Verify FTL signal propagation using.....

[Diamond]

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]

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]

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

 

[MathewOrman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[MathewOrman]

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]

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...

 

[davefoc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[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

 

[Tez]

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....

 

[marting]

welcome marting

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

Well, I assumed it highly likely another "martin" had already subscribed and I didn't want to fill out the form again. I see now several others may have similarly assumed!

-Marty