Next Intel's processor using FTL data transmission technolog

Mathew Orman wrote:
"Rene Tschaggelar" <none@none.none> wrote in message
news:356f2ce824e5c8f954114da34a54dfa5@news.teranews.com...

Mathew Orman wrote:

The main property of EM waves is straight line propagation!
Coax can be twisted to any shape and that does not alter much the

waveform

propagation.

Not really.
The coax has a TEM wave, meaning the E field is perpendicular to the
propagation direction and the H field is also perpendicular to the
the propagation. Waveguides without center conductor cannot have
both fields perpendicular, therefore they either are TE or TM.


Electrically short open-ended coax line segments do not propagate EM waves.
Or else they no longer considered as short!
Click to expand...
They sure do.
We're not talking DC here.
There is a reflection at the impedance change, eg the short, though.

Rene
 
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3uzkb.447$nL.13@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
Mathew Orman wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message news:Jsykb.440$nL.231@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
Mathew Orman wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message news:N3xkb.426$nL.66@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
Mathew Orman wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in



Never!
GR has never failed!
It is like a perfect clock!
The stopped clock!

Something that never worked will never fail!

Oh, what about.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node97.html

1 Gravitational Red shift of light
2 Gravitational Bending of light
3 Precession of the perihelion of Mercury
4 Loss of energy by double pulsars

Its plainly obvious that you *truly* are a complete and utter
rank layman at this. You have no knowledge on these matters at
all, just cursory words gained from reading Bantam paperbacks.

Here is a simplified outline of the basics, "General Relativity
For Teletubbys", http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html


Poor evidence based on 2d image data.
The grossest example of theory to experimental data fitting!


Yeah, all of physics is wrong yet again. Simply pathetic.

Provide description of a single down to the Earth experiment
that can be performed by use of the conventional test equipment.

Idiot. General Relativity is about gravity. You know, things about
how planets and stars move. These don't exist on the earth, you
fool.

Just an offhand web scan.
Some examples of *accurate* rader ranging:

http://helio.estec.esa.nl/intermarsnet/redreport/node37.html
"Most of the experimental underpinning for theoretical gravitation
has come from Solar System dynamics. Ranging to the Viking Landers,
radar ranging to Mercury, and laser ranging to the moon have
produced the most precise dynamical tests of the theory as it
applies to the motions of bodies in the Solar System. As a result
of these tests, it is known that Newtonian gravity is not correct
and that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity still appears to
be consistent with all observations."

or http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/19/16/306, relative
accuracy of 0.1% to 1%.

You still having got a f'ing clue. You are way out of your depth,
and digging yourself in deeper into the shit.

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.



I need a link to the description of a single physical experiment and
not to a vending machine!


Go and take a bloody first coarse in Relativity, before making daft
claims that it is a pile of shit. Your arguing from complete
ignorance.



Single experiment!
And no excuses!

google "Tests of Special Relativity" 340 hits.

http://www.aei.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/RT/srtest.html contains
referances to 14.

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.
Click to expand...
They are not published on the web.
Those are references to vending machines!

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
 
"Rene Tschaggelar" <none@none.none> wrote in message
news:d807ab06b854c7e66a287182beffb9eb@news.teranews.com...
Mathew Orman wrote:
"Rene Tschaggelar" <none@none.none> wrote in message
news:356f2ce824e5c8f954114da34a54dfa5@news.teranews.com...

Mathew Orman wrote:

The main property of EM waves is straight line propagation!
Coax can be twisted to any shape and that does not alter much the

waveform

propagation.

Not really.
The coax has a TEM wave, meaning the E field is perpendicular to the
propagation direction and the H field is also perpendicular to the
the propagation. Waveguides without center conductor cannot have
both fields perpendicular, therefore they either are TE or TM.


Electrically short open-ended coax line segments do not propagate EM
waves.
Or else they no longer considered as short!

They sure do.
We're not talking DC here.
There is a reflection at the impedance change, eg the short, though.

Rene
Click to expand...
No reflection in Electrically Short lines.

The output voltage equals the input voltage + the induced voltage across the
core inductance
due to the input displacement current.

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
 
"Mike" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:v0xcyxxvco0b.hi873m4idh1o.dlg@40tude.net...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:57:20 +0200, Mathew Orman wrote:

Maxwell had no idea of coax transmission lines
they had not been invented yet!

Like hell they hadn't.

Kelvin analyzed transmission lines in 1854, as lossy coaxial cable, in
response to a question posed by Stokes about cable delay. When he first
published his results, he referenced an earlier paper he had written on
heat flow, "On the Uniform Motion of Heat in Homogeneous Solid Bodies, and
its Connexion with the Mathematical Theory of Electricity" from 1842. At
that point, Kelvin had established (a) the mathematical similarity between
heat flow and electric current, and (b) the theory of current flow in a
lossy coaxial transmission line.

Maxwell graduated from college in 1854, the year of Kelvin's publication
on
transmission lines, and didn't begin working on electromagnetism until
1864. The transatlantic cable designed by Kelvin was laid in 1866;
Maxwell's treatise wasn't published until 1879.

Honestly, Mathew. Kelvin studied signal delay in coaxial transmission
lines, for God's sake. One would think that you'd be intimately familiar
with his work. Not invented yet? Not only were they invented, they were
well described theoretically, and if you look in _any_ reasonably advanced
text on transmission line theory today, you'll discover the same equations
that Kelvin used in 1854 are still used today to describe signal
propagation in lossy transmission lines. Try, for example, "Transformation
Calculus and Electrical Transients," Stanford Goldman, Prentice-Hall,
1949.

-- Mike --
Click to expand...
Check this out:

http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid7_gci211806,00.html

http://www.att.com/spotlight/nethistory/transmission.html

http://www.g3rfl.ukhome.net/co-ax1.htm

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
 
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<bmtmmo$h3s$1@news.onet.pl>...

Poor evidence based on 2d image data.
The grossest example of theory to experimental data fitting!

Provide description of a single down to the Earth experiment
that can be performed by use of the conventional test equipment.
Click to expand...
Are you FOOLISH enough to think that since YOU can't prove it with
your simple test equipment that is isn't correct? You can't build a
cell phone with bowling balls either. But GUESS WHAT. YOU CAN build
a cell phone. That YOU can't build one with said bowling balls says
only that bowling balls aren't the right equipment to do it with, and
YOU aren't smart enough to find the correct items to build a cell
phone. That YOU can't prove SR with your test equipment only shows
that you are stupid enough to think that your inability to find and
use correct equipment for a task is proof that something is not
possible.

Lets take your stupid ideas in the following blocks:

"
C.
Rotating permanent magnet with synchronously orbiting solenoid coil.
The magnetic field rotates simultaneously with the magnet.
The coil outputs no waveform (non inductive sensor can be used as
well).
I state that the magnet is not producing magnetic waves or EM waves.

I state based on A, B and C that magnetic field is instantaneous.
If there was any delay with the field gradient propagation away from
magnet
than case C would produce sinusoidal waveform due to lagging gradient.
"

You have a puny understanding of the speed of light. It is a little
under a BILLION feet per second. In other words, to make a complete
wave gradient appear across a foot long coil spinning with the magnet,
you need to SPIN that magnet and coil a BILLION times a second. To
get even 1/1000th of a gradient, you need to spin that magnet 1
MILLION times a second. You can't do that? That doesn't prove that
it's not real, just that YOU can't do it. And you didn't understand
it well enough to know that is what is required. You only prove that
you're a physics DUNCE, not that relativity is wrong.

Guess what? You're also an electronics DUNCE. A coil with that
gradient across it STILL won't produce a voltage. A magnetic gradient
doesn't produce electron motion, only a CHANGING magnetic field. In
other words you would have to have your magnet and coil spinning at a
million RPS, then stop, then a million RPS, then stop, etc, to see a
changing voltage on the coil from the spining gradient and no gradient
from being stopped. Again, you're an electronics dunce, any first
year electronics student understands what it takes to induce a current
in a coil better than yourself. It actually may not be a bad way to
test for SR on some scale, but YOU are not smart enough to be the one
doing the testing. And when done by someone correctly, it will no
doubt prove SR is correct once again.

You can't even set up your own thought experiment correctly. Even
if you had the equipment to do it, you have too little knowledge to
prove or disprove relativity with any amount of equipment. Equipment
isn't your problem, LACK of KNOWLEDGE and THINKING ABILITY are your
limiting factors at the current time. You don't understand the
theory, you don't know how to test for the theory, and you don't know
electronics beyond absolute beginner level. I feel much better that
the US Patent Office will surely take your money and issue you a
worthless patent, you would have been soon parted from your money by
someone else anyway, may as well reduce our taxes with your thrown
away money. I also feel much better about America now, at least
Americans aren't the only ones dumb when it comes to science.

Note that you could STILL profit from your patent though. That
would still prove nothing, all it takes is finding a bigger fool to
buy into it. There are plenty of fools in the world, but the
requirement of your finding a bigger one than yourself does limit your
selection pool a bit.

Alan
 
"Alan" <alantak69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dfee2f9c.0310191045.4e9b2388@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bmtmmo$h3s$1@news.onet.pl>...

Poor evidence based on 2d image data.
The grossest example of theory to experimental data fitting!

Provide description of a single down to the Earth experiment
that can be performed by use of the conventional test equipment.

Are you FOOLISH enough to think that since YOU can't prove it with
your simple test equipment that is isn't correct? You can't build a
cell phone with bowling balls either. But GUESS WHAT. YOU CAN build
a cell phone. That YOU can't build one with said bowling balls says
only that bowling balls aren't the right equipment to do it with, and
YOU aren't smart enough to find the correct items to build a cell
phone. That YOU can't prove SR with your test equipment only shows
that you are stupid enough to think that your inability to find and
use correct equipment for a task is proof that something is not
possible.

Lets take your stupid ideas in the following blocks:

"
C.
Rotating permanent magnet with synchronously orbiting solenoid coil.
The magnetic field rotates simultaneously with the magnet.
The coil outputs no waveform (non inductive sensor can be used as
well).
I state that the magnet is not producing magnetic waves or EM waves.

I state based on A, B and C that magnetic field is instantaneous.
If there was any delay with the field gradient propagation away from
magnet
than case C would produce sinusoidal waveform due to lagging gradient.
"

You have a puny understanding of the speed of light. It is a little
under a BILLION feet per second. In other words, to make a complete
wave gradient appear across a foot long coil spinning with the magnet,
you need to SPIN that magnet and coil a BILLION times a second. To
get even 1/1000th of a gradient, you need to spin that magnet 1
MILLION times a second. You can't do that? That doesn't prove that
it's not real, just that YOU can't do it. And you didn't understand
it well enough to know that is what is required. You only prove that
you're a physics DUNCE, not that relativity is wrong.

Guess what? You're also an electronics DUNCE. A coil with that
gradient across it STILL won't produce a voltage. A magnetic gradient
doesn't produce electron motion, only a CHANGING magnetic field. In
other words you would have to have your magnet and coil spinning at a
million RPS, then stop, then a million RPS, then stop, etc, to see a
changing voltage on the coil from the spining gradient and no gradient
from being stopped. Again, you're an electronics dunce, any first
year electronics student understands what it takes to induce a current
in a coil better than yourself. It actually may not be a bad way to
test for SR on some scale, but YOU are not smart enough to be the one
doing the testing. And when done by someone correctly, it will no
doubt prove SR is correct once again.

You can't even set up your own thought experiment correctly. Even
if you had the equipment to do it, you have too little knowledge to
prove or disprove relativity with any amount of equipment. Equipment
isn't your problem, LACK of KNOWLEDGE and THINKING ABILITY are your
limiting factors at the current time. You don't understand the
theory, you don't know how to test for the theory, and you don't know
electronics beyond absolute beginner level. I feel much better that
the US Patent Office will surely take your money and issue you a
worthless patent, you would have been soon parted from your money by
someone else anyway, may as well reduce our taxes with your thrown
away money. I also feel much better about America now, at least
Americans aren't the only ones dumb when it comes to science.

Note that you could STILL profit from your patent though. That
would still prove nothing, all it takes is finding a bigger fool to
buy into it. There are plenty of fools in the world, but the
requirement of your finding a bigger one than yourself does limit your
selection pool a bit.

Alan
Click to expand...
Far to many false assumptions!

Also irrelevant to the subject of Experimental Evidence of Light Speed
Invariance!

http://pages.prodigy.net/mathguy/paradoxes.htm

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
 
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 18:09:26 +0200, Mathew Orman wrote:


"Fred Abse" <excretatauris@cerebrumconfus.it> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.19.14.30.20.16886@cerebrumconfus.it...
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 15:05:13 +0200, Mathew Orman wrote:

The main property of EM waves is straight line propagation!

So you're now saying bent waveguide won't work?

--
Click to expand...

No!
You are saying bent waveguide.
I typed bent coax!
Click to expand...
You typed "The main property of EM waves is straight line propagation!",
as the quote shows.

That's what I was replying to.


--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx
 
Mathew Orman wrote:
"Rene Tschaggelar" <none@none.none> wrote in message
news:d807ab06b854c7e66a287182beffb9eb@news.teranews.com...

Mathew Orman wrote:

"Rene Tschaggelar" <none@none.none> wrote in message
news:356f2ce824e5c8f954114da34a54dfa5@news.teranews.com...


Mathew Orman wrote:


The main property of EM waves is straight line propagation!
Coax can be twisted to any shape and that does not alter much the

waveform


propagation.

Not really.
The coax has a TEM wave, meaning the E field is perpendicular to the
propagation direction and the H field is also perpendicular to the
the propagation. Waveguides without center conductor cannot have
both fields perpendicular, therefore they either are TE or TM.


Electrically short open-ended coax line segments do not propagate EM

waves.

Or else they no longer considered as short!

They sure do.
We're not talking DC here.
There is a reflection at the impedance change, eg the short, though.

No reflection in Electrically Short lines.

The output voltage equals the input voltage + the induced voltage across the
core inductance
due to the input displacement current.
Click to expand...
Mathew,
you appear to play deaf & blind.
Even though the wave doesn't propagate far,
there is a radial E-field and since there is a phaselag at the end of the open cable,
however short it is, there is a current. And this current in the center conductor
has a circular H-field, which both are perpendicular to the direction. Hence a TEM
wave.

Rene
 
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:

"Nico Coesel" <nico@puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:3f91cb33.53491757@news.planet.nl...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:


"Nico Coesel" <nico@puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:3f91b361.47394219@news.planet.nl...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:


"Alan" <alantak69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dfee2f9c.0310180927.2cad9185@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message

In order for physicist to model physical phenomena the phenomena
must
physically exist!

What an absolute crap statement that is. Almost all physics
discoveries were thought of and could therefore be modeled BEFORE it
was known or proven that they existed or not. Millions of things
were
modeled that CAN'T exist, because the ideas were wrong. It is
INVENTED as soon as it's properly modeled, even if it can't actually
be made for dozens of years.


And this is the root of your evils. You've MODELED a FTL
transmission line, so you think you've proven that it really exists.
No thought to the fact that your electronics modeling ability sucks
eggs, with inaccurate understandings of many fundamental electronic
principles, and thats what allows you to arrive at such an erroneous
conclusion.

You may have the odd actual good idea and be a reasonably bright
person in some other respects. But guaranteed if they hook a
General
IQ meter across your head the plotted trace will show some striking
dips over the FTL, tranmission lines, and general electronics
circuits
data points. No doubt the graph will also touch zero at the
conservation laws, overunity isn't real, and general common sense
points as well..

Alan

Please give me an example of physical phenomena that was modeled
before
it
was physically discovered!

The A-bomb


False!
Check Marie Curie and her husband work!

Before the first A-bomb was detonated, loads of people have been doing
an enourmous amount of calculations on how it should be constructed to
start a chain reaction. Read Feynman's biografy about it.
AFAIK, the A-bombs that forced Japan into capitulation only worked on
paper. They had a different construction than the first bomb that got
tested at Los Alamos. That's why the US never issued a "Japan stop now
or else we will really kick your buts!" warning before the first bomb.
There was a slight chance the bomb wouldn't go off at all and the US
would lose face.

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

Bomb is not a physical phenomena but a technological implementation of one.
Nuclear reactions ware discovered first than modeled!
Click to expand...
If you start to reason like that, you could as well state that the
only real invention ever made was that 1+1 makes 2. Any other work
(model) is derived from that equation.

--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl
 
"Rene Tschaggelar" <none@none.none> wrote in message
news:0360d2093c0229ac652d238bb83f09b9@news.teranews.com...
Mathew Orman wrote:
"Rene Tschaggelar" <none@none.none> wrote in message
news:d807ab06b854c7e66a287182beffb9eb@news.teranews.com...

Mathew Orman wrote:

"Rene Tschaggelar" <none@none.none> wrote in message
news:356f2ce824e5c8f954114da34a54dfa5@news.teranews.com...


Mathew Orman wrote:


The main property of EM waves is straight line propagation!
Coax can be twisted to any shape and that does not alter much the

waveform


propagation.

Not really.
The coax has a TEM wave, meaning the E field is perpendicular to the
propagation direction and the H field is also perpendicular to the
the propagation. Waveguides without center conductor cannot have
both fields perpendicular, therefore they either are TE or TM.


Electrically short open-ended coax line segments do not propagate EM

waves.

Or else they no longer considered as short!

They sure do.
We're not talking DC here.
There is a reflection at the impedance change, eg the short, though.

No reflection in Electrically Short lines.

The output voltage equals the input voltage + the induced voltage across
the
core inductance
due to the input displacement current.

Mathew,
you appear to play deaf & blind.
Even though the wave doesn't propagate far,
there is a radial E-field and since there is a phaselag at the end of the
open cable,
however short it is, there is a current. And this current in the center
conductor
has a circular H-field, which both are perpendicular to the direction.
Hence a TEM
wave.

Rene
Click to expand...
What phase lag is it?
Single gaussian pulse has no phase defined.
You need periodic waveform for phase to be defined!
Electric field is instantaneous it extends across entire length of the coax
segment.

Also the property of Electrically short Open-ended coax segment is identical
to the equivalent lump RLC circuit.

If you run sinusoidal sweep from 0 to resonant frequency of the coax segment
you will see that the phase shift is constant and near 0 and only depends on
RC component
the L is only responsible for change in the output's amplitude.

You can simulate all that in LTspice and see the effect of displacement
current.

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
 
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<bmudc2$4ov$1@news.onet.pl>...
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Jsykb.440$nL.231@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
Mathew Orman wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message news:N3xkb.426$nL.66@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
Mathew Orman wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in

Provide description of a single down to the Earth experiment
that can be performed by use of the conventional test equipment.
Click to expand...
Mossbauer spectroscopy can demonstrate gravitational red-shift within
a vertical difference of 22.6 metres at sea-level.

They did it back in 1960 so the test equipment can't have been that
fancy.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html#c2

--------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:7c584d27.0310191350.13b3c1af@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bmudc2$4ov$1@news.onet.pl>...
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Jsykb.440$nL.231@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
Mathew Orman wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message news:N3xkb.426$nL.66@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
Mathew Orman wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in

Provide description of a single down to the Earth experiment
that can be performed by use of the conventional test equipment.

Mossbauer spectroscopy can demonstrate gravitational red-shift within
a vertical difference of 22.6 metres at sea-level.

They did it back in 1960 so the test equipment can't have been that
fancy.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html#c2

--------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Click to expand...
That experiment is about gamma rays and it is not described at all.
Can you provide the link to the actual Harvard Tower Experiment?

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
 
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:22:44 +0200, Mathew Orman wrote:

Check this out:

http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid7_gci211806,00.html

http://www.att.com/spotlight/nethistory/transmission.html

http://www.g3rfl.ukhome.net/co-ax1.htm
Click to expand...
I did. Now, why don't you check this out:

William Thomson, "On the theory of the electric telegraph", Proceedings of
the Royal Society, 1855.

Here's a picture of a section of the first transatlantic cable (you can
regularly find sections of this cable for sale at auction):

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/~pererat/9925b.jpg

-- Mike --
 
In article <pan.2003.10.18.21.32.15.735898@cerebrumconfus.it>,
excretatauris@cerebrumconfus.it says...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:05:31 +0200, Mathew Orman wrote:

Please give me an example of physical phenomena that was modeled before it
was physically discovered!

Gravity bending light.
Click to expand...
Velocity "altering" time. The precession of Mercury and the
several of Jupiter's moons.

--
Keith
 
In article <bmu251$aqn$1@news.onet.pl>, orman@nospam.com says...
"Fred Abse" <excretatauris@cerebrumconfus.it> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.18.21.30.28.34341@cerebrumconfus.it...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:57:20 +0200, Mathew Orman wrote:

Coax does not propagates EM waves it propagates electrical waveforms!


So the difference in propagation delay that I observe in air spaced and
dielectric filled cables is a figment of my fevered imagination?

--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx

The dielectric const of the coax filler is on of the factors defining the
nominal capacitance.
Click to expand...
No, you fool! It changes the permitivity of the medium. It
changes far more than the capacitance.

The terminated impedance matched coax line segment is considered as RLC
delay line and can be constructed to
give any nominal delay.
Click to expand...
You are an idiot! The L and C are defined by the medium. In a
short transmission line the 'R' has no bearing on the impedance.

The main property of EM waves is straight line propagation!
Click to expand...
You have no clue.

Coax can be twisted to any shape and that does not alter much the waveform
propagation.
Click to expand...
I thought you just said it had to be "straight line"?
Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
Click to expand...
more like: www.ultra-dumber-than-dirt.com

--
Keith
 
Mathew Orman wrote:

What phase lag is it?
Single gaussian pulse has no phase defined.
You need periodic waveform for phase to be defined!
Electric field is instantaneous it extends across entire length of the coax
segment.
Click to expand...
SNORT!!! SNORT!!! That's a good one, I almost spit on my screen!

You really are clueless!

If you apply an electric potential to one end of a piece of coax,
you are creating a step pulse which will propagate down the coax at
c * the velocity factor of the coax which is typically 0.66, and always
less than 1. This is quite easily demonstrated with a few dozen feet
of coax, and most any 1950s Tektronix scope.

-Chuck
 
"Chuck Harris" <cfharris@erols.com> wrote in message
news:bmvgaj$9ot$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
Mathew Orman wrote:

What phase lag is it?
Single gaussian pulse has no phase defined.
You need periodic waveform for phase to be defined!
Electric field is instantaneous it extends across entire length of the
coax
segment.


SNORT!!! SNORT!!! That's a good one, I almost spit on my screen!

You really are clueless!

If you apply an electric potential to one end of a piece of coax,
you are creating a step pulse which will propagate down the coax at
c * the velocity factor of the coax which is typically 0.66, and always
less than 1. This is quite easily demonstrated with a few dozen feet
of coax, and most any 1950s Tektronix scope.

-Chuck
Click to expand...
FALSE!
We are creating a gaussian function pulse using arbitrary function waveform
generator and
the frequency spectrum of that pulse determines the length of coax for which
it is defined
as electrically short!
Propagation speed of such pulse is about 40 times faster then the speed of
light in vacuum!

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
 
"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.19fd0d592553694498a7e8@enews.newsguy.com...
In article <bmu251$aqn$1@news.onet.pl>, orman@nospam.com says...

"Fred Abse" <excretatauris@cerebrumconfus.it> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.18.21.30.28.34341@cerebrumconfus.it...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:57:20 +0200, Mathew Orman wrote:

Coax does not propagates EM waves it propagates electrical
waveforms!


So the difference in propagation delay that I observe in air spaced
and
dielectric filled cables is a figment of my fevered imagination?

--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx

The dielectric const of the coax filler is on of the factors defining
the
nominal capacitance.

No, you fool! It changes the permitivity of the medium. It
changes far more than the capacitance.

The terminated impedance matched coax line segment is considered as RLC
delay line and can be constructed to
give any nominal delay.

You are an idiot! The L and C are defined by the medium. In a
short transmission line the 'R' has no bearing on the impedance.

The main property of EM waves is straight line propagation!

You have no clue.

Coax can be twisted to any shape and that does not alter much the
waveform
propagation.

I thought you just said it had to be "straight line"?

Sincerely,

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

more like: www.ultra-dumber-than-dirt.com

--
Keith
Click to expand...
How many false statements have you typed?

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
 
"Mike" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mjehb3f5j64l.pdabl64jp6ku$.dlg@40tude.net...
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:22:44 +0200, Mathew Orman wrote:

Check this out:


http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid7_gci211806,00.html

http://www.att.com/spotlight/nethistory/transmission.html

http://www.g3rfl.ukhome.net/co-ax1.htm

I did. Now, why don't you check this out:

William Thomson, "On the theory of the electric telegraph", Proceedings of
the Royal Society, 1855.

Here's a picture of a section of the first transatlantic cable (you can
regularly find sections of this cable for sale at auction):

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/~pererat/9925b.jpg

-- Mike --
Click to expand...

It is no accessible and all I could find is:
http://www.sil.si.edu/Exhibitions/Underwater-Web/uw-simple-02.htm

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
 
Mathew Orman wrote:
"Rene Tschaggelar" <none@none.none> wrote in message
news:0360d2093c0229ac652d238bb83f09b9@news.teranews.com...


Mathew,
you appear to play deaf & blind.
Even though the wave doesn't propagate far,
there is a radial E-field and since there is a phaselag at the end of the
open cable,
however short it is, there is a current. And this current in the center
conductor
has a circular H-field, which both are perpendicular to the direction.
Hence a TEM wave.

Rene



What phase lag is it?
Single gaussian pulse has no phase defined.
You need periodic waveform for phase to be defined!
Click to expand...
I was thinking in terms of picoseconds, not degrees here.

Electric field is instantaneous it extends across entire length of the coax
segment.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. This explains all ...


Also the property of Electrically short Open-ended coax segment is identical
to the equivalent lump RLC circuit.
Click to expand...
A distributed network is identical to a lumped circuit when their properties
match. So this clue is meaningless.


If you run sinusoidal sweep from 0 to resonant frequency of the coax segment
you will see that the phase shift is constant and near 0 and only depends on
RC component
the L is only responsible for change in the output's amplitude.

You can simulate all that in LTspice and see the effect of displacement
current.
Click to expand...
I simulate after having understood what is going on. Before understanding the
rules, a simulation is almost meaningless.

Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top