Op amps problem Gain Calculation

[John Fields]

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:04:32 +1200, Jasen Betts
<jasen@clunker.homenet> wrote:

You may have to go with some form of optical motion detector.
(PIR is no good insects are cold blooded,

---
PIR _is_ optical, and could work if a focussed, or tightly
collimated IR beam were played upon the IR detectors and interrupted
by the insect, since what a PIR detects is a _difference_ in
temperature.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Jasen Betts]

In article <a843c1t7epd7lo973hb32cuffhkhaj8697@4ax.com>,
srlock@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:

Hi,

I have a camera hooked up to a 9v battery and want to be able to use a
'timer switch' to turn it on at a specific time ( like the ones you
plug into a wall socket and then plug in your light socket and get it
to switch your light on automatically at a certain time when your away
)

Is there such a thing that can do this with a battery as the power
source?

a battery powered alarm clock with a few modifications could do that.

what you'd need to do is remove the speaker and put a little amplifier
in there to drive a relay.

..
.. something like this maybe to supply +ve
.. R1 |
.. ,-[100k]-----+---+---> to relay
.. | .--+->|-'
.. | /' | D4
.. 100p | |/' `--------> to relay
.. clock's o--||-+---+--[10k]-(-----| BC549
.. speaker terminals | `-|<|-+--' |\|
.. o--. `-[100K]--| ~~\
.. | | `|
.. diodes are 1N914 etc `------------+----|>|-|>|-+----> to supply -ve
.. except D4 which is 1N4001 or similar
..

supply voltage should be chosen to suit the relay.
R1 may need to be increased.
at the point labeled ( the wires cross.

no guarantees but it should work...
--

Bye.
Jasen

 

[Jasen Betts]

In article <6assc1di177e45l96vjph2e00u56j4mrap@4ax.com>, noen@no.mail.com wrote:

Hi,

I've had a good search for a Video Link that uses batteries, but
couldn't find any, so I bought one that uses plug-in adapters, but
would like to hook up batteries to make them portable.

The devices have the following power specs:

12V DC, 200 mA
9v DC, 400mah

I would like to use rechargeable batteries to power these devices for
no more than an hour.

I thought for the 12v device I could use a 12v sealed lead acid
battery.

definately. one rated 200mAh would be sufficient. i don't know if they
make them that small

for the 9v,7 NiMh cells in series gets you 8.4v which should be sufficient,
charging them could be challenging unl;ess you have a charger thant can do
individual cells, or a custom made charger.

many small "9V" looking rechargeables batteries are only 6 cells for 7.2v
which may not be enough they also don't have the capacity and are over-
priced for what the provide.

you need 400mAh capacity to run it for an hour
the
so if 7.2V
is enough one of the pre-packaged 7.2v batteries would do it.

For the 9v device, would rechargeable NiMH batteries do the job
without a problem? As there are no 9v sealed lead acid batteries that
I can see, this seems the only alternative

lead acid cells are 2v each so there's no way to make 9V in that material,

another option is to use a 12V supply and a voltage regulator to step it down
to 9v. this wastes electrical energy, but as lead acid cells are cheaper than
NiMh, and easier to charge, it could save money.
--

Bye.
Jasen

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:49:55 +1200, Jasen Betts
<jasen@clunker.homenet> wrote:

In article <a843c1t7epd7lo973hb32cuffhkhaj8697@4ax.com>,
srlock@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Hi,

I have a camera hooked up to a 9v battery and want to be able to use a
'timer switch' to turn it on at a specific time ( like the ones you
plug into a wall socket and then plug in your light socket and get it
to switch your light on automatically at a certain time when your away
)

Is there such a thing that can do this with a battery as the power
source?

a battery powered alarm clock with a few modifications could do that.

what you'd need to do is remove the speaker and put a little amplifier
in there to drive a relay.

.
. something like this maybe to supply +ve
. R1 |
. ,-[100k]-----+---+---> to relay
. | .--+->|-'
. | /' | D4
. 100p | |/' `--------> to relay
. clock's o--||-+---+--[10k]-(-----| BC549
. speaker terminals | `-|<|-+--' |\|
. o--. `-[100K]--| ~~\
. | | `|
. diodes are 1N914 etc `------------+----|>|-|>|-+----> to supply -ve
. except D4 which is 1N4001 or similar
.

supply voltage should be chosen to suit the relay.
R1 may need to be increased.
at the point labeled ( the wires cross.

no guarantees but it should work...

---
Redrawing your circuit for clarity, here's what you're advocating:

+V
|
+--------+
|K |
[1N4001] [COIL]
| |
+------[100K]------+--------+
| |
| C
IN>---[100pF]--+----|----+--[10K]-------------B
| | |K E
[100K] | [1N914] |
| | | |
IN>------------+----+----+--[1N914>]--[1N914>]--+
|
GND

which makes no sense, to me. Would you please explain how it's
supposed to work?

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:09:57 +1200, Jasen Betts
<jasen@clunker.homenet> wrote:

In article <6assc1di177e45l96vjph2e00u56j4mrap@4ax.com>, noen@no.mail.com wrote:
Hi,

I've had a good search for a Video Link that uses batteries, but
couldn't find any, so I bought one that uses plug-in adapters, but
would like to hook up batteries to make them portable.

The devices have the following power specs:

12V DC, 200 mA
9v DC, 400mah

I would like to use rechargeable batteries to power these devices for
no more than an hour.

I thought for the 12v device I could use a 12v sealed lead acid
battery.

definately. one rated 200mAh would be sufficient. i don't know if they
make them that small

for the 9v,7 NiMh cells in series gets you 8.4v which should be sufficient,
charging them could be challenging unl;ess you have a charger thant can do
individual cells, or a custom made charger.

many small "9V" looking rechargeables batteries are only 6 cells for 7.2v
which may not be enough they also don't have the capacity and are over-
priced for what the provide.

---
Really? I'd appreciate it if you'd post which batteries you're
talking about (manufacturer and part number) so that I can make sure
that, when I buy rechargeable 9V NiMHs I stay away from them.
---

you need 400mAh capacity to run it for an hour
the
so if 7.2V
is enough one of the pre-packaged 7.2v batteries would do it.

For the 9v device, would rechargeable NiMH batteries do the job
without a problem? As there are no 9v sealed lead acid batteries that
I can see, this seems the only alternative

lead acid cells are 2v each so there's no way to make 9V in that material,

another option is to use a 12V supply and a voltage regulator to step it down
to 9v. this wastes electrical energy, but as lead acid cells are cheaper than
NiMh, and easier to charge, it could save money.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Jasen Betts]

In article <WrqdndPloplTh3bfRVn-3w@adelphia.com>, TimPerry wrote:

"AllTel - Jim Hubbard" <reply@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:232f7$42eaf0d2$97d59ba4$23531@ALLTEL.NET...
I am curious about what would happen to an electrical current in 2
situations.....

Assume that you have 2 wires that, when joined, complete a closed
electrical
DC circuit with electrons flowing thusly.....

------------ ============
eeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeee
------------ ============


If you flattened out the end of each wire where they connect , would the
resulting electron paths be more like figure A or Figure B?


neither ... research "skin effect"

AIUI the skin effect is for AC (and other time-varying signals)

In a uniform conductor carrying a constant DC the current will be uniformly
distributed.

in the hammered flat sections it will be mostly uniform:
the centre part of each flat provides a slightly shorter
path and therefore possibly a slightly lower resistance.
On the other hand the hammering of the copper will increase
its resistivity more where it's most deformed (this is the
centre part of the flat) so that may tend to counteract the
shortest path effect...

Bye.
Jasen

 

[Jasen Betts]

In article <fb4ne11g1d2uniopgqmoqpaqbq0tq12i9b@4ax.com>, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:49:55 +1200, Jasen Betts
jasen@clunker.homenet> wrote:

In article <a843c1t7epd7lo973hb32cuffhkhaj8697@4ax.com>,
srlock@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Hi,

I have a camera hooked up to a 9v battery and want to be able to use a
'timer switch' to turn it on at a specific time ( like the ones you
plug into a wall socket and then plug in your light socket and get it
to switch your light on automatically at a certain time when your away
)

Is there such a thing that can do this with a battery as the power
source?

a battery powered alarm clock with a few modifications could do that.

what you'd need to do is remove the speaker and put a little amplifier
in there to drive a relay.

.
. something like this maybe to supply +ve
---
Redrawing your circuit for clarity, here's what you're advocating:

actually no.. the 100k goes between the series diodes and the +V
like this:

+V
.. |

.. +--[100K]----------+--------+
.. | |K |
.. | [1N4001] [COIL]
.. | | |
.. | +--------+

| |
| C
IN>---[100pF]--+----|----+--[10K]-------------B (NPN)
| | |K E
[100K] | [1N914] |
| | | |
IN>------------+----+----+--[1N914>]--[1N914>]--+
|
GND


which makes no sense, to me. Would you please explain how it's
supposed to work?

the two 914 diodes in series bias the transistor right to the edege
of its conducion region,

the capacitor and the third 1N914 diode form a diiode pump that'll
push it over the edge into conduction in the presence of an small-ish
AC signal of a few hundered milivolts.. like a battery clock would
use to power a piezo chime...

that's my thinking anyway,

the 1N4001 is a freewheeling diode to protect the transistor.
on second though that top 100K should probably be a 10K


Bye.
Jasen

 

[JeffM]

...for the 9v,7 NiMh cells in series gets you 8.4v
...many small "9V" looking rechargeables batteries
are only 6 cells for 7.2v
Jasen Betts

Really? I'd appreciate it if you'd post which batteries you're
talking about (manufacturer and part number) so that I can make sure
that, when I buy rechargeable 9V NiMHs I stay away from them.
John Fields

When he said **rechargeables", he's right.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:FwUxYob3yvsJ:www.ioffer.com/i/9-Volt-NiCAD-Rechargeable-Batteries-Lot-25-NEW-9V-3812495+rechargeable+9V+Nominal-Voltage-7.2v

When you specify **NiMH**, you eliminate the 7.2V stuff,
but 8.4V is quite common--with 9.6V being in the minority.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:IRNpXAZL8uUJ:www.zbattery.com/zbattery/9vrechargeablebatteries.html+9V+NiMH+8.4v+7.2v+9.6v+Size

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:14:58 +1200, Jasen Betts
<jasen@clunker.homenet> wrote:

In article <fb4ne11g1d2uniopgqmoqpaqbq0tq12i9b@4ax.com>, John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:49:55 +1200, Jasen Betts
jasen@clunker.homenet> wrote:

In article <a843c1t7epd7lo973hb32cuffhkhaj8697@4ax.com>,
srlock@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Hi,

I have a camera hooked up to a 9v battery and want to be able to use a
'timer switch' to turn it on at a specific time ( like the ones you
plug into a wall socket and then plug in your light socket and get it
to switch your light on automatically at a certain time when your away
)

Is there such a thing that can do this with a battery as the power
source?

a battery powered alarm clock with a few modifications could do that.

what you'd need to do is remove the speaker and put a little amplifier
in there to drive a relay.

.
. something like this maybe to supply +ve
---
Redrawing your circuit for clarity, here's what you're advocating:

actually no.. the 100k goes between the series diodes and the +V
like this:

+V
. R1 |
. +--[100K]----------+--------+
. | |K |
. | [1N4001] [COIL]
. | | |
. | +--------+
| |
| C
IN>---[100pF]--+----|----+--[10K]-------------B (NPN)
| | |K E
[100K] | [1N914] |
| | | |
IN>------------+----+----+--[1N914>]--[1N914>]--+
|
GND


which makes no sense, to me. Would you please explain how it's
supposed to work?

the two 914 diodes in series bias the transistor right to the edege
of its conducion region,

the capacitor and the third 1N914 diode form a diiode pump that'll
push it over the edge into conduction in the presence of an small-ish
AC signal of a few hundered milivolts.. like a battery clock would
use to power a piezo chime...

that's my thinking anyway,

the 1N4001 is a freewheeling diode to protect the transistor.
on second though that top 100K should probably be a 10K

---
1.
Since this thing is supposed to be battery operated, I'd be a little
reticent to use your biasing scheme since it throws away power.

Using a 2N4001 for the transistor and 100K for R1, the quiescent
current being drawn from a 9V supply is 1.05mA. Reducing R1 to 10K
increases the quiescent current to 5.38mA.

2.
Since you have nothing to store charge, the 100pF cap is going to
act like a differentiator and push charge into the transistor's base
on the rising edge of the alarm signal but, on the falling edge,
it'll pull the base as negative as the third diode will let it go,
so the relay may never get a chance to make. A conventional charge
pump would look something like this:


IN>--[C]--+--[DIODE>]--+---->DC TO LOAD
|K |+
[DIODE] [CAP]
| |
IN>-------+------------+


3.
Assuming that the clock's alarm signal is a 1V, 1000Hz square wave
with pretty crispy edges means that, if it's feeding a 10000 ohm
base resistor, the signal going into the base will be a
positive-going spike with a time constant of about 1 microsecond.
That means that if the spike rises to 1V initially, 1ľs later it'll
be at about 330mV. Since you have the transistor conducting
slightly with your bias network and the alarm signal cap-coupled,
you'll probably be able to pump a little current into the base even
ten time consytants downstream, but that still leaves you with no
signal going into the base for 90% of the time, so there's no way
the relay's going to be made looking at that kind of a duty cycle.

As if that wasn't bad enough, there's the problem of drive. If we
assume that we can get 1V excursions from the alarm, we'll be
driving 1V into the 10k ohm base resistor, which means a base
current of 100ľA on top of the 5ľA or so that's already flowing in
there from the bias network, so even if you use a sensitive reed
relay that only needs 10mA of current to make it work, the
transistor would need to have a beta of 100 or so. If it was a
steady DC it might work, but I'd prefer to force the transistor to a
beta of ten to make sure that everything is nice and saturated.

So what's the solution?

It's hard to say because the OP hasn't stated whether he wants to
take a single picture or several over a period of time, but I've
posted a general scheme which might work to abse under "Alarm clock
interface"

For battery use I'd switch the comparators to micropower and change
some component values and, depending on what the OP wants, maybe
make some circuit mods.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[TokaMundo]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:09:23 +1200, Jasen Betts
<jasen@clunker.homenet> Gave us:

electrons cannot exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. no physical object can.

There was an guy like you saying the same thing about aircraft and
the "sound barrier" a little over 57 years ago.

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 06:41:22 GMT, TokaMundo
<TokaMundo@weedizgood.org> wrote:

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:09:23 +1200, Jasen Betts
jasen@clunker.homenet> Gave us:

electrons cannot exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. no physical object can.

There was an guy like you saying the same thing about aircraft and
the "sound barrier" a little over 57 years ago.

---
The difference was that back then bullets were known to be
supersonic, so there was no _basic_ prohibition on supersonic
flight.

Today (actually, 70 years ago...) we have the EPR paradox and
quantum entaglement which _hints_ that superluminal velocities are
possible, but we also have:


m0
mr = --------------------
sqrt (1 - (v˛/c˛))


which states that anything with a rest mass, m0, will have its
relativistic mass, mr, tend toward infinity as its velocity, v,
approaches that of light, c.

Every experiment ever done to try to refute the veracity of the
equation has confirmed that the equation is valid and, consequently,
indicates that it is impossible for massive bodies to achieve the
speed of light.

However, we also have Cerenkov radiation, which is emitted whenever
a massive particle exceeds the speed of light in the medium through
which the particle is travelling...


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[DBLEXPOSURE]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:9cn4f1hk2oe1euubdbkj610u47g83s9glb@4ax.com...

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 06:41:22 GMT, TokaMundo
TokaMundo@weedizgood.org> wrote:

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:09:23 +1200, Jasen Betts
jasen@clunker.homenet> Gave us:

electrons cannot exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. no physical
object can.

There was an guy like you saying the same thing about aircraft and
the "sound barrier" a little over 57 years ago.

---
The difference was that back then bullets were known to be
supersonic, so there was no _basic_ prohibition on supersonic
flight.

Today (actually, 70 years ago...) we have the EPR paradox and
quantum entaglement which _hints_ that superluminal velocities are
possible, but we also have:


m0
mr = --------------------
sqrt (1 - (v˛/c˛))


which states that anything with a rest mass, m0, will have its
relativistic mass, mr, tend toward infinity as its velocity, v,
approaches that of light, c.

Every experiment ever done to try to refute the veracity of the
equation has confirmed that the equation is valid and, consequently,
indicates that it is impossible for massive bodies to achieve the
speed of light.

However, we also have Cerenkov radiation, which is emitted whenever
a massive particle exceeds the speed of light in the medium through
which the particle is travelling...


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

quantum entaglement, It's like you read my mind.

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:40:00 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
<celstuff@hotmail.com> wrote:

quantum entaglement, It's like you read my mind.

---
Well, no. I was thinking quantum entanglement.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[DBLEXPOSURE]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:7su4f1p8tnkkngdc7n0bngbsonv5s6hrkt@4ax.com...

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:40:00 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
celstuff@hotmail.com> wrote:


quantum entaglement, It's like you read my mind.

---
Well, no. I was thinking quantum entanglement.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

And how does this hint at super luminal velocities? I am curios.

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 17:10:11 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
<celstuff@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:7su4f1p8tnkkngdc7n0bngbsonv5s6hrkt@4ax.com...
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:40:00 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
celstuff@hotmail.com> wrote:


quantum entaglement, It's like you read my mind.

---
Well, no. I was thinking quantum entanglement.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

And how does this hint at super luminal velocities? I am curios.

---
You have this annoying habit of deleting previously posted material
which must then be searched out and reposted in order to properly
reply to your queries, which invariably require reference to the
previously posted material.

I won't play that game.

If you're serious, and you'd like to discuss the possibility of
massive bodies achieving transluminal or superluminal velocities,
aquaint yourself with Einstein, the EPR paradox, quantum
entanglement, and then report back with what you've found.

Otherwise, well, you know, piss off...

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[DBLEXPOSURE]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:0e95f1lo4u1qhq8vt6494067a730bmkh1n@4ax.com...

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 17:10:11 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
celstuff@hotmail.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:7su4f1p8tnkkngdc7n0bngbsonv5s6hrkt@4ax.com...
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:40:00 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
celstuff@hotmail.com> wrote:


quantum entaglement, It's like you read my mind.

---
Well, no. I was thinking quantum entanglement.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

And how does this hint at super luminal velocities? I am curios.

---
You have this annoying habit of deleting previously posted material
which must then be searched out and reposted in order to properly
reply to your queries, which invariably require reference to the
previously posted material.

I won't play that game.

If you're serious, and you'd like to discuss the possibility of
massive bodies achieving transluminal or superluminal velocities,
aquaint yourself with Einstein, the EPR paradox, quantum
entanglement, and then report back with what you've found.

Otherwise, well, you know, piss off...

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

No sir, I replied to your post from which the previously posted material,
was missing.



But if it helps, here ya go.

Today (actually, 70 years ago...) we have the EPR paradox and
quantum entaglement which _hints_ that superluminal velocities are
possible, but we also have:


m0
mr = --------------------
sqrt (1 - (v˛/c˛))


which states that anything with a rest mass, m0, will have its
relativistic mass, mr, tend toward infinity as its velocity, v,
approaches that of light, c.

Every experiment ever done to try to refute the veracity of the
equation has confirmed that the equation is valid and, consequently,
indicates that it is impossible for massive bodies to achieve the
speed of light.

However, we also have Cerenkov radiation, which is emitted whenever
a massive particle exceeds the speed of light in the medium through
which the particle is travelling...

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 19:20:16 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
<celstuff@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:0e95f1lo4u1qhq8vt6494067a730bmkh1n@4ax.com...
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 17:10:11 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
celstuff@hotmail.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:7su4f1p8tnkkngdc7n0bngbsonv5s6hrkt@4ax.com...
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:40:00 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
celstuff@hotmail.com> wrote:


quantum entaglement, It's like you read my mind.

---
Well, no. I was thinking quantum entanglement.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

And how does this hint at super luminal velocities? I am curios.

---
You have this annoying habit of deleting previously posted material
which must then be searched out and reposted in order to properly
reply to your queries, which invariably require reference to the
previously posted material.

I won't play that game.

If you're serious, and you'd like to discuss the possibility of
massive bodies achieving transluminal or superluminal velocities,
aquaint yourself with Einstein, the EPR paradox, quantum
entanglement, and then report back with what you've found.

Otherwise, well, you know, piss off...

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer


No sir, I replied to your post from which the previously posted material,
was missing.



But if it helps, here ya go.



Today (actually, 70 years ago...) we have the EPR paradox and
quantum entaglement which _hints_ that superluminal velocities are
possible, but we also have:


m0
mr = --------------------
sqrt (1 - (v˛/c˛))


which states that anything with a rest mass, m0, will have its
relativistic mass, mr, tend toward infinity as its velocity, v,
approaches that of light, c.

Every experiment ever done to try to refute the veracity of the
equation has confirmed that the equation is valid and, consequently,
indicates that it is impossible for massive bodies to achieve the
speed of light.

However, we also have Cerenkov radiation, which is emitted whenever
a massive particle exceeds the speed of light in the medium through
which the particle is travelling...

---
OK, so what do you want to know?

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[DBLEXPOSURE]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:5tc5f1tcb2vd5l2kvu56o3lbhg4ro4jhh6@4ax.com...

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 19:20:16 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
celstuff@hotmail.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:0e95f1lo4u1qhq8vt6494067a730bmkh1n@4ax.com...
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 17:10:11 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
celstuff@hotmail.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:7su4f1p8tnkkngdc7n0bngbsonv5s6hrkt@4ax.com...
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:40:00 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
celstuff@hotmail.com> wrote:


quantum entaglement, It's like you read my mind.

---
Well, no. I was thinking quantum entanglement.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

And how does this hint at super luminal velocities? I am curios.

---
You have this annoying habit of deleting previously posted material
which must then be searched out and reposted in order to properly
reply to your queries, which invariably require reference to the
previously posted material.

I won't play that game.

If you're serious, and you'd like to discuss the possibility of
massive bodies achieving transluminal or superluminal velocities,
aquaint yourself with Einstein, the EPR paradox, quantum
entanglement, and then report back with what you've found.

Otherwise, well, you know, piss off...

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer


No sir, I replied to your post from which the previously posted material,
was missing.



But if it helps, here ya go.



Today (actually, 70 years ago...) we have the EPR paradox and
quantum entaglement which _hints_ that superluminal velocities are
possible, but we also have:


m0
mr = --------------------
sqrt (1 - (v˛/c˛))


which states that anything with a rest mass, m0, will have its
relativistic mass, mr, tend toward infinity as its velocity, v,
approaches that of light, c.

Every experiment ever done to try to refute the veracity of the
equation has confirmed that the equation is valid and, consequently,
indicates that it is impossible for massive bodies to achieve the
speed of light.

However, we also have Cerenkov radiation, which is emitted whenever
a massive particle exceeds the speed of light in the medium through
which the particle is travelling...

---
OK, so what do you want to know?

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

And how does this, (quantum entaglement) hint at super luminal velocities? I
am curios.

 

[Alexander]

"DBLEXPOSURE" <celstuff@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:9-6dncZtvblZK2_fRVn-jw@rapidnet.com...

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:5tc5f1tcb2vd5l2kvu56o3lbhg4ro4jhh6@4ax.com...
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 19:20:16 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
celstuff@hotmail.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:0e95f1lo4u1qhq8vt6494067a730bmkh1n@4ax.com...
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 17:10:11 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
celstuff@hotmail.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:7su4f1p8tnkkngdc7n0bngbsonv5s6hrkt@4ax.com...
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:40:00 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
celstuff@hotmail.com> wrote:


quantum entaglement, It's like you read my mind.

---
Well, no. I was thinking quantum entanglement.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

And how does this hint at super luminal velocities? I am curios.

---
You have this annoying habit of deleting previously posted material
which must then be searched out and reposted in order to properly
reply to your queries, which invariably require reference to the
previously posted material.

I won't play that game.

If you're serious, and you'd like to discuss the possibility of
massive bodies achieving transluminal or superluminal velocities,
aquaint yourself with Einstein, the EPR paradox, quantum
entanglement, and then report back with what you've found.

Otherwise, well, you know, piss off...

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer


No sir, I replied to your post from which the previously posted material,
was missing.



But if it helps, here ya go.



Today (actually, 70 years ago...) we have the EPR paradox and
quantum entaglement which _hints_ that superluminal velocities are
possible, but we also have:


m0
mr = --------------------
sqrt (1 - (v˛/c˛))


which states that anything with a rest mass, m0, will have its
relativistic mass, mr, tend toward infinity as its velocity, v,
approaches that of light, c.

Every experiment ever done to try to refute the veracity of the
equation has confirmed that the equation is valid and, consequently,
indicates that it is impossible for massive bodies to achieve the
speed of light.

However, we also have Cerenkov radiation, which is emitted whenever
a massive particle exceeds the speed of light in the medium through
which the particle is travelling...

---
OK, so what do you want to know?

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

And how does this, (quantum entaglement) hint at super luminal velocities?
I am curios.


I worked at a university and they achieved a zero speed of light inside a

crystal.
With this in mind almost everything can achieve super luminal velocities..

http://www.tn.utwente.nl/lf/project.php?projectid=12&submenu=16

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 19:20:16 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
<celstuff@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:0e95f1lo4u1qhq8vt6494067a730bmkh1n@4ax.com...
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 17:10:11 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
celstuff@hotmail.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:7su4f1p8tnkkngdc7n0bngbsonv5s6hrkt@4ax.com...
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:40:00 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
celstuff@hotmail.com> wrote:


quantum entaglement, It's like you read my mind.

---
Well, no. I was thinking quantum entanglement.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

And how does this hint at super luminal velocities? I am curios.

---
You have this annoying habit of deleting previously posted material
which must then be searched out and reposted in order to properly
reply to your queries, which invariably require reference to the
previously posted material.

I won't play that game.

If you're serious, and you'd like to discuss the possibility of
massive bodies achieving transluminal or superluminal velocities,
aquaint yourself with Einstein, the EPR paradox, quantum
entanglement, and then report back with what you've found.

Otherwise, well, you know, piss off...

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer


No sir, I replied to your post from which the previously posted material,
was missing.



But if it helps, here ya go.



Today (actually, 70 years ago...) we have the EPR paradox and
quantum entaglement which _hints_ that superluminal velocities are
possible, but we also have:


m0
mr = --------------------
sqrt (1 - (v˛/c˛))


which states that anything with a rest mass, m0, will have its
relativistic mass, mr, tend toward infinity as its velocity, v,
approaches that of light, c.

Every experiment ever done to try to refute the veracity of the
equation has confirmed that the equation is valid and, consequently,
indicates that it is impossible for massive bodies to achieve the
speed of light.

However, we also have Cerenkov radiation, which is emitted whenever
a massive particle exceeds the speed of light in the medium through
which the particle is travelling...

---
That equation states that it's impossible for any massive body to
achieve lightspeed unless

1
---
0

can be quantified. Quantum entanglement, on the other hand, has
demonstrated that changes in relationships which exist between
massive objects can be transmitted between the bodies at greater
than the speed of light. Not that the objects themselves can go
superluminal, but that the changes in the states of being between
them can.

Cerenkov radiation is radiation which is generated when a massive
particle traverses a medium in less time than it would take a
particle/wave of massless electromagnetic radiation, i.e. a photon,
to traverse the same distance in that medium. An interesting
parallel is the shock wave (sonic boom) which is propagated when the
speed of sound in air is exceeded by anything going through air
faster than the speed of sound.

My opinion is that, if a massive body could, somehow, achieve
lightspeed, the shock wave it would emit, when passing through C,
would be a "time boom", and it (the body) would cease to exist in
our time frame.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer