, I defer to the experts.
**************************************************************************
**************************

I have no patent on this idea. My motivation is not monetary.

I understand that this could not be done today, because of limits on existing
dieletrics, and perhaps other items. My position is that EER is not impossible,
given advances in some technologies.

Please respond by Email
or call at (248) 288-3459
Feerguy9@cs.com
Frank Lincoln

Please keep in mind that EER would allow energy from any and all sources to be
stored and combined in such a way that an electric vehicle could, at some later
time, be powered by it.





Separating a steel sample using a tensile tester could be useful in EER.

The jagged edges could be cut off, just past their breakpoint. Call these two
pieces of jagged metal our capacitor plates. The broken pieces are matched
molecular for molecule. If a dielectric is molded between the two jagged ends,
the fit could not be better. "d" is maintained. The area of the matching jagged
edges is much, much more than the cross section of the steel sample. We then
have matching capacitor plates without using STM to configure all the surfaces.



Note: EER may not solve all energy problems, but in my opinion, it could
certainly power personal vehicles.

Anyone who receives this is free to publish.




Feerguy9@cs.com
eerguy9@aol.com

 

[phil hunt]

(I'm not an electronic engineer, so I've cross-posted this to some
newsgroups which might be able to give informed comment on a number
of points.)

On 23 Sep 2003 05:51:41 -0700, Kevin Brooks <brooksvmi@yahoo.com> wrote:

philh@cabalamat.org (phil hunt) wrote in message news:<slrnbmvau9.agb.philh@cabalamat.cabalamat.com>...
[regarding battlefield internet]
The signal must be such that the extended receiver can hear it. So
others can too, in principle. (Though detecting the signal and
knowing where it's from aren't the same thing). I'm not a radio
engineer but I can imagine a few ways how direction-finding might
work; for example place two (or 3) detectors a few meters apart
and calculate the time delay between each one receiving the signal.

No. Paul is correct, DF'ing a "frequency agile" (or "hopping")
transmitter is no easy task. For example, the standard US SINCGARS
radio changes frequencies about one hundred times per *second*,

Bear in mind that I'm talking about automated electronic gear here,
not manual intervention. Electronics works in time spans a lot
quicker than 10 ms.

over a
pretty wide band of freq's (this is why synchronization of the radios
on a time basis is critical to succesful operation of the net).

So the frequency changes are pre-determined on a time basis?

If there is a radio receiver, is it better able to detect/deceive a
signal whgen it knows the frequency in advance? Or can it "sniff"
for lots of frequencies at a time and pick out what looks
interesting?

If two receivers, placed say 10 m aparet, both pick up a signal, how
accurately can the time difference between the repetion of both
signals be calculated? Light moves 30 cm in 1 ns, so if time
differences can be calculated to an accuracy of 0.1 ns, then
direction could be resolved to an accuracy of 3 cm/10 m ~= 3 mrad.

Alternately, would something like a pinhole camera work? What I mean
here is: imagine a cubic metal box, 1 m on its side, with a vertical
slit, about 1 cm wide down one of its vertical faces. On the
opposite face, there are detectors for detecting radio waves. If the
elevctromatnetic ratiation coming into the box can only go in
through the slit, and goes in a straight line, then knowing which
detectors are lit up would allow someone to tell where the
radiation was coming from. It may be that, depending on the
wavelength, the incoming radiation would be diffracted by the slit
and would get spread all over the detectors. If this is the case,
perehaps multiple slits could be used, and the diffraction pattern
would differ dependent on the angle with which the radiation strikes
the slitted face? (because the radation at each slit would be
out-of-phase with the radiation at other slits). Has anything like
this been tried?

It is
hard enough for the average "rest of the world" intel unit to DF an
old fashioned non-hopping transmitter if the radio operator uses good
RTO procedures--trying to pluck enough of these random
fractional-second bursts out of the ether to determine a direction is
more difficult by a few orders of magnitude.

What methods are used to do DF?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

 

[R. Steve Walz]

FEerguy9 wrote:

Let's see if I can get this on one page......
Electronic electricity repository is an energy concept that aims to accumulate
[]
Note: EER may not solve all energy problems, but in my opinion, it could
certainly power personal vehicles.
[]
Feerguy9@cs.com
eerguy9@aol.com
-----------------

Liar.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[BretCahill]

bigcat@meeow.co.uk (N. Thornton) in

Message-id: <a7076635.0309230538.510fe6dd@posting.google.com> writes:

.. . .

Almost all inventions should not be patented.

Let's just say at least 99% never make
any money for the patent holder.

I'm guessing 90% of patents result purely
from vanity -- some idiot wants his name
in the Official Gazette --, another 9% from
a cold [mis] calculated attempt to make
money.

Few are worth it.

But those few drive the entire economy.


Bret Cahill


"The indescribable joy of creation."

-- John Steinbeck


"Slow dime over the fast nickel."

 

[Kevin Brooks]

philh@cabalamat.org (phil hunt) wrote in message news:<slrnbn1jgt.dtf.philh@cabalamat.cabalamat.com>...

(I'm not an electronic engineer, so I've cross-posted this to some
newsgroups which might be able to give informed comment on a number
of points.)

On 23 Sep 2003 05:51:41 -0700, Kevin Brooks <brooksvmi@yahoo.com> wrote:
philh@cabalamat.org (phil hunt) wrote in message news:<slrnbmvau9.agb.philh@cabalamat.cabalamat.com>...
[regarding battlefield internet]
The signal must be such that the extended receiver can hear it. So
others can too, in principle. (Though detecting the signal and
knowing where it's from aren't the same thing). I'm not a radio
engineer but I can imagine a few ways how direction-finding might
work; for example place two (or 3) detectors a few meters apart
and calculate the time delay between each one receiving the signal.

No. Paul is correct, DF'ing a "frequency agile" (or "hopping")
transmitter is no easy task. For example, the standard US SINCGARS
radio changes frequencies about one hundred times per *second*,

Bear in mind that I'm talking about automated electronic gear here,
not manual intervention. Electronics works in time spans a lot
quicker than 10 ms.

So what? Unless you know the frequency hopping plan ahead of time
(something that is rather closely guarded), you can't capture enough
of the transmission to do you any good--they use a rather broad
spectrum.

over a
pretty wide band of freq's (this is why synchronization of the radios
on a time basis is critical to succesful operation of the net).

So the frequency changes are pre-determined on a time basis?

Yes.

If there is a radio receiver, is it better able to detect/deceive a
signal whgen it knows the frequency in advance? Or can it "sniff"
for lots of frequencies at a time and pick out what looks
interesting?

Both radios have to be loaded with the same frequency hopping (FH)
plan, and then they have to be synchronized by time. When SINGCARS
first came out the time synch had to be done by having the net control
station (NCS) perform periodic radio checks (each time your radio
"talked" to the NCS, it resynchronized to the NCS time hack); failure
to do this could result in the net "splitting", with some of your
radios on one hack, and the rest on another, meaning the two could not
talk to each other. I believe that the newer versions (known as
SINCGARS EPLRS, for enhanced precision location system) may use GPS
time data, ensuring that everyone is always on the same time scale.

Yes, you can set up to scan various nets (we did so for command post
operations where we wanted to monitor multiple nets), but they all
have to be on that same time hack, and you have to have each net's FH
plan loaded; you can't just decide to operate it like a police scanner
and listen in on whoever you choose to.

If two receivers, placed say 10 m aparet, both pick up a signal, how
accurately can the time difference between the repetion of both
signals be calculated? Light moves 30 cm in 1 ns, so if time
differences can be calculated to an accuracy of 0.1 ns, then
direction could be resolved to an accuracy of 3 cm/10 m ~= 3 mrad.

The fact is that the direction finding (DF'ing) of frequency agile
commo equipment is extremely difficult for the best of the world's
intel folks, and darned near impossible for the rest (which is most of
the rest of the world); that is why US radio procedures are a bit more
relaxed than they used to be before the advent of FH, back when we
tried to keep our transmissions to no more than five seconds at a time
with lots of "breaks" in long messages to make DF'ing more difficult.

Alternately, would something like a pinhole camera work? What I mean
here is: imagine a cubic metal box, 1 m on its side, with a vertical
slit, about 1 cm wide down one of its vertical faces. On the
opposite face, there are detectors for detecting radio waves. If the
elevctromatnetic ratiation coming into the box can only go in
through the slit, and goes in a straight line, then knowing which
detectors are lit up would allow someone to tell where the
radiation was coming from. It may be that, depending on the
wavelength, the incoming radiation would be diffracted by the slit
and would get spread all over the detectors. If this is the case,
perehaps multiple slits could be used, and the diffraction pattern
would differ dependent on the angle with which the radiation strikes
the slitted face? (because the radation at each slit would be
out-of-phase with the radiation at other slits). Has anything like
this been tried?

Hey, I just *used* the critters and was fortunate enough to attend new
equipment training from the manufacturer when we got it; suffice it to
say that use of FH makes DF'ing a remote concern, pretty much
eliminates any concern over jamming (even broad band jamming can only
take down a small percentage of the available spectrum, making voice
transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to decypher
it in any realistic timely manner.

It is
hard enough for the average "rest of the world" intel unit to DF an
old fashioned non-hopping transmitter if the radio operator uses good
RTO procedures--trying to pluck enough of these random
fractional-second bursts out of the ether to determine a direction is
more difficult by a few orders of magnitude.

What methods are used to do DF?

You'd have to find a signals intel puke to answer that one (but you
can rest assured that any really good methods/systems remain
classified).

Brooks

 

[H. Dziardziel]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 03:54:30 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <bkldvn$30ek9$1@ID-69072.news.uni-berlin.de>, Rod Speed wrote:

Don Klipstein <don@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbmscaf.e24.don@manx.misty.com...

Maybe similar to cobwebs - which are dry to the touch initially,
but turn out to be gooky if you roll them up in your hands.

The jet black soot from the inside of the monitor
case adjacent to the FBT never gets 'gooky'
no matter how much you rub it with your fingers.

Often feels a bit greasy to me when I do that!

And cobwebs are black

Not here they arent. Quite a light brown, actually.

- certainly darker than ordinary dust

Dont get that either, if anything they are lighter.

- and it does appear to me that electric fields and maybe
ionic currents play a role in their stringy formation.

What ? There are no electric fields near any of my cobwebs.

But where I live, half the time I work up a charge when I walk on my
carpet. 1/3 of the time I produce a serious charge dragging anything of
cloth over anything of a different fiber. And I believe this happens not
everywhere but a lot more than most people think, and DC electric fields
(although weaker than in a TV set) at least here-and-there in homes are
somewhat common much of the time.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Interesting thread. It seems to me that the slightly greasy
black dust found inside monitors is dust blackened by the normal
outgassing of the plastic components. Leave an any color plastic
(e.g. trash) container next to a room wall corner (where the
circulation is poor) and you will see black wallpaper or paint in
one year. As I recall, old wood cabinet TVs had more "normal"
interior dust. Our real pollution is not from smokers -- simply
vegetation being burnt -- but by all the oil derived crud from
plastic and rubber in the air.

 

[N. Thornton]

bretcahill@aol.com (BretCahill) wrote in message news:<20030923214544.12610.00000101@mb-m28.aol.com>...

bigcat@meeow.co.uk (N. Thornton) in
Message-id: <a7076635.0309230538.510fe6dd@posting.google.com> writes:

Almost all inventions should not be patented.

Let's just say at least 99% never make
any money for the patent holder.

I'm guessing 90% of patents result purely
from vanity -- some idiot wants his name
in the Official Gazette --, another 9% from
a cold [mis] calculated attempt to make
money.

Few are worth it.

But those few drive the entire economy.

Agreement at last... except for the minor nit that lots of the economy
is driven by things that aren't patented, or never were.

Regards, NT

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030923152458.29224.00000041@mb-m13.news.cs.com...

Let's see if I can get this on one page......

Y'know, Frank, posting the same nonsense three times in a row
doesn't make it any shorter OR any more sensible.

"EER" is, simply put, ridiculous.


Bob M.

 

[phil hunt]

On 23 Sep 2003 20:00:32 -0700, Kevin Brooks <brooksvmi@yahoo.com> wrote:

No. Paul is correct, DF'ing a "frequency agile" (or "hopping")
transmitter is no easy task. For example, the standard US SINCGARS
radio changes frequencies about one hundred times per *second*,

Bear in mind that I'm talking about automated electronic gear here,
not manual intervention. Electronics works in time spans a lot
quicker than 10 ms.

So what? Unless you know the frequency hopping plan ahead of time
(something that is rather closely guarded), you can't capture enough
of the transmission to do you any good--they use a rather broad
spectrum.

OK, I now understand that DF generally relies on knowing the
frequency in advance.

BTW, when you say a rather broad spectrum, how broad? And divided
into how many bands, roughly?

Both radios have to be loaded with the same frequency hopping (FH)
plan, and then they have to be synchronized by time. When SINGCARS
first came out the time synch had to be done by having the net control
station (NCS) perform periodic radio checks (each time your radio
"talked" to the NCS, it resynchronized to the NCS time hack); failure
to do this could result in the net "splitting", with some of your
radios on one hack, and the rest on another, meaning the two could not
talk to each other. I believe that the newer versions (known as
SINCGARS EPLRS, for enhanced precision location system) may use GPS
time data, ensuring that everyone is always on the same time scale.

That would make sense.

If two receivers, placed say 10 m aparet, both pick up a signal, how
accurately can the time difference between the repetion of both
signals be calculated? Light moves 30 cm in 1 ns, so if time
differences can be calculated to an accuracy of 0.1 ns, then
direction could be resolved to an accuracy of 3 cm/10 m ~= 3 mrad.

The fact is that the direction finding (DF'ing) of frequency agile
commo equipment is extremely difficult for the best of the world's
intel folks, and darned near impossible for the rest (which is most of
the rest of the world); that is why US radio procedures are a bit more
relaxed than they used to be before the advent of FH, back when we
tried to keep our transmissions to no more than five seconds at a time
with lots of "breaks" in long messages to make DF'ing more difficult.

So transmissions of 5 seconds tend to be hard to DF? Of course, with
the battlefield internet, a text transmission will typically be a
lot less than 5 s (assuming the same bandwidth as for a voice
transmission, i.e. somewhere in the region of 20-60 kbit/s).

transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to decypher
it in any realistic timely manner.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

 

[Don Klipstein]

In art. <7s42nv8rgjceu76dj35nbusj0188j17ju1@4ax.com>, H. Dziardziel wrote:

Interesting thread. It seems to me that the slightly greasy
black dust found inside monitors is dust blackened by the normal
outgassing of the plastic components. Leave an any color plastic
(e.g. trash) container next to a room wall corner (where the
circulation is poor) and you will see black wallpaper or paint in
one year. As I recall, old wood cabinet TVs had more "normal"
interior dust. Our real pollution is not from smokers -- simply
vegetation being burnt -- but by all the oil derived crud from
plastic and rubber in the air.

In my TV-trashpicking days, I found enough of that black dust in
wooden-cabinet TV sets also.
And stereo receivers and amplifiers, even with plastic in them, usually
had normal dust.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[L'acrobat]

"phil hunt" <philh@cabalamat.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbn4ckg.1lp.philh@cabalamat.cabalamat.com...

transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to decypher
it in any realistic timely manner.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

Thank you Admiral Doenitz...

 

[R. Steve Walz]

L'acrobat wrote:

"phil hunt" <philh@cabalamat.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbn4ckg.1lp.philh@cabalamat.cabalamat.com...

transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to decypher
it in any realistic timely manner.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

Thank you Admiral Doenitz...
------------

He's right. Major breaththrough of all possible barriers, the RSA
algorithm. Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user, and
crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power and
can be lengthened to compensate.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[L'acrobat]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F725AC9.6730@armory.com...

L'acrobat wrote:

"phil hunt" <philh@cabalamat.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbn4ckg.1lp.philh@cabalamat.cabalamat.com...

transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to
decypher
it in any realistic timely manner.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

Thank you Admiral Doenitz...
------------
He's right. Major breaththrough of all possible barriers, the RSA
algorithm. Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user, and
crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power and
can be lengthened to compensate.

The fact that you and I think it is unbeatable, doesn't mean it is.

"lifetime of the serious user" what bollocks, you and I have absolutely no
idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years from now,
let alone 30.

"and crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power" of course
it is...

Ask the good Admiral how confident he was that his system was secure.

Damn near as confident as you are and that worked out so well, didn't it?

 

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:47:07 +1000, L'acrobat <husky65@delete_me.netspace.net.au> wrote:

"lifetime of the serious user" what bollocks, you and I have absolutely no
idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years from now,

Ever heard of Moore's law?

I've got a pretty good idea. A typical PC now has a 2 GHz CPU, and
about 256 MB RAM.

Assume these double every 18 months. 10 years is about 7 doublings
so in 2003 we'll see PCs with 250 GHz CPUs and 32 GB of RAM.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

 

[Kevin Brooks]

philh@cabalamat.org (phil hunt) wrote in message news:<slrnbn4ckg.1lp.philh@cabalamat.cabalamat.com>...

On 23 Sep 2003 20:00:32 -0700, Kevin Brooks <brooksvmi@yahoo.com> wrote:

No. Paul is correct, DF'ing a "frequency agile" (or "hopping")
transmitter is no easy task. For example, the standard US SINCGARS
radio changes frequencies about one hundred times per *second*,

Bear in mind that I'm talking about automated electronic gear here,
not manual intervention. Electronics works in time spans a lot
quicker than 10 ms.

So what? Unless you know the frequency hopping plan ahead of time
(something that is rather closely guarded), you can't capture enough
of the transmission to do you any good--they use a rather broad
spectrum.

OK, I now understand that DF generally relies on knowing the
frequency in advance.

BTW, when you say a rather broad spectrum, how broad? And divided
into how many bands, roughly?

It uses the entire normal military VHF FM spectrum, 30-88 MHz. ISTR
that the steps in between are measured in 1 KHz increments, as opposed
to the old 10 KHz increments found in older FM radios like the
AN/VRC-12 family, so the number of different frequencies SINGCARS can
use is 58,000.

Both radios have to be loaded with the same frequency hopping (FH)
plan, and then they have to be synchronized by time. When SINGCARS
first came out the time synch had to be done by having the net control
station (NCS) perform periodic radio checks (each time your radio
"talked" to the NCS, it resynchronized to the NCS time hack); failure
to do this could result in the net "splitting", with some of your
radios on one hack, and the rest on another, meaning the two could not
talk to each other. I believe that the newer versions (known as
SINCGARS EPLRS, for enhanced precision location system) may use GPS
time data, ensuring that everyone is always on the same time scale.

That would make sense.

If two receivers, placed say 10 m aparet, both pick up a signal, how
accurately can the time difference between the repetion of both
signals be calculated? Light moves 30 cm in 1 ns, so if time
differences can be calculated to an accuracy of 0.1 ns, then
direction could be resolved to an accuracy of 3 cm/10 m ~= 3 mrad.

The fact is that the direction finding (DF'ing) of frequency agile
commo equipment is extremely difficult for the best of the world's
intel folks, and darned near impossible for the rest (which is most of
the rest of the world); that is why US radio procedures are a bit more
relaxed than they used to be before the advent of FH, back when we
tried to keep our transmissions to no more than five seconds at a time
with lots of "breaks" in long messages to make DF'ing more difficult.

So transmissions of 5 seconds tend to be hard to DF? Of course, with
the battlefield internet, a text transmission will typically be a
lot less than 5 s (assuming the same bandwidth as for a voice
transmission, i.e. somewhere in the region of 20-60 kbit/s).

ISTR the old guidance was to keep transmissions no longer than 5 to 7
seconds without a break (a break normally was announced as part of the
message, followed by release of the mic key, then rekeying and
continuing the message).

transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to decypher
it in any realistic timely manner.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

Only if it were so...but thank goodness it is not. Otherwise we would
have lost the value of one of our largest and most valuable intel
programs, and NSA would no longer exist. Even the cypher keys used by
our modern tactical radios (said keys being generated by NSA at the
top end, though we now have computers in the field capable of "key
generation" using input from that source) are not
unbreakable--instead, they are tough enough to break that we can be
reasonably assured that the bad guys will not be able to gain any kind
of *timely* tactical intel; enough computing power in the hands of the
crypto-geeks and they can indeed break them, but it will probably take
them a while, not to mention the time to get the data into their hands
in the first place.

Brooks

 

[H. Dziardziel]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:26:35 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In my TV-trashpicking days, I found enough of that black dust in
wooden-cabinet TV sets also.

And I serviced them decades ago and can't recall anything like
what is found nowdays in monitors and TVs but admittedly the air
was far cleaner then (at least where I lived) unless oil heat was
used.. But I have seen the effects of outgassing plastic on
for, example, walls.. The internal heat in monitors would
certainly accelerate that And the ozone. .

And stereo receivers and amplifiers, even with plastic in them, usually
had normal dust.

Another nice science project.

 

[Mike Andrews]

In <slrnbn4ckg.1lp.philh@cabalamat.cabalamat.com> (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), phil hunt wrote:

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

That's a great idea, and I suspect tthat you're right in the general
case. But a modern cryptosystem, badly implemented, will have all
manner of vulnerabilities -- most of which are not particularly
obvious.

Remember the competition for the successor to DES as the standard
crypto algorithm? That was *quite* interesting.

--
"Remember: every member of your 'target audience' also owns a broadcasting
station. These 'targets' can shoot back."
-- Michael Rathbun to advertisers, in nanae

 

[DarkMatter]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:53:04 +0900, H. Dziardziel
<hdzi@zworg.nospamcom> Gave us:

And I serviced them decades ago and can't recall anything like
what is found nowdays in monitors and TVs but admittedly the air
was far cleaner then (at least where I lived) unless oil heat was
used.. But I have seen the effects of outgassing plastic on
for, example, walls.. The internal heat in monitors would
certainly accelerate that And the ozone. .

You seem to have this thing for plastics outgassing.

Sorry to burst your bubble but plastics that are used for monitor
housings do not outgas black particulate.

The "plastics" used for the FBT shell are thermoset plastics and do
not outgas. The potting material for FBTs does not outgas. IC chips
and transistor are NOT packaged in plastic, they are encased in EPOXY,
and the type used only "outgasses" at very high temperatures for
exceeding those of the interior of a monitor shell.

Conclusion: Plastic, and plastic outgassing is NOT the source.

The source is externally attracted airborne particulate... PERIOD.