Verify FTL signal propagation using..... [Archive]

MathewOrman

25th August 2003, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
MathewOrman,
I looked for a bit at the sites you linked to but I didn't quite understand what you are claiming.

Are you claiming that there is a mechanism for sending data throuh a wire at faster than the speed of light in a vacuum?

Are you disagreeing with any of the basic experiments that have indicated that the speed of light is constant to an observer regardless of the speed of the source of the light relative to the observer? I am sure there are many of these, but the Michelson Morley interference experiment and de Sitters experiments that showed the speed of light from a binary star was the same whether the light was from the star rotating towards the earth or the star rotating away from the earth are two that come to mind.

The underlying theory behind electromagnetism involves the theory of relativity. Are you in disagreement with this?

Particle accelerators do not accelerate particles beyond the speed of light, Instead, the forces acting on the particle work mostly to increase the effective mass of the particle after speeds near light speed are obtained. Do you disagree with the standard interpretation of these experiments?

Yes, there is a mechanism to transfer signals Faster Than The Speed of Light.
It is very simple. It is based on old fundamental postulate
that states that all known force fields are instantaneous.
My technology uses electric force field to propagate information in form of signal using ordinary conductive metal based transmission lines. Normally transmission lines are used in what engineers call
power mode that requires matching input and output impedance.
That mode propagates signals using energy transfer and that
means using motion of electrons in a conducive material.
Since electrons have mass and inertia their propagations speed is not instantaneous. Electrons move with speeds that are less
than the speed of light.
In voltage mode the short segment of transmission line has
an open end that means that there is a open circuit at far end of it.
And no load current ever flows. When electric force field or simply voltage is applied at the input it propagates instantaneously across the conductor length.
But there is also a current flow at the input.
That current is called a displacement current and it is due to
finite capacitance of transmission line. It is (the capacitance)distributed uniformly across entire length of transmission line.
Now, such current flowing through conductor generate self-inductance effect due to finite inductance property of wires used in transmission line. In turn self-inductance generate additional
voltage across the wires which adds up with the source voltage
and forms the output voltage.
In the result the output voltage is not identical with input one.
And that is one of the unwanted effects that must be compensated out in order to construct useful FTL transmission line
segment.
The strength of this unwanted effects is proportional to change of
displacement current velocity.
Which means that for given length of transmission line segment
the input current velocity change rate is dependent on input waveform frequency.
It was chosen by analogy to Maxwell's near field property to
define a rule that will allow constructing FTL transmission line segments with minimal self-inductance effects.
And the rule is that the segment length must be smaller than 1/4 of the wavelength for the highest frequency component that is
to be propagated through the FTL transmission line segment.
Using such rule one can construct FTL transmission line segment with minimal self-inductance effect.
And by adding self-inductance compensation circuit one gets a practical FTL signal transmission line segment of a finite length
for given signal with finite frequency spectrum.
Now for constructing continuous FTL transmission line the second rule was defined
which is to use active electronic components that would buffer and connect the transmission line segments
preserving voltage mode.
Electronic circuit that will function as such is a very high input impedance unity gain amplifier with very low output impedance.
Son now one can construct continuous FTL signal transmission lines.

I have started this Post to show that there is nothing Magical about my FTL data transmission lines
and that there is no new physics involved and any average skill person can build and test the FTL signal transmission phenomena
using simple of the shelf components.
Or even simulate it using one of the most popular and available free of charge electronic circuit simulator like LTpsice.

To answer you questions:
The speed of light in vacuum is constant.
Maxwell laws or his mathematical model of EM wave propagation defines the speed of light constant relative to the source.

Particle in the accelerator will not travel with speed of light because the microwave field that is used
propagates with speed of light. Standard interpretation ignores the fact that particle is traveling trough noisy force field gradients of all known kind
(electric, magnetic and gravity). The only difference between the accelerator and microwave oven is that in accelerator one can study the collision effects
and particle travel in controlled path. In microwave oven particle motion path is not controlled and collision are difficult or impossible to study.
But all the recitation types are duplicated (IR,UV, X-RAY and so on).
Which is a prove that electromagnetic field is responsible for spontaneous wide spectrum EM wave emission from particles under observation in both
accelerator and microwave oven.

Michelson Morley interference experiment simply confirms that light travels in straight lines.
One can attach a camera to it and spin it at few thousand of rpm and see the phase shift.
Or use the Sangnac interferometer to see it.

Sincerely,

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

Diamond

25th August 2003, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by MathewOrman

Yes, there is a mechanism to transfer signals Faster Than The Speed of Light.
It is very simple. It is based on old fundamental postulate
that states that all known force fields are instantaneous................

Sincerely,

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

I think that ends the scientific discussion.

MRC_Hans

25th August 2003, 06:30 AM

Sigh! Perhaps we should construct a faq.

Well, lesseee...

Originally posted by MathewOrman

Yes, there is a mechanism to transfer signals Faster Than The Speed of Light.
It is very simple. It is based on old fundamental postulate
that states that all known force fields are instantaneous.

No, there isn't. No they are not. This is a common misunderstanding: Force fields are stationary, so time is not a factor for them. But that does not mean they are instantaneous. When a force-field (electrical or magnetic) is stablished, energy is required. This energy propagates in the form of an electromagnetic (EM) wave. Once the field is established, no energy is transferred, the field is stationary. If the field is collapsed, the energy is in principle recovered (although in practice, it is normally lost to the environment), again in the form of an EM wave.

My technology uses electric force field to propagate information in form of signal using ordinary conductive metal based transmission lines. Normally transmission lines are used in what engineers call
power mode that requires matching input and output impedance.
That mode propagates signals using energy transfer and that
means using motion of electrons in a conducive material.

You cannot transfer an energy-free signal. A signal IS energy.

Since electrons have mass and inertia their propagations speed is not instantaneous. Electrons move with speeds that are less
than the speed of light.

Actually they move VERY slowly. But this is irrelevant. The electrical signal moves nearly at c.

In voltage mode the short segment of transmission line has
an open end that means that there is a open circuit at far end of it.
And no load current ever flows. When electric force field or simply voltage is applied at the input it propagates instantaneously across the conductor length.

No, it does not. Current flows as the signal energy is coupled into the transmission line. It then propagates along the cable at the speed of light (actually a bit slower, but that is another subject). When it arrives at the open end, it cannot be absorbed by a load, so it is reflected back along the transmission line to the signal source, where it is absorbed (if there is an impedance match there).

But there is also a current flow at the input.
That current is called a displacement current and it is due to
finite capacitance of transmission line. It is (the capacitance)distributed uniformly across entire length of transmission line.
Now, such current flowing through conductor generate self-inductance effect due to finite inductance property of wires used in transmission line. In turn self-inductance generate additional
voltage across the wires which adds up with the source voltage
and forms the output voltage.
In the result the output voltage is not identical with input one.
And that is one of the unwanted effects that must be compensated out in order to construct useful FTL transmission line
segment.
The strength of this unwanted effects is proportional to change of
displacement current velocity.

You are just describing the reflection mechanism I mentioned. Signal distortion will occur if the propagation time of the pulse is shorter than the pulse width.

Which means that for given length of transmission line segment
the input current velocity change rate is dependent on input waveform frequency.

*snip*

Electronic circuit that will function as such is a very high input impedance unity gain amplifier with very low output impedance.
Son now one can construct continuous FTL signal transmission lines.

Explanation of the alleged phenomenon below.

I have started this Post to show that there is nothing Magical about my FTL data transmission lines

Absolutely nothing magical. The only magic is that which keeps some people making websites about it :rolleyes:

*snip*

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com [/B]

This "FTL" transfer thingy is a college experiment. It has a nice combination of measuring techniques, math, and logic for an educational situation.

It is one of the ways to show that an event can travel faster than light. The experiment exploits the fact that on a mismatched transmission line, a signal distortion occurs, but this distortion happens in the time domain, thus is is not the same in the feeding end of the cable as in the termination end. In the termination end, the leading edge of the signal is enhanced, while a larger or smaller part of the trailing part is suppressed.

This means that the pulse at the termination end is shorter than at the feeding end. And this means that the event that is the signal is speeded up.

Lets make an analogy:

Consider a train that travels 10 miles at 100mph. If we define the event of the train arriving as the passing of the center car, obviously 10 miles will take 6 minutes. However, suppose it is a long train of 100 carriages, but en route all except two carriages are coupled off and left on the track. Now, the train still moves at 100 mph, but when it started, the center carriage was 50 carriages down the train. When it arrives at the other end, however, the centre has "moved" 48 carriages forward, so the event of the passing train has been speeded up.

This is essentially what is done by those pulses, and while being an interesting experiment, it has nothing to do with FTL signalling because the information content of the signal cannot be speeded up.

Electromagnetics is not a gratifiying realm for kooks, because it is VERY well explored, thus debunking is easy.

As an aside, I find it puzzling that anybody would take interest in FTL cables, as they seem completely useless (apart from being impossible). :rolleyes:

Hans

Diamond

25th August 2003, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Sigh! Perhaps we should construct a faq.

Electromagnetics is not a gratifiying realm for kooks, because it is VERY well explored, thus debunking is easy.

As an aside, I find it puzzling that anybody would take interest in FTL cables, as they seem completely useless (apart from being impossible). :rolleyes:

Hans

Alas, this will just encourage them. I'm tempted to report this thread as spam....but who cares anyway?:rolleyes:

MathewOrman

25th August 2003, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Sigh! Perhaps we should construct a faq.

Well, lesseee...

This "FTL" transfer thingy is a college experiment. It has a nice combination of measuring techniques, math, and logic for an educational situation.

It is one of the ways to show that an event can travel faster than light. The experiment exploits the fact that on a mismatched transmission line, a signal distortion occurs, but this distortion happens in the time domain, thus is is not the same in the feeding end of the cable as in the termination end. In the termination end, the leading edge of the signal is enhanced, while a larger or smaller part of the trailing part is suppressed.

This means that the pulse at the termination end is shorter than at the feeding end. And this means that the event that is the signal is speeded up.

Lets make an analogy:

Consider a train that travels 10 miles at 100mph. If we define the event of the train arriving as the passing of the center car, obviously 10 miles will take 6 minutes. However, suppose it is a long train of 100 carriages, but en route all except two carriages are coupled off and left on the track. Now, the train still moves at 100 mph, but when it started, the center carriage was 50 carriages down the train. When it arrives at the other end, however, the centre has "moved" 48 carriages forward, so the event of the passing train has been speeded up.

This is essentially what is done by those pulses, and while being an interesting experiment, it has nothing to do with FTL signalling because the information content of the signal cannot be speeded up.

Electromagnetics is not a gratifiying realm for kooks, because it is VERY well explored, thus debunking is easy.

As an aside, I find it puzzling that anybody would take interest in FTL cables, as they seem completely useless (apart from being impossible). :rolleyes:

Hans

You have applied the transmission line theory that assumes
infinite length of transmission line.

That shows that you cannot comprehend the idea!

Try to learn what transmission line theory calls "Electrically short open ended transmission lines".
Or finite length distributed RLC circuits.

Sincerely,

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

MRC_Hans

25th August 2003, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by MathewOrman

You have applied the transmission line theory that assumes
infinite length of transmission line.

I certainly have not. Whatever gives you that idea?

That shows that you cannot comprehend the idea!

More likely, it shows that you do not comprehend transmisison line theory.

Try to learn what transmission line theory calls "Electrically short open ended transmission lines".
Or finite length distributed RLC circuits.

Son, I have worked with transmission lines for over thirty years. I have even teached on the subject.

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com [/B]

Hans

Diamond

25th August 2003, 07:21 AM

Its like a title fight between the champ and a complete no-hoper....you try not to watch...

MathewOrman

25th August 2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Hans

An I have invented the World's most advanced 6D Laser Tracking System US Patent No. 5,767,960.
and NASA is using it
Press released at: http://www.ascension-tech.com/news/press_032503.php

But that has nothing to do with the subject
and the unanswered questions is:
Do you know the theory behind what is called "Electrically short open ended transmission lines"?

Sincerely,

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

Diamond

25th August 2003, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by MathewOrman

An I have invented the World's most advanced 6D Laser Tracking System US Patent No. 5,767,960.
and NASA is using it
Press released at: http://www.ascension-tech.com/news/press_032503.php

But that has nothing to do with the subject
and the unanswered questions is:
Do you know the theory behind what is called "Electrically short open ended transmission lines"?

Sincerely,

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

So what? I have a patent registered as well, but it doesn't mean that I can produce a crackpot idea and expect people to believe it.

CurtC

25th August 2003, 07:38 AM

So the claim here is that a spice simulation of a circuit shows FTL propagation? You're not even using sleight of hand to show pulses on a scope, but simply using a spice simulation?

MathewOrman

25th August 2003, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by CurtC
So the claim here is that a spice simulation of a circuit shows FTL propagation? You're not even using sleight of hand to show pulses on a scope, but simply using a spice simulation?

Well, it is all about LTspice and not about my commercial hardware.
LTspice is free my test equipment on the other hand cost a fortune.

Also LTspice has femto accuracy and one can zoom the waveform to that level.

Sincerely,

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

Crossbow

25th August 2003, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by MathewOrman
........most popular electronic circuit simulator: LTspice

The details, example files and schematics are at:
http://www.ultra-faster-than-light.com/ftlspeed.htm
You can download free version of LTspice and find out what is been the most overlooked
example of Faster Than Light signal propagation
in ordinary copper based transmission cables.
Example that completely falsifies SR, GR, QM
and QED.

Sincerely,

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

Good for you! If you are right, then you would have introduced the world to a whole new science.

Publish your work in a peer reviewed journal and then proceed to make some serious money.

CurtC

25th August 2003, 08:15 AM

OK, I just looked at your site and I have a few questions. It looks like you're measuring that your four-meter-long line has a propagation time that's 4.4 ns faster than a four-meter-long piece of RG-58. Is this right?

I have a few problems with this scenario. First, a four-meter-long piece of RG-58 should propagate a signal in 18.5 ns. If your cable did 4.4 ns less (14.1 ns), this is still slower than the speed of light, which can cover four meters in 13.2 ns. Am I understanding this right?

The other major problem with the setup is why you use a 28 ms rise time signal to show this effect. I didn't study it long enough to see exactly what's going on, but that fact sure sets off my BS Detector. The e-mail message at the top of the page you linked to says something about a 200 ps rise pulse, which would be adequate to show the effect. What happened to that idea? Putting that message as the first thing on your page would give the impression that this is what you're doing, but I had to dig a little harder to see that you're actually using a pulse that's more than 100 times slower. What's up with that?

MathewOrman

25th August 2003, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by CurtC
OK, I just looked at your site and I have a few questions. It looks like you're measuring that your four-meter-long line has a propagation time that's 4.4 ns faster than a four-meter-long piece of RG-58. Is this right?

I have a few problems with this scenario. First, a four-meter-long piece of RG-58 should propagate a signal in 18.5 ns. If your cable did 4.4 ns less (14.1 ns), this is still slower than the speed of light, which can cover four meters in 13.2 ns. Am I understanding this right?

The other major problem with the setup is why you use a 28 ms rise time signal to show this effect. I didn't study it long enough to see exactly what's going on, but that fact sure sets off my BS Detector. The e-mail message at the top of the page you linked to says something about a 200 ps rise pulse, which would be adequate to show the effect. What happened to that idea? Putting that message as the first thing on your page would give the impression that this is what you're doing, but I had to dig a little harder to see that you're actually using a pulse that's more than 100 times slower. What's up with that?

Please read more carefully.
The Multisim examples are for 1m coax length.

Look at LTspice examples.

Also look at previous posts at this thread to find out why
frequency components of signals must be limited according to the coax segment length.

Sincerely,

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

CurtC

25th August 2003, 09:36 AM

OK, I read more carefully. Let me summarize what I think you're doing, and please check that this understanding is right. You're taking the output of a function generator, then passing it through a large network of Rs, Ls, and Cs, in order to reduce its rise time (limit its bandwidth). Then you pass that into a lumped-element model of a 1-m long RG-58. You have a switch that terminates that with a 50-ohm resistor.

You then look at the end of the transmission line, and compare the output when the resistor is there vs. when it's not there. Is this right?

May I suggest an enhancement to improve your simulation's accuracy? Instead of modeling the line as a single L of 205 nH and a single C of 42 pF, could you model it as ten Ls and Cs, each with values of 20.5 nH and 4.2 pF? A lumped-element model is just an approximation of a transmission line, and the more elements you break it into, the more accurate it will be. Instead of using single big lumps, model the cable in 0.1 m segments.

MathewOrman

25th August 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by CurtC
OK, I read more carefully. Let me summarize what I think you're doing, and please check that this understanding is right. You're taking the output of a function generator, then passing it through a large network of Rs, Ls, and Cs, in order to reduce its rise time (limit its bandwidth). Then you pass that into a lumped-element model of a 1-m long RG-58. You have a switch that terminates that with a 50-ohm resistor.

You then look at the end of the transmission line, and compare the output when the resistor is there vs. when it's not there. Is this right?

May I suggest an enhancement to improve your simulation's accuracy? Instead of modeling the line as a single L of 205 nH and a single C of 42 pF, could you model it as ten Ls and Cs, each with values of 20.5 nH and 4.2 pF? A lumped-element model is just an approximation of a transmission line, and the more elements you break it into, the more accurate it will be. Instead of using single big lumps, model the cable in 0.1 m segments.

Yes, that is correct.
I have done so already with ten RLC lamp circuit in chain.
And there was no noticeable difference.
And why that is so you can learn from transmission line theories
that describe so called "Electrically short open ended transmission lines".
Here are the keywords when searching Google:
+"Electrically short"+"transmission lines"

If you look down below on my FTLSPEED page you see
simulations done using LTspice Tline distributed model.

You can download free LTspice software and the example from my page and do all kind of tests and learn about the FTL signal propagation phenomena.

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
ps. I do provide free samples of my FTL data transmission lines for the evaluation providing that I would get a copy of test results.

www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

MRC_Hans

25th August 2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by MathewOrman
An I have invented the World's most advanced 6D Laser Tracking System US Patent No. 5,767,960.
and NASA is using it
Press released at: http://www.ascension-tech.com/news/press_032503.php

But that has nothing to do with the subject

You are correct.

and the unanswered questions is:
Do you know the theory behind what is called "Electrically short open ended transmission lines"?

Certainly. What would you like to know?

Sincerely,

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

However, on the laser "you invented":

(Form the site you linked to)

Researchers at four NASA field installations have been working with the FAA and aviation industry on the project for three years.

Which of those researchers were you? And how is it your invention?

Hans

MRC_Hans

25th August 2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by MathewOrman

*snip*
Look at LTspice examples.

*snip*

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman

The output of a simulation program is not reality. Even the best and most expensive simulation programs are notoriously unreliable for time-domain simulations of high-speed signals.

Simulations are uninteresting. Hard facts are what counts, but you could start by explaining the theory (without false premises).

Hans

MathewOrman

25th August 2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

The output of a simulation program is not reality. Even the best and most expensive simulation programs are notoriously unreliable for time-domain simulations of high-speed signals.

Simulations are uninteresting. Hard facts are what counts, but you could start by explaining the theory (without false premises).

Hans

Yes you are right.
The physical evidence is what counts.
And that is why I decided to market my invention.
Also I have an independent verification pending by group of scientist in
Mountain View, CA.
When the test are done the results will be published on my website and Randi will get a copy so we can talk about
one mega-dollar price.

Mean time this week I will be selling my first ever built FTL data transmission line Serial Number 1 at EBay starting price $10,000.00

I will post the auction number here if the moderator has no objection.

Sincerely,

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

MathewOrman

25th August 2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Crossbow

Good for you! If you are right, then you would have introduced the world to a whole new science.

Publish your work in a peer reviewed journal and then proceed to make some serious money.

Thank You!
The proceedings are in motion.
The paper will be ready in the beginning of September.

Sincerely,

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

Walter Wayne

25th August 2003, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by MathewOrman

Yes you are right.
The physical evidence is what counts.
And that is why I decided to market my invention.
Your simulation seems to make no differentiation between the RG-58 cable and your FTL cable. They are modeled in precisely the same manner, one is terminated and the other isn't. So if there is no difference, how is it you charge so much for the cables?

Walt

MRC_Hans

25th August 2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by MathewOrman
Yes you are right.
The physical evidence is what counts.
And that is why I decided to market my invention.

Sure. Only, I'm afraid the market potential is limited. After all few people will care if their signals are delayed a few nanoseconds or not.

Also I have an independent verification pending by group of scientist in Mountain View, CA.

Could you be a bit more specific?

When the test are done the results will be published on my website and Randi will get a copy so we can talk about
one mega-dollar price.

No, that is not the way to publish a scientific break-through. I suggest Nature or New Scientist. Nobody will hear about if it is only on your website (at least nobody who matters). Since you do not claim it to be supernatural, the Randi Prize is not relevant.

Mean time this week I will be selling my first ever built FTL data transmission line Serial Number 1 at EBay starting price $10,000.00

Well, good luck! We all know how selling on e-bay is proof of sincerity :rolleyes:

I will post the auction number here if the moderator has no objection.

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman

I conclude that you do not wish to engage in further technical discussions. Undoubtedly a wise decision.

Hans

MathewOrman

25th August 2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
Your simulation seems to make no differentiation between the RG-58 cable and your FTL cable. They are modeled in precisely the same manner, one is terminated and the other isn't. So if there is no difference, how is it you charge so much for the cables?

Walt

Thank You!
Read all about it at:
http://www.ultra-faster-than-light.com/product.htm

Sincerely,

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

MathewOrman

25th August 2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

I conclude that you do not wish to engage in further technical discussions. Undoubtedly a wise decision.

Hans

False assumption.

The RLC circuit theory does not need my approval.
And what you need to learn is the theory behind
what is called "Electrically short open-ended transmission lines"

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
ps. I need to go to bed!

www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

CurtC

25th August 2003, 02:11 PM

OK, this is fun. Mr. Orman has come up with a trick, like a good magician. The difference is that most magicians have tricks where the effect is simple to spot, even though he keeps how he did it a secret. To even understand what you're supposed to see, an observer of this trick needs to invest some time to see it. I'm sure you're getting some enjoyment out of having people straining to see how your obfuscating circuit does its thing.

I believe the output of the SPICE model, and that this is what you would actually see with a real circuit. I've installed LTSpice (I always wanted SPICE on my own PC anyway), and I'll be playing with it to understand the effect more.

I don't understand it fully yet, but I'm completely confident that we're not witnessing FTL. Hell, the SPICE model is done with a propagation time built-in. In your circuit, the one question that I have at this point is this. With a 28 ns rise time, and an FTL cable, why do you have to wait more than 40 ns to see the center of the pulse at the output? That seems to be a killer for your application where you put a bunch of these things back-to-back for a long-distance FTL application. What good is an FTL cable with the circuit driving it takes forever to respond?

roger

25th August 2003, 02:30 PM

Mr. Orman,

We have previously discussed your claims. This link (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21455) discusses your measurement error.

MathewOrman

25th August 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by CurtC
OK, this is fun. Mr. Orman has come up with a trick, like a good magician. The difference is that most magicians have tricks where the effect is simple to spot, even though he keeps how he did it a secret. To even understand what you're supposed to see, an observer of this trick needs to invest some time to see it. I'm sure you're getting some enjoyment out of having people straining to see how your obfuscating circuit does its thing.

I believe the output of the SPICE model, and that this is what you would actually see with a real circuit. I've installed LTSpice (I always wanted SPICE on my own PC anyway), and I'll be playing with it to understand the effect more.

I don't understand it fully yet, but I'm completely confident that we're not witnessing FTL. Hell, the SPICE model is done with a propagation time built-in. In your circuit, the one question that I have at this point is this. With a 28 ns rise time, and an FTL cable, why do you have to wait more than 40 ns to see the center of the pulse at the output? That seems to be a killer for your application where you put a bunch of these things back-to-back for a long-distance FTL application. What good is an FTL cable with the circuit driving it takes forever to respond?

You have to wait 40ns to see the center of the input signal as well.
The example describes the 10MBit/sec FTL data transmission line.
It does not show the commercial circuitry which also contains the
compensation network and high impedance buffers.
I can deliver 30km long 10MBit/sec FTL transmission lines.

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
ps. I need to go to bed!

www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

CurtC

25th August 2003, 02:54 PM

Roger wrote:
We have previously discussed your claims. This link discusses your measurement error.Not exactly. In that explanation, Kess said " If his cable were truly capable of FTL speeds then he should prove it be injecting a single event - such as a pulse - into the cable."

But in the circuit that he's posted in this thread, he's using a pulse stimulus, not a sine wave. And the trick still works.

MathewOrman

25th August 2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by roger
Mr. Orman,

We have previously discussed your claims. This link (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21455) discusses your measurement error.

Now you have an opportunity to participate in the discussion
that include the inventor.

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman

www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

Crossbow

25th August 2003, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by MathewOrman

Yes you are right.
The physical evidence is what counts.
And that is why I decided to market my invention.
Also I have an independent verification pending by group of scientist in
Mountain View, CA.
When the test are done the results will be published on my website and Randi will get a copy so we can talk about
one mega-dollar price.

Mean time this week I will be selling my first ever built FTL data transmission line Serial Number 1 at EBay starting price $10,000.00

I will post the auction number here if the moderator has no objection.

Sincerely,

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

Wow! That sounds like a really sweet deal you ought to post in the JREF auction section as well. Just think, someone might be able to buy a product that can do something that has never been done and that demonstrates a whole new science for a mere $10,000!

Of course, the product in question has not actually been tested, however there have been some computerized simulations of it which look very favorable.

That sounds all very good to me, but I do have a couple of questions before I max out one of my credit cards.

If does not work, do I get the actual $ 10,000 back or would I get a computer simulated $ 10,000 back? Or better yet, could I pay you 10,000 computer simulated dollars (I could send you three of those new $3,333.33 notes that have a picture of President Bullwinkle on them plus one penny).

CurtC

25th August 2003, 07:53 PM

Slow down, Crossbow. The thing actually does what the SPICE simulation says it does. Not that anything is travelling FTL.

In fact, at the voltage just above the center value, like maybe around 280 mV, the output of the circuit achieves that voltage just a little *before* the input gets there. So FTL wouldn't explain it - I guess clairvoyance would be more like it. Or maybe that there's a funny resonance going on that I don't have the full explanation for yet.

But make no mistake - if you string a bunch of these together with the "compensation network" and "high impedance buffers," it will not send a signal FTL for the whole group. It just is a trick, that the voltage at the output of the transmission line goes up as fast as the voltage on its input. It has something to do with how the voltage on an open line doubles, so it starts rising later but goes up faster, than the input.

teddygrahams

25th August 2003, 10:02 PM

Measure the current going into the coax, instead of the voltage at the coax insertion point. The current pulse will occur before the pulse at the output no matter what kind of useless junk is added.

CurtC

25th August 2003, 10:29 PM

Yeah, I was trying to figure out how to view the current in LTSpice. If nothing else, I would put in a small series resistor and look at the voltage across that. If anyone knows how to put in a current probe, please let me know!

MRC_Hans

26th August 2003, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by MathewOrman
*snip*
And what you need to learn is the theory behind
what is called "Electrically short open-ended transmission lines"

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
*snip*
You are repeating yourself.
I am thoroughly familiar with open ended transmisison lines of any length, and in my first post here, I explained how it could cause the effect of propagating the event of a pulse through a cable at a speed faster than light. This does not, however, mean that you can propagate information through the cable faster than light.

You have not presented ONE technical argument since the beginning of this thread, and the arguments given then have been shown to be false. The ball is in your court, sir, and we are waiting for your new arguments :rolleyes:.

Please present a technologically correct explanation on how FTL is supposed to work. Or else I shall have to assume that you do not have any.

Hans

MathewOrman

26th August 2003, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow

Wow! That sounds like a really sweet deal you ought to post in the JREF auction section as well. Just think, someone might be able to buy a product that can do something that has never been done and that demonstrates a whole new science for a mere $10,000!

Of course, the product in question has not actually been tested, however there have been some computerized simulations of it which look very favorable.

That sounds all very good to me, but I do have a couple of questions before I max out one of my credit cards.

If does not work, do I get the actual $ 10,000 back or would I get a computer simulated $ 10,000 back? Or better yet, could I pay you 10,000 computer simulated dollars (I could send you three of those new $3,333.33 notes that have a picture of President Bullwinkle on them plus one penny).

The buyer will have two options:

1. He pays only $500 down and gets the merchandise, evaluates
it's performance and if it works as specified he pays the remaining $9,500.00. If it does not work as specified he gets $1,000.00 back and that is 200% what he would had put down.

2. He pays $10,000.00 and if it does not work as specified
he gets $20,000.00 back.

Sincerely,

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

Diamond

26th August 2003, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by MathewOrman

The buyer will have two options:

1. He pays only $500 down and gets the merchandise, evaluates
it's performance and if it works as specified he pays the remaining $9,500.00. If it does not work as specified he gets $1,000.00 back and that is 200% what he would had put down.

2. He pays $10,000.00 and if it does not work as specified
he gets $20,000.00 back.

Sincerely,

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

What are the chances of any money being given back when no reputable scientist thinks that you have proven anything? You have rejected every single criticism whether here or on Usenet as a "misunderstanding" on their part rather than because they are telling you the truth: that you're an unscrupulous crackpot in the Dennis Lee mould.

You'll simply tell the unfortunates that your experiment worked and the problem is with them, or that someone in Palo Alto is testing it now, or that they don't understand FTL technology.... the possibilities are endless for a conman like you.

MathewOrman

26th August 2003, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by Diamond

What are the chances of any money being given back when no reputable scientist thinks that you have proven anything? You have rejected every single criticism whether here or on Usenet as a "misunderstanding" on their part rather than because they are telling you the truth: that you're an unscrupulous crackpot in the Dennis Lee mould.

You'll simply tell the unfortunates that your experiment worked and the problem is with them, or that someone in Palo Alto is testing it now, or that they don't understand FTL technology.... the possibilities are endless for a conman like you.

It is much simpler than that!
One takes the device to the local sales office of Agilent or
Tektronix and verifies the transient delay using method that was submitted by Germen scientist and published on my web-site
at: http://www.ultra-faster-than-light.com/ftlspeed.htm

It takes about 60 ns for pulse of light to travel 20m.
In my FTL data transmission line pulse will travel at least 5 times faster and that is 12 ns for 20 m long device.

If you suspect any fraud please notify immediately proper authorities.

All contact data including the phone number
is listed on the presented URL's.

Sincerely,

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

Diamond

26th August 2003, 05:35 AM

I have notified the proper authorities.

Robaato

26th August 2003, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by MathewOrman
Mean time this week I will be selling my first ever built FTL data transmission line Serial Number 1 at EBay starting price $10,000.00

I will post the auction number here if the moderator has no objection.
Yes, we have objections. Specifically, the rules state that this forum may not be used as a literal marketplace to sell for-profit items. Posting a link to your own eBay auction is a violation of said rule.

Raja

xouper

26th August 2003, 06:30 AM

Raja: Yes, we have objections. Specifically, the rules state that this forum may not be used as a literal marketplace to sell for-profit items. Posting a link to your own eBay auction is a violation of said rule.Links to ebay auctions have been posted before on this forum, but not by the seller. I think in this case it's relevant to the topic of the thread, which I have been following with much interest and amusement. How about if I post the ebay link myself, would that be a violation of the rules, since I have no financial interest in the matter, nor am I doing it as a commercial promotion, but rather as something relevant to the discussion, similarly to when other ebay links have been posted? I think it's also relevant to observe whether there are any suckers out there actually bid on it.

MRC_Hans

26th August 2003, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by MathewOrman
[B]It is much simpler than that!
One takes the device to the local sales office of Agilent or
Tektronix and verifies the transient delay using method that was submitted by Germen scientist and published on my web-site
at: http://www.ultra-faster-than-light.com/ftlspeed.htm

It takes about 60 ns for pulse of light to travel 20m.
In my FTL data transmission line pulse will travel at least 5 times faster and that is 12 ns for 20 m long device.

*snip*

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman

This really shows you credibility. Here are the final sentences of that post from the German:

Is that what you're going to show?

Bye
Markus
(BTW how do we know he's a scientist?) ....Anyway:
He simply outlines a test setup that would show the effect you claim to have made IF IT WORKED. He did not make that test, and neither did you! But you are presenting this text as if it was evidence! Also, notice that the scope in the suggested test has 50ohms input, thus doing away with your alleged (and nonsensical) open end idea.

You are a liar and a fraud, and you are not even good at it. You are trying to make money on a scam. You are not even good at that, because the number of suckers who will feel the need to get a signal 40ns faster through a cable has to be limited.

Even if your construction was viable, it would only be of academic interest.

Hans

MathewOrman

26th August 2003, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by Raja
Yes, we have objections. Specifically, the rules state that this forum may not be used as a literal marketplace to sell for-profit items. Posting a link to your own eBay auction is a violation of said rule.

Raja

No problem.
I will just submit the outcome info afterwords without any links or references at all.

Sincerely,

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

MathewOrman

26th August 2003, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

This really shows you credibility. Here are the final sentences of that post from the German:

(BTW how do we know he's a scientist?) ....Anyway:
He simply outlines a test setup that would show the effect you claim to have made IF IT WORKED. He did not make that test, and neither did you! But you are presenting this text as if it was evidence! Also, notice that the scope in the suggested test has 50ohms input, thus doing away with your alleged (and nonsensical) open end idea.

You are a liar and a fraud, and you are not even good at it. You are trying to make money on a scam. You are not even good at that, because the number of suckers who will feel the need to get a signal 40ns faster through a cable has to be limited.

Even if your construction was viable, it would only be of academic interest.

Hans

You've made so may false assumptions.
The commercial product has 50 Ohms input and output impedances.

I will send you a free sample providing you show me your
credibility.

I have a history only of succsesfull and practical inventions
and NASA is already purchased one of my scam artist World's most advanced 6D
Laser Tracking System
US Patent No. 5,767,960.
Press released at: http://www.ascension-tech.com/news/press_032503.php

Sincerely,

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

Crossbow

26th August 2003, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by CurtC
Slow down, Crossbow. The thing actually does what the SPICE simulation says it does. Not that anything is travelling FTL.

In fact, at the voltage just above the center value, like maybe around 280 mV, the output of the circuit achieves that voltage just a little *before* the input gets there. So FTL wouldn't explain it - I guess clairvoyance would be more like it. Or maybe that there's a funny resonance going on that I don't have the full explanation for yet.

But make no mistake - if you string a bunch of these together with the "compensation network" and "high impedance buffers," it will not send a signal FTL for the whole group. It just is a trick, that the voltage at the output of the transmission line goes up as fast as the voltage on its input. It has something to do with how the voltage on an open line doubles, so it starts rising later but goes up faster, than the input.

Thanks much Curt, I figured it was something like that.

Do you remember the one fellow some months ago who shined a pulsed laser into a cloud of cesium gas and claimed that one could use this technique to get the pulse to travel faster than the speed of light.

When others looked into it, it turned out what he was seeing was the result of an optical illusion caused by a distortion in the pulses as they passed through the gas.

In my experience, the people who make FTL or free-energy claims are often seeing the odd effects that can occur due to energy storage of alternating power. Of course, after one has some developed some fluency with higher mathematics (especially complex numbers), these odd effects become more understandable but unfortunately, many of these people do not have these skills (plus they see those dollar signs dancing before them) which is why they tend to get rather enthusiastic about their claims and very defensive about the authenticity of their products.

Go figure!

MathewOrman

26th August 2003, 07:48 AM

Brian the Snail

26th August 2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow
Do you remember the one fellow some months ago who shined a pulsed laser into a cloud of cesium gas and claimed that one could use this technique to get the pulse to travel faster than the speed of light.

When others looked into it, it turned out what he was seeing was the result of an optical illusion caused by a distortion in the pulses as they passed through the gas.

Crossbow,

Not to post off-topic, but this caught my eye. Do you have a reference / link for this please? Just I'll be interested in taking a look at this.

I know that experiments like this have been done to slow down light pulses to extremely low velocities, which relies on the perculiar dispersion properties of light near to atomic resonances. But this is a change in the group velocity of the light pulse, which as you point out, is associated with distortion of the pulse. In principle, one could do the same so that the group velocity is larger than the speed of light- however, the signal velocity should always be less than c, so that no laws of physics are violated.

Crossbow

26th August 2003, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Brian the Snail

Crossbow,

Not to post off-topic, but this caught my eye. Do you have a reference / link for this please? Just I'll be interested in taking a look at this.

I know that experiments like this have been done to slow down light pulses to extremely low velocities, which relies on the perculiar dispersion properties of light near to atomic resonances. But this is a change in the group velocity of the light pulse, which as you point out, is associated with distortion of the pulse. In principle, one could do the same so that the group velocity is larger than the speed of light- however, the signal velocity should always be less than c, so that no laws of physics are violated.

Brian the Snail, check out this article that was in Scientific American.

Unlimited Light
Researchers make pulses that travel faster than light--sort of
By David Appell

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00093487-DB4B-1C73-9B81809EC588EF21

PRINCETON, N.J.--First things first: Einstein has not left the building.

Despite some recent virtuosic experiments with pulses of light widely reported to far exceed the speed of light, physicists still agree that no object or information has been made to travel superluminally. Cause-and-effect is preserved. But the strange intricacies of light are requiring scientists to examine closely the nature of the ultimate speed limit and, with it, what a pulse of light really is.

...

Brian the Snail

26th August 2003, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow

Brian the Snail, check out this article that was in Scientific American.

Unlimited Light
Researchers make pulses that travel faster than light--sort of
By David Appell

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00093487-DB4B-1C73-9B81809EC588EF21

PRINCETON, N.J.--First things first: Einstein has not left the building.

Despite some recent virtuosic experiments with pulses of light widely reported to far exceed the speed of light, physicists still agree that no object or information has been made to travel superluminally. Cause-and-effect is preserved. But the strange intricacies of light are requiring scientists to examine closely the nature of the ultimate speed limit and, with it, what a pulse of light really is.

...

Thank you Crossbow. That was very much along the lines of what I was thinking.

Martin

26th August 2003, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by xouper
Links to ebay auctions have been posted before on this forum, but not by the seller. I think in this case it's relevant to the topic of the thread, which I have been following with much interest and amusement. How about if I post the ebay link myself, would that be a violation of the rules, since I have no financial interest in the matter, nor am I doing it as a commercial promotion, but rather as something relevant to the discussion, similarly to when other ebay links have been posted? I think it's also relevant to observe whether there are any suckers out there actually bid on itWell, well. I agree with Xouper, on a censorship issue. Again. I find this trend...somewhat disturbing :p

69dodge

26th August 2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by CurtC
In fact, at the voltage just above the center value, like maybe around 280 mV, the output of the circuit achieves that voltage just a little *before* the input gets there. So FTL wouldn't explain it - I guess clairvoyance would be more like it.Can you run the simulation with a different waveform? What if you generate a pulse that starts out exactly like the recommended one, then when it reaches 280 mV immediately drops to zero? Yes, of course, that's against the rules, as it introduces higher frequencies. But that's just the point. If the input pulse is predictable due to the limited bandwidth, the output side can predict it. It doesn't have to wait for it actually to arrive. And if unexpectedly it doesn't arrive, the output will no longer match the input. In what sense can the "281 mV point" be said to travel FTL from the input to the output, if the output reaches 281 mV even when the input is cut off at 280 mV. That the output hits 281 mV is a result of a previous lower-voltage part of the input pulse, a part that had time to reach the output side. There's no law against the output having a higher voltage than the input. Transformers do it all the time.

The question should not be, if I send a pulse down the line, what is the delay between when the input reaches half-maximum and when the output does?

The question should be, if I send two pulses that start out identical and then at a certain point begin to differ, how long does it take for the outputs to begin to differ?

If x is the time light takes to get from the input to the output, the impossibility of FTL signal propagation says that the output at time t depends on the input at time t - x (or earlier, but no later). It doesn't say that the output at time t is identical to the input at time t - x.

ceptimus

26th August 2003, 11:30 AM

The edges of shadows move faster than light in my house. This happens every time I switch a lamp on or off. I wonder if I could sell the lamps, or chunks of wall etc. on eBay at highly inflated prices?

Diamond

26th August 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Martinm
Well, well. I agree with Xouper, on a censorship issue. Again. I find this trend...somewhat disturbing :p

So you have no problem with a conman selling his wares on the forum, even putting them in the Auction forum?

diddidit

26th August 2003, 01:55 PM

Whether it's faster than light or not, it's still just a 10 mbps cable; it ain't gonna get me my, uh, pictures downloaded any faster. Heck, that's slower than USB 1.1. What's the point? I've got, ya know, research to do.

did

Kess

26th August 2003, 02:06 PM

Damn! I've just spent 30 minutes repeating Mathew Ohman's latest simulations and working out what the trick is and posting a response in another thread ( http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870066496 ) only to find you guys have already given him a good hammering. Plus a number of newsgroups have also attempted to introduce him to basic transmission line theory.

Oh well, back to the TV now...

xouper

27th August 2003, 09:41 AM

Diamond: So you have no problem with a conman selling his wares on the forum, even putting them in the Auction forum?I do indeed have a problem with a conman selling their wares on this forum. I just don't agree that the solution to that problem is censorship. I think it is far more effective to publicly discredit the conman, as an educational service for those who are not yet familiar with the con. This thread is a perfect example of what I mean. If it had been censored (as it appears you seemed to want under the spam rule), then a lot of good rebuttal would not have gotten posted for the educational enlightenment of those interested. This is a clear example where more speech is preferable to censorship.

I know you and I disagree on certain censorship issues, but my intent here is not to argue about it, but only to answer your question and explain my position in more detail.

Diamond

27th August 2003, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by xouper
I do indeed have a problem with a conman selling their wares on this forum. I just don't agree that the solution to that problem is censorship. I think it is far more effective to publicly discredit the conman, as an educational service for those who are not yet familiar with the con. This thread is a perfect example of what I mean. If it had been censored (as it appears you seemed to want under the spam rule), then a lot of good rebuttal would not have gotten posted for the educational enlightenment of those interested. This is a clear example where more speech is preferable to censorship.

I know you and I disagree on certain censorship issues, but my intent here is not to argue about it, but only to answer your question and explain my position in more detail.

Nobody asked your opinion. And since you didn't understand the purpose of my question, which had nothing to do with censorship of ideas, but with someone hawking their wares on the board, perhaps you should keep your well-flogged dead horse out of sight.

MRC_Hans

27th August 2003, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by MathewOrman
You've made so may false assumptions.

OK, then you should have no problem defying them.

The commercial product has 50 Ohms input and output impedances.

Your "technical" explanation involved an open end. In the test setup, you referred to (but have not tried out), it is not open-ended.

I will send you a free sample providing you show me your
credibility.

And that would involve?

I have a history only of succsesfull and practical inventions
and NASA is already purchased one of my scam artist World's most advanced 6D
Laser Tracking System
US Patent No. 5,767,960.
Press released at: http://www.ascension-tech.com/news/press_032503.php

So, maybe you can answer my earlier question: The test you refer to mentions four NASA teams working on this. Where does it mention you? How are you the inventor?

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman

Show me and everybody else that you are not a liar and a fraud, and I shall retract that statement, with apologies.

Hans

xouper

27th August 2003, 11:25 AM

Diamond: Nobody asked your opinion.Doesn't matter. Last time I checked, I am still allowed to express my opinion on this board.

And since you didn't understand the purpose of my question,If that's true, then I will graciously accept that I misunderstood. All we have so far is your actual question, but no direct information on what the "purpose" of that question was. So please explain the purpose of your question.

... which had nothing to do with censorship of ideas,My comments had nothing to do with "censorship of ideas" either.

... but with someone hawking their wares on the board,And I directly addressed that particular point.

You asked, "So you have no problem with a conman selling his wares on the forum, even putting them in the Auction forum?"

And I answered, "I do indeed have a problem with a conman selling their wares on this forum."

What didn't I understand about your question?

... perhaps you should keep your well-flogged dead horse out of sight. whine whine whine :p

MathewOrman

27th August 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Show me and everybody else that you are not a liar and a fraud, and I shall retract that statement, with apologies.

Hans

If you lookup the Patent than you will se that it was assigned
to Ascension Technology Corporation the company for which
I have been consulting for over 10 year.
Ascension manufactures sales the LaserBIRD built based on my
Patent.
Also I do manufacture and sale Motion Tracking Equipment
at: http://www.tyrellinnovations.com

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman

www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

MRC_Hans

27th August 2003, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by MathewOrman

If you lookup the Patent than you will se that it was assigned
to Ascension Technology Corporation the company for which
I have been consulting for over 10 year.
Ascension manufactures sales the LaserBIRD built based on my
Patent.
Also I do manufacture and sale Motion Tracking Equipment
at: http://www.tyrellinnovations.com

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman

OK, fine. You provided a link to a site selling something. You claim it represents you. No problem.

Maybe we should get back on topic?

You said:
Yes, there is a mechanism to transfer signals Faster Than The Speed of Light.
It is very simple. It is based on old fundamental postulate
that states that all known force fields are instantaneous.
I pointed out this was wrong. So how about that?

And:
You: You have applied the transmission line theory that assumes
infinite length of transmission line.

Me: I certainly have not. Whatever gives you that idea?
Have you any answer?

CurtC asked:
I have a few problems with this scenario. First, a four-meter-long piece of RG-58 should propagate a signal in 18.5 ns. If your cable did 4.4 ns less (14.1 ns), this is still slower than the speed of light, which can cover four meters in 13.2 ns. Am I understanding this right?
Care to answer that question?

I asked:
Please present a technologically correct explanation on how FTL is supposed to work. Or else I shall have to assume that you do not have any. How about it?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that what you're going to show?

Bye
Markus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(BTW how do we know he's a scientist?) ....Anyway:
He simply outlines a test setup that would show the effect you claim to have made IF IT WORKED. He did not make that test, and neither did you! But you are presenting this text as if it was evidence! Care to comment on this. Or should I contact markus_imhof@gmx.de and ask him what he thinks of your invention and of being presented as proof for it?

Oh, and:
I will send you a free sample providing you show me your credibility.
That might be interesting. How do I "show my credibility"?

The commercial product has 50 Ohms input and output impedances.

Your "technical" explanation involved an open end. In the test setup, you referred to (but have not tried out), it is not open-ended.
You didn't answer this one either.

Hans

(Wow! It's almost a Larsen List (tm))

MathewOrman

27th August 2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
OK, fine. You provided a link to a site selling something. You claim it represents you. No problem.

Maybe we should get back on topic?

You said:
I pointed out this was wrong. So how about that?

And:
Have you any answer?

CurtC asked:
Care to answer that question?

I asked:
How about it?

Care to comment on this. Or should I contact markus_imhof@gmx.de and ask him what he thinks of your invention and of being presented as proof for it?

Oh, and:
That might be interesting. How do I "show my credibility"?

You didn't answer this one either.

Hans

(Wow! It's almost a Larsen List (tm))

There is no prove on my website.
There is a proposed test method.
And examples for people that would like to explore the bases
of the invention.
Markus Imhof is a PHD and you can search the web to see where
and what he has done to get it.
My commercial products has a buffer at each end of segments
and waveform compensation circuitry the buffer's input is
100MOhm/2pF so it is like open circuit for the coax end.
There are few thousand scientist that believe that all known force fields are instantaneous.
For example check the Swedish university physics faculty that is dedicated to FTL phenomena at:
http://dist.tech.oru.se/public/superluminal/index.html

If you have an access to any recognized test lab
and you are willing to test my FTL cable sample
than I can send you one for free providing that
you send me a copy of the test results.

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman

www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

MRC_Hans

29th August 2003, 03:01 AM

Originally posted by MathewOrman

There is no prove on my website.
There is a proposed test method.

Good. Have you tried that test method?

And examples for people that would like to explore the bases
of the invention.
Markus Imhof is a PHD and you can search the web to see where
and what he has done to get it.

Not interested. He is irrelevant.

His test setup looks valid, but has not been used. That is relevant.

My commercial products has a buffer at each end of segments
and waveform compensation circuitry the buffer's input is
100MOhm/2pF so it is like open circuit for the coax end.

That does not make them FTL.

There are few thousand scientist that believe that all known force fields are instantaneous.

There are also biologists that are Young Earth Creationists, and Meds that are homeopaths. However, are you trying to tell us that thousands of scientists have been unable to prove TFL, if it is as simple as putting a high-impedance buffer at the end of a cable??

For example check the Swedish university physics faculty that is dedicated to FTL phenomena at:
http://dist.tech.oru.se/public/superluminal/index.html

Are you aware that gravity has recently been showed to propagate at the speed of light?

If you have an access to any recognized test lab
and you are willing to test my FTL cable sample
than I can send you one for free providing that
you send me a copy of the test results.

So you want me to foot the bill for a test? In return for a useless cable? Forget it.

Anyhow, if I wanted to test your thesis, I'm perfectly capable of building the required circuitry myself.

Hans

CurtC

29th August 2003, 07:42 AM

So Matthew, which part is the part you're claiming is your invention? Is it the cable itself, or that filter network?

MathewOrman

29th August 2003, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by CurtC
So Matthew, which part is the part you're claiming is your invention? Is it the cable itself, or that filter network?

Read the patent application.

Charlie in Dayton

30th August 2003, 11:45 AM

Why does this remind me of the dude with the infinitely long tube filled with water? He was of the looney-toonz persuasion also, if I recall...:wink8:

davefoc

30th August 2003, 10:42 PM

MathewOrman,
I looked at the simulation with a pulse that you linked to and read throught the responses from Kess, MRC_Hans, and others.

I think there is very little that I can add here in that I agreed with everything that Kess and MRC_Hans said.

I did take a close look at the first part of the simulation and have attached a copy of the graph to this post.

The key thing to note here is that the blue line (unterminated output) does not begin to rise until about 5 nsecs. after the input voltage has risen an amount equal to the minimum step amount of the graph and the blue line does not begin to rise until 8 nsecs after the start of the simulation.

So the simulation does not indicate FTL at all. No change in the output occurs until after the normal prop delay of the cable has expired.

What Kess explained about an unterminated transmission line is correct and interesting. The voltage at the end of the transmission line can actually rise faster than the rate of the input voltage after a delay equal to the prop time of the cable. While the effect might appear to be the result of FTL transmission it is, in fact, not caused by FTL at all. No charge gets to the end of the cable before the prop delay has expired, however without a termination the charge is not completey dissipated or reflected and the incoming charge will add to charge that has previously arrived.

davefoc

30th August 2003, 11:24 PM

MRC_Hans said:
Are you aware that gravity has recently been showed to propagate at the speed of light?

I didn't know that. I knew that gravity for years had been theorized to travel at the speed of light, but had not realized that it had been determined experimentally. Could you provide a link or more infor?

Kess

31st August 2003, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
I did take a close look at the first part of the simulation and have attached a copy of the graph to this post.
That's a nice graph - I was considering doing something similar to emphasise my point but got fed up! I suspect Mathew will repeat the argument that the 5ns delay is due to deficiencies in the simulator rather than any flaw in his FTL theory.

By the way, did you try running the simulation with much faster pulse rise/fall times (or a much longer line delay). The FTL illusion then breaks down because you can see the pulse reflections and appreciate their impact much more clearly.

At least we can rely on the US patent office not to be fooled... ;)

davefoc

31st August 2003, 10:41 AM

I thought this graph might be interesting also.

It is the result of a simulation with just the voltage source (from MathewOrman's circuit) and the unterminated transmission line. It clearly shows the effect whereby the output rises faster than the input and it shows the effect of the reflections of the signal back and forth in the transmission line.

I can remember being a young engineer and being completely confounded by this effect. Somehow attaching a cable to a source was amplifying the voltage. Strange.

edited to add:
I think the graph demonstrates exactly what 69dodge was talking about in his post. The fact that at some points in time the output voltage is higher than the input voltage is not an indication that the input voltage is instantaneously causing that effect or even that the output is predicting the future and rising to a voltage that the input will eventually rise to.

davefoc

31st August 2003, 11:02 AM

MathewOrman,
Several times on this forum we have had people argue for ideas that are well outside the mainstream.

What interests me in particular about these threads is how the people who are espousing these ideas come to believe them. In some cases, the folks seem a little shy of a full deck like the guy who claimed he was causing weather anomalies as punishment for Randi's skeptical views.

Others, like yourself, seem to be fairly normal except for their notions about a particular issue. I wonder if you would spend just a little time talking about how you came to believe in the ideas that you have put forward here.

What kinds of things would make you doubt your view? How does the fact that so much mainstream scientific thought disagrees with your view affect your thinking?

In no way am I trying to be derisive of you or your posts or ideas. I think people like you that have the self confidence to go off in a little different direction than the mainstream are the source of the inventions and ideas that move us forward. Most of us are so got up in the notion that mainstream thought must be right because there is so much experience and analysis behind it that we don't see the use of trying something new.

MRC_Hans

31st August 2003, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
MRC_Hans said:

I didn't know that. I knew that gravity for years had been theorized to travel at the speed of light, but had not realized that it had been determined experimentally. Could you provide a link or more infor? There's some here:

http://www.arstechnica.com/archive/news/1042065116.html

http://physics.about.com/library/weekly/aa011503a.htm

Hans

Kess

31st August 2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
I can remember being a young engineer and being completely confounded by this effect. Somehow attaching a cable to a source was amplifying the voltage. Strange.
Hang on... if the voltage at the end of the cable exceeds the input... then it *must* be a free energy effect. Perhaps we've found a way to tap into the universal quantum energy field wossname thingy. If we connect the output of the cable back to the input, then we will get infinite power for ever!

Another patent application beckons :D

Seriously, though, it's easy to see how these weird effects can confuse and mislead the unwary.

marting

18th September 2003, 05:13 PM

Another way to look at a transmision line is in terms of power flow. Imagine a T line being driven by an infinite ramp that starts at 0V and ramps at the rate of 1V/S. Assuming that the source impedance is resistive and non-zero and that there is no load (Zo=inf) then eventually initial internal reflections will die down and the system will reach steady state. Since there will then be a steady, DC current going into the T line, there will be zero voltage across the inductors (E=L dI/dT, dI==0) effectively comprising the T line. Therefore, the input side and the output side of a T line must be identical in voltage in steady state condition when driven by a constant ramping source.

A spice simulation will easily show this is the case, with both T lines and their LC ladder approximation.

The fact that the input and output voltages are assymptotes in no way implies that a T line propogates information faster than it's delay length, let alone the speed of light. It is purely an artifact of T line reflection.

-Marty

Tez

18th September 2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by marting
Another way to look at a transmision line is in terms of power flow. Imagine a T line being driven by an infinite ramp that starts at 0V and ramps at the rate of 1V/S. Assuming that the source impedance is resistive and non-zero and that there is no load (Zo=inf) then eventually initial internal reflections will die down and the system will reach steady state. Since there will then be a steady, DC current going into the T line, there will be zero voltage across the inductors (E=L dI/dT, dI==0) effectively comprising the T line. Therefore, the input side and the output side of a T line must be identical in voltage in steady state condition when driven by a constant ramping source.

A spice simulation will easily show this is the case, with both T lines and their LC ladder approximation.

The fact that the input and output voltages are assymptotes in no way implies that a T line propogates information faster than it's delay length, let alone the speed of light. It is purely an artifact of T line reflection.

-Marty

welcome marting

so we have another martin who feels compelled to add a letter to the end of his name....