FTL data transmission lines for sale...

[NoDeity]

Well, that's what Mathew Orman claims here: http://www.ultra-faster-than-light.com/ -- and at only a few hundred dollars per metre of cable.

I don't have the background to evaluate his claims, which he goes into in some detail on the site, but I notice that he appears to be working alone (no peer review) and claims to have debunked Einstein, which should set off a few skeptical alarm bells.

Still, if he's right, it should be possible to prove it. His claims seem to be falsifiable. I wonder if anyone's tried it?


btw, I first heard about this guy's claims here (http://pub189.ezboard.com/fcanadianskepticsforumfrm8.showMessage?topicID=8.t opic). I've also posted about it here (http://graveyardofthegods.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=503).

[schplurg]

Well if he can be proved a fraud, he offers a 200% money back guarantee! We could all pitch-in and buy a bunch of these cables, then return them and double our money.


FTL PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE. Tyrell Innovations Deutschland ("Tyrell") standard hardware products are garanteed to performe as specified with 200% money back, for a period of one (1 ) year from the date Tyrell ships the products to Customer ("Delivery Date"). This Guarantee is void if failure of the products has resulted from accident, abuse, modifications of the product by Customer or a third party, or unauthorized maintenance or repair.

He also claims he achieved speeds of up to 16 times the speed of light. How this is achieved through a coax cable...well, I too don't have the smarts to disprove him, although I do have the capacity to be 99.999% certain he's full o' dung. Here's one of the experiments he says we should all try:

One 20 cm 5 turns rectangular coil driven with ac low impedance power source
(HP 33120A waveform generator plus CMOS high current push pull driver).
One sensing coil 10uH connected to the input of high speed comparator 500ps
rise/fall time.
The driving power source frequency set at 1MHz.
Oscilloscope HP 54602A channel 1 mentors the ac power waveform and triggers
the scope.
The channel 2 is connected to the output of the comparator.
Set the sensing coil 33 cm from the rectangular coil on axis maximum
coupling.
Store the sensed waveform.
No move the sensing coil to the distance of 3 cm.
Rotate the coil and observe the signal from it.
When you match the amplitude with the stored waveform press the store button
again.
It stores the second waveform.
According to Einstein the should be about 1ns delay between the two
waveforms.
I didn't see the delay.
Amazing! He disproved Einstein, but he doesn't even have an infomercial ;) Interesting site ND...sorry I couldn't help. I sure hope someone here can!

I also noticed he will make custom cables...up to 30km long! This IS kilometers, right?

[peptoabysmal]

Hmmm...

On that site it says "According to Einstein it is not possible to accede the speed of light."

I wasn't aware that Einstein claimed that nothing could even approach the speed of light ;).

[NoDeity]

schplurg:
although I do have the capacity to be 99.999% certain he's full o' dung You're probably right about that, of course. But there's always that rare, unexpected, unlikely chance...
up to 30km long! This IS kilometers, right? Definitely.
peptoabysmal:
On that site it says "According to Einstein it is not possible to accede the speed of light." I suggest that he should be granted some slack on his spelling and grammar since English does not appear to be his first language (he's German, apparently).

[CurtC]

There's not enough information in his description of the measurement setup to let me know exactly what he's doing, but I'm intimately familiar with the test equipment he's using. A fundamental problem I see is that he's using a 1 MHz sine wave (which has a 1000 nanosecond period), and trying to measure a shift in that sine wave of 1 nanosecond. He's using a high-speed comparator to trigger at a certain voltage level, but that doesn't help the fundamental problem. He's either really stupid or really dishonest, maybe both.

[NoDeity]

Originally posted by CurtC
He's either really stupid or really dishonest, maybe both.
Another possibility is that he's smart and honestly deluded and out of his friggin' mind.

[Crossbow]

It should be easy enough to test his cable to see if really does do what is claimed. I can think of a way using a pulse generator and a fast, dual time base, o-scope.

In this case, I have some problems with his testing method.

The major flaw I see is that the source of his signal and the point of measurement are rather close together (just a few centimeters) so what may be happening is that the signal is being induced across the distance instead of being transmitted through the cable.

One way to fix this problem would be seperate these points by several hundred meters (or several thousand meters would be even better) which should be more than adequate to eliminate any induction problems and the problems of measuring extremely small time differentials. In this way, if a substantial time differential is detected, then that would go a long way to validating his claims.

[CurtC]

Crossbow, I'm going to be a little nitpicky here, I hope you'll forgive me. A dual-timebase scope wouldn't be helpful here. You could use an old-fashioned dual-beam scope, but they haven't made those in years, since digitizing scopes took over. Really all you need is a scope which can trigger on a separate signal from the trace, and I think they all can do this. That's what this "inventor" described.

To measure this with a 1 MHz sine wave, you'd need to go our far enough that you could observe some phase shift. Assuming 90 degrees is a good difference to see, with a normal cable this should take around 100 meters.

Or, you could just use a higher-speed pulse generator like you suggested. 30 ns is actually quite a long time to electricity - I've personally measured time differences around 1 ps, or a millionth of a nanosecond.

[Crossbow]

CurtC:

Thanks for the updated data.

I guess it has been a while for me. Wow! I did not know that digital o-scopes have so completly replaced the trace o-scope.

And yes, I suppose you are right as well in stating that 100 meters of cable would be adequate to measure a time shift on the order of microseconds.

But this guy is flat out stating that his invention invalidates the Theroy of Relativity, which has so far held up to all challanges. Therefore, I think his proof would have to be extra-ordinary so I would like to it done using hundreds, or thousands, of meters of cable just to make sure no funny business is going on.

[edthedoc]

As far as his English is concerned read the Terms of Business: perfect English there!

I'm following this thread with only basic electronic knowledge but with an open mind: however, several alarm bells are ringing telling me this is typical woo-woo stuff:

1. Working alone he breaks several fundamental laws of nature.
2. He can't explain the theory simply.
3. Website is quite amateurIsh (minor point but I see it a lot with woo woo stuff).
4. No peer-review or published data.
5. Wants lots of $ for it.

Only thing missing is anecdotal evidence: he can't even manage that.

Please keep on with the detailed criticism of the electronic theory: I can just follow it and it makes good reading.

[garys_2k]

I suspect Randi would let him apply for the prize -- I believe FTL phenomena would qualify, right? I know overunity generators do.

Anyway, I'm with the rest of you: measurement error.

[DrChinese]

His "science" can be found at http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf where there appears to be some heavy borrowing. I didn't read the whole paper, but it actually looks pretty good on the surface.

[phobos]

Originally posted by DrChinese
His "science" can be found at http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf where there appears to be some heavy borrowing. I didn't read the whole paper, but it actually looks pretty good on the surface.

You're in good company - Orman didn't read the whole thing either. He's a Usenet troll, you see, who parades his cluelessness in sci.physics on a regular basis. He denies the causality problem of FTL information propagation, whereas section 4.2 of the paper he cites as support admits the possibility of this very phenomenon.

Q: could we forward this to the German trading standards agency? He's charging an awful lot for something that doesn't work as advertised.

[garys_2k]

Originally posted by DrChinese
His "science" can be found at http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf where there appears to be some heavy borrowing. I didn't read the whole paper, but it actually looks pretty good on the surface.
I think the experiment described in that paper is flawed. How do we know that the scope lead connected to the transmitter antenna truly described the state AT the antenna? Depending on the lengths of the various leads there could easily be more propogation delay in that lead to the scope than the one connected to the receiver antenna.

Why didn't he use two receiver antennas, one connected to each channel of the scope with balanced leads? He should have been able to prove the same point without the ambiguity.

I suspect our guy selling these cables knows full well they don't work and is only a run of the mill crook. I hope he gets busted.

[CSSMariner]

Originally posted by CurtC
Crossbow, I'm going to be a little nitpicky here, I hope you'll forgive me. A dual-timebase scope wouldn't be helpful here. You could use an old-fashioned dual-beam scope, but they haven't made those in years, since digitizing scopes took over.

"They" never made a "Dual-beam" 'scope. It was one cathode ray beam from the cathode that was split to do one part of one trace, and then back to do part of the other, and switched back and forth between each trace, or if the sweep was fast enough, complete one trace and then the other. There was a mode switch on Tecktronics and HP scopes to select the mode. All color TV CRTs do use three beams, one for each color however.

I have used four, and even eight trace 'scopes, and it was the same method. Also, early digital "Storage 'scopes" still used a CRT, "Cathode Ray Tube" to display the information although the storage was digital for memory purposes and speed. There were some early storage scopes, HP had one, that used a grid actually located inside and at the front of the CRT to store the signal, but it was slow.

All conventional TVs use a CRT. In the case of a TV CRT, the cathode ray beam is swept across the screen with magnetic deflection coils, whereas an oscilloscope uses high voltage electrostatic deflection plates for the high speed switching that the impedance or inductive reaction of a TV's magnetic deflection coils would not allow.

I was one of the first students in a North Carolina tech school (1960) to be certified on the then very new Tektronics 100mHz, Dual Trace scope, originally produced in 1953, type 535. Great machine. Do a google search for 'tektronic 535 scope' and see what you can get.

Then LCD displays became cheap enough, and now everything is digital, whereas in a CRT/Digital Storage older types, the display was analog and the front of the machine was digital.

There are still a lot of CRT type 'scopes made however. I still have two.

[CurtC]

CSSMariner wrote:
"They" never made a "Dual-beam" 'scope...I'm pretty sure they did. I think you're thinking of the more common "dual trace" scopes. They had a switch that selected either "chop" or "alternate," as you describe. But there were some genuine dual beam scopes, such as the Tektronix 502 (see picture (http://www.geocities.com/r_corriveau/500/502.html#tline)).

[CSSMariner]

Oops, I stand corrected. The 502 was out of my experience, and I had never seen or heard of that model. Thanks.

[GreyWanderer]

Shouldn't it be as easy as just connecting his cable the way he describes, and then switching it with and ordinary cable. If there is no difference, then his claim cannot be verified, and it's his job to come up with a better method of testing it.

[Soapy Sam]

I don't want to seem dumb here, but... this is copper co-ax cable, yes?

And the speed of light in copper is what, exactly?:confused:

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
I don't want to seem dumb here, but... this is copper co-ax cable, yes?

And the speed of light in copper is what, exactly?:confused: Well the speed of EM propagation in a coax cable is primarely dependant on the dialectric (material inbetween core and outer shell). For air filled it would be c, for others it would be lower.

For a copper wire, I can't remember the velocity of propagation, and I don't have the table here.

walt

[CurtC]

To me, "the speed of light in copper" is a meaningless term. The speed of a signal's propagation down a cable is entirely dependent on the characteristics of the material that separates the conductors. For most dielectrics, it comes out to about 0.7c - for us in the US, about eight inches per nanosecond.

[Captain Trips]

I would like to propose a very simple test of his cable. Purchase an appropriate length, send a precise time signal down it, and see if it comes out before being sent. Someone else will have to do the math on the "appropriate length" aspect.

My experience with computer networking shows this could be a valid test -- and a problem for computer networks. Ethernet standards for cabling take into account propagation times. If packets move too quickly along the cable, data collisions would be happening. (This is why there is actually a minimum cable length between nodes. This cable, if it were to work as he said, would increase that distance drastically.)

[Crossbow]

I have two real problems with this guy and his FTL Cable.

First, his testing method is rather poor so I would say his claim has not been validated.

Second, he charging way too much for his product.

My conclusion: He is running a scam.

By the way, does anyone else remember a few months ago when a group claimed that they found a way to exceed the speed of light by shining a laser beam into a cesium cloud? It turned out that what they were seeing was an optical illusion and that the speed of light was not exceeded. Unless the testing is carefully done, this sort of thing does happen, and there will always be someone who will try to dupe others into shelling out money on the basis of flawed tests.

Ugh!