Testing superluminal transmission of near field light waves.

On Mar 20, 3:31 pm, "
...

Bill, perhaps you can answer this question for me.
More convincing tests would result from longer distances between
transmitter and receiver, perhaps longer than millisecond travel times
for normal c light signals, where the near field light waves beat
these travel times.
For this you would need wavelengths at hundreds to thousands of
kilometers to detect the near field effects, with the c light signal
travel times at milliseconds or longer. I'm still talking in regards
to something that could be easily accomplished by university physics
departments or amateur radio HAMS.
My question is could you make the transmitter size be much smaller
than the size of the wavelength? Perhaps for example by using widely
separated elements that are each small in comparison to the
wavelength?
This page which discusses PC based reception of very low frequency
waves suggests the receiving antenna can be much smaller than the
wavelength:

Very low frequency.
"PC-based VLF reception
PC based VLF reception is a simple method whereby anyone can pick up
VLF signals using the advantages of modern computer technology. An
aerial in the form of a coil of insulated wire is connected to the
input of the soundcard of the PC (via a jack plug) and placed a few
metres away from it. With Fast Fourier transform (FFT) software . in
combination with a sound card allows reception of all frequencies
below 24 kilohertz simultaneously in the form of spectrogrammes.
Because PC monitors are strong sources of noise in the VLF range, it
is recommended to record the spectrograms on hard disk with the PC
monitor turned off. These spectrograms show many interesting signals,
which may include VLF transmitters, the horizontal electron beam
deflection of TV sets and sometimes superpulses and twenty second
pulses."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_low_frequency

This page also suggests the receivers for extremely low frequency and
very low frequency waves could be quite small:

Ultra Low Power ELF/VLF Receiver Project.http://www-star.stanford.edu/~vlf/ulp_reciv/ulp.htm

The question is how small could you make the tranmitting antenna for
wavelengths hundreds to thousands of kilometers long?
You would also have to put the transmitter at a high height for a
straight-line transmission because of the curve of the Earth. In this
case you wouldn't want to repeatedly bounce off the ionosphere because
that would detract from the speed of the transmitted signal. If the
transmitting antenna could be made small you could perhaps use high
altitude balloons, something many universities have done experiments
with. Or perhaps you could put the transmitter at the top of a
mountain or high plateau.
If the method of widely separated elements for the tranmitter would
work then we can imagine more advanced tests at wavelengths of
hundreds of thousands of kilometers long carried out by spacecraft
where the transmission time for c light signals would be seconds and
longer and see if the near field light waves can better these
transmission times.

Bob Clark


Some electrical power lines are hundreds of kilometers long:

NamPower: Powering Namibia.
"Construction of a 256 km, 400 kV power line from Kokerboom substation
to the proposed Obib substation
In 1997, a 400 kV single circuit transmission line was commissioned to
stretch over 900 km from Eskom's Aries substation near Kenhardt (South
Africa) to the existing Kokerboom substation near Keetmanshoop, and on
to the new Auas substation near Windhoek. At the time of commissioning
it was one of the longest power lines under construction in the world.
The first leg of the project was completed in May 1999, and the second
phase, which included construction of the Auas substation, was
completed the following year."
http://www.esi-africa.com/last/ESI_1...2002_018_1.htm

Perhaps these could be used for the transmitters at hundred kilometer
wavelengths. Ideally, you would want two way transmission so you
would need a power lines of this length at both ends. This is so you
could be sure true transmission of information was being effected at a
faster than light speed.
Other more advanced possibilities would be to use the Earths
ionosphere or the interplanetery plasma as thousands of kilometers
long "antennas":

Electric Currents and Transmission Lines in Space.
"There is a tendency for charged particles to follow magnetic lines of
force and this forms the basis of transmission lines in space. In the
magnetosphere-ionosphere, a transmission line 7-8 earth radii in
length ($R_e$ = 6,350 km) can convey tens of terawatts of power, that
derives from the solar wind-magnetosphere coupling. The transmission
line is the earth's dipole magnetic field lines along which electrons
and ions are constrained to flow. The driving potential is solar-wind
induced plasma moving across the magnetic field lines at large radii.
The result is an electrical circuit in which electric currents cause
the formation of auroras at high latitude in the upper atmosphere on
earth. This aurora mechanism is observed on Jupiter, Io, Saturn,
Uranus, and is thought to have been detected on Neptune and perhaps,
Venus."
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/elec_currents.html

You would have to impress high electrical power into the plasma to
induce currents creating EM waves above the noise already being
created naturally.


Bob Clark

Hello Bob...

As you note, the longer the wavelength, the more apparent any time lag will
become. but even at 27 MHz (No special license required) a wavelength is on
the order of 11 meters, so delta t should be readily measurable with
relatively inexpensive scopes.

Regarding antennas, the receiving antenna can be any arbitrary size, since
the noise "floor" of virtually any receiver is well below the ambient noise
level. (That's why a half meter of metal is adequate to receive AM radio as
low as 600KHz in an automobile.)

Transmission is a different story. The Radiation resistance of conventional
antennas takes a big nosedive as the length drops. That makes it Much harder
to match the transmitter to the antenna. In this case, hard = lots of time
and potentially lots of money. Another factor is that the lower one gets in
frequency, the higher (physically) the antenna must be above ground.
Otherwise too much of the transmitted wave ends up warming the worms and
gophers.

A possible exception would be to use unconventional techniques such as those
employed by Tesla at frequencies at and slightly above audio frequencies.
BUT, it seems to me (IMNTBHO) that Tesla was not using TEM waves but instead
was using what is called Zennick waves -- scalar surface waves. But I
digress.

A transmit-receive-transmit back setup would be definitive, but complex to
calibrate and set up. It would require VLF signals as you say. I think the
complexity and cost would only be justifiable after several independent
tests had been done to provide *very strong* evidence that William's
postulate has merit.

As I mentioned earlier, if William can identify a test setup and procedure
that requires nothing but a transmitter/antenna combo, an appropriate
receiver/antenna and a wideband 'scope operating in the range of 3.5 to 50
MHz, I'm pretty sure that I can line up quite a few technically savvy (BEE
up to PhD level) radio operators that can do valid, repeatable testing.

Bill Miller


wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 6, 7:47 pm, wrote:
...
It seems to me that FTL transmission of near field waves should be
easy to test for long wavelength radio waves. Say if you created radio
waves hundreds of meters long then the near field also extends to a
distance of hundreds of meters. Your papers tested phase differences
as an indication of superluminality, but a true test would really test
the time of transmission.
The speed c is 300,000,000 m/s. This amounts to 3.3 nanoseconds to
traverse 1 meter. Then a few hundred meters distance would take in the
range of a microsecond to traverse for a standard light signal. This
is well within the timing capabilities of equipment available at most
universities to determine if the transmission is indeed occurring
faster than c. The distance of a few hundred meters is also easy to
arrange for the distance between transmitter and receiver. The
antennas also would have to be a quarter to a half the wavelength but
could be made vertical:

Very low frequency.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_low_frequency

Low frequency.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_frequency#Antennas

Note that for a convincing test you would need to prove the round
trip time is less than that for c. This is because other prior
experimental indications of superluminal tranmission, which resulted
in for example a light pulse appearing to exit the test equipment on
one end before it had entered the front end, were interpreted as only
being due to early precursors of the entering pulse creating the full
pulse at the exit.
See for example the explanations of these prior experiments he

Light pulses flout sacrosanct speed limit
Peter Weiss
Science News Online
Week of June 10, 2000; Vol. 157, No. 24 , p.
375http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000610/fob7.asp

Light Exceeds Its Own Speed Limit, or Does It?
By JAMES GLANZ
New York Times, May 30,
2000http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/053000sci-physic...

It might be sufficient to simply have the signals be bounced back to
the origin point for a convincing test. But better would be to have a
separate receiver generate and transmit back a separate near field
signal on reception of the first signal of a quite different
character, wavelength, polarization, etc., to ensure there really
was signaling being transmitted from one place to another.
The negative refractive index materials are complicated to make at
visible wavelengths because the materials have to be constructed at
the nanoscale, smaller than the wavelength. But they are easy to
construct for radio wavelengths, which is why they were first
confirmed for microwaves. They should be even easier to make for
wavelengths of hundred meter lengths. And if your suggestions are
correct we wouldn't even need these special materials since you say
near field waves routinely travel faster than c.
...

Bob Clark


Bill, perhaps you can answer this question for me.
More convincing tests would result from longer distances between
transmitter and receiver, perhaps longer than millisecond travel times
for normal c light signals, where the near field light waves beat
these travel times.
For this you would need wavelengths at hundreds to thousands of
kilometers to detect the near field effects, with the c light signal
travel times at milliseconds or longer. I'm still talking in regards
to something that could be easily accomplished by university physics
departments or amateur radio HAMS.
My question is could you make the transmitter size be much smaller
than the size of the wavelength? Perhaps for example by using widely
separated elements that are each small in comparison to the
wavelength?
This page which discusses PC based reception of very low frequency
waves suggests the receiving antenna can be much smaller than the
wavelength:

Very low frequency.
"PC-based VLF reception
PC based VLF reception is a simple method whereby anyone can pick up
VLF signals using the advantages of modern computer technology. An
aerial in the form of a coil of insulated wire is connected to the
input of the soundcard of the PC (via a jack plug) and placed a few
metres away from it. With Fast Fourier transform (FFT) software . in
combination with a sound card allows reception of all frequencies
below 24 kilohertz simultaneously in the form of spectrogrammes.
Because PC monitors are strong sources of noise in the VLF range, it
is recommended to record the spectrograms on hard disk with the PC
monitor turned off. These spectrograms show many interesting signals,
which may include VLF transmitters, the horizontal electron beam
deflection of TV sets and sometimes superpulses and twenty second
pulses."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_low_frequency

This page also suggests the receivers for extremely low frequency and
very low frequency waves could be quite small:

Ultra Low Power ELF/VLF Receiver Project.
http://www-star.stanford.edu/~vlf/ulp_reciv/ulp.htm

The question is how small could you make the tranmitting antenna for
wavelengths hundreds to thousands of kilometers long?
You would also have to put the transmitter at a high height for a
straight-line transmission because of the curve of the Earth. In this
case you wouldn't want to repeatedly bounce off the ionosphere because
that would detract from the speed of the transmitted signal. If the
transmitting antenna could be made small you could perhaps use high
altitude balloons, something many universities have done experiments
with. Or perhaps you could put the transmitter at the top of a
mountain or high plateau.
If the method of widely separated elements for the tranmitter would
work then we can imagine more advanced tests at wavelengths of
hundreds of thousands of kilometers long carried out by spacecraft
where the transmission time for c light signals would be seconds and
longer and see if the near field light waves can better these
transmission times.


Bob Clark

In message ,
Bill Miller writes

A possible exception would be to use unconventional techniques such as those
employed by Tesla at frequencies at and slightly above audio frequencies.
BUT, it seems to me (IMNTBHO) that Tesla was not using TEM waves but instead
was using what is called Zennick waves -- scalar surface waves.

There's nothing "scalar" about Zenneck surface waves. They are just as
transverse as any other electromagnetic wave. See Sommerfeld's "Partial
Differential Equations in Physics", section 32.

But I digress.

Me too.
--
Richard Herring

On Mar 20, 4:17 pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 20, 3:31 pm, "





...

Bill, perhaps you can answer this question for me.
More convincing tests would result from longer distances between
transmitter and receiver, perhaps longer than millisecond travel times
for normal c light signals, where the near field light waves beat
these travel times.
For this you would need wavelengths at hundreds to thousands of
kilometers to detect the near field effects, with the c light signal
travel times at milliseconds or longer. I'm still talking in regards
to something that could be easily accomplished by university physics
departments or amateur radio HAMS.
My question is could you make the transmitter size be much smaller
than the size of the wavelength? Perhaps for example by using widely
separated elements that are each small in comparison to the
wavelength?
This page which discusses PC based reception of very low frequency
waves suggests the receiving antenna can be much smaller than the
wavelength:

Very low frequency.
"PC-based VLF reception
PC based VLF reception is a simple method whereby anyone can pick up
VLF signals using the advantages of modern computer technology. An
aerial in the form of a coil of insulated wire is connected to the
input of the soundcard of the PC (via a jack plug) and placed a few
metres away from it. With Fast Fourier transform (FFT) software . in
combination with a sound card allows reception of all frequencies
below 24 kilohertz simultaneously in the form of spectrogrammes.
Because PC monitors are strong sources of noise in the VLF range, it
is recommended to record the spectrograms on hard disk with the PC
monitor turned off. These spectrograms show many interesting signals,
which may include VLF transmitters, the horizontal electron beam
deflection of TV sets and sometimes superpulses and twenty second
pulses."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_low_frequency

This page also suggests the receivers for extremely low frequency and
very low frequency waves could be quite small:

Ultra Low Power ELF/VLF Receiver Project.http://www-star.stanford.edu/~vlf/ulp_reciv/ulp.htm

The question is how small could you make the tranmitting antenna for
wavelengths hundreds to thousands of kilometers long?
You would also have to put the transmitter at a high height for a
straight-line transmission because of the curve of the Earth. In this
case you wouldn't want to repeatedly bounce off the ionosphere because
that would detract from the speed of the transmitted signal. If the
transmitting antenna could be made small you could perhaps use high
altitude balloons, something many universities have done experiments
with. Or perhaps you could put the transmitter at the top of a
mountain or high plateau.
If the method of widely separated elements for the tranmitter would
work then we can imagine more advanced tests at wavelengths of
hundreds of thousands of kilometers long carried out by spacecraft
where the transmission time for c light signals would be seconds and
longer and see if the near field light waves can better these
transmission times.

Bob Clark

Some electrical power lines are hundreds of kilometers long:

NamPower: Powering Namibia.
"Construction of a 256 km, 400 kV power line from Kokerboom substation
to the proposed Obib substation
In 1997, a 400 kV single circuit transmission line was commissioned to
stretch over 900 km from Eskom's Aries substation near Kenhardt (South
Africa) to the existing Kokerboom substation near Keetmanshoop, and on
to the new Auas substation near Windhoek. At the time of commissioning
it was one of the longest power lines under construction in the world.
The first leg of the project was completed in May 1999, and the second
phase, which included construction of the Auas substation, was
completed the following year."http://www.esi-africa.com/last/ESI_1_2002/ESI12002_018_1.htm

Perhaps these could be used for the transmitters at hundred kilometer
wavelengths. Ideally, you would want two way transmission so you
would need a power lines of this length at both ends. This is so you
could be sure true transmission of information was being effected at a
faster than light speed.
Other more advanced possibilities would be to use the Earths
ionosphere or the interplanetery plasma as thousands of kilometers
long "antennas":

Electric Currents and Transmission Lines in Space.
"There is a tendency for charged particles to follow magnetic lines of
force and this forms the basis of transmission lines in space. In the
magnetosphere-ionosphere, a transmission line 7-8 earth radii in
length ($R_e$ = 6,350 km) can convey tens of terawatts of power, that
derives from the solar wind-magnetosphere coupling. The transmission
line is the earth's dipole magnetic field lines along which electrons
and ions are constrained to flow. The driving potential is solar-wind
induced plasma moving across the magnetic field lines at large radii.
The result is an electrical circuit in which electric currents cause
the formation of auroras at high latitude in the upper atmosphere on
earth. This aurora mechanism is observed on Jupiter, Io, Saturn,
Uranus, and is thought to have been detected on Neptune and perhaps,
Venus."http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/elec_currents.html

You would have to impress high electrical power into the plasma to
induce currents creating EM waves above the noise already being
created naturally.

Bob Clark


Another consideration occurs to me in regards to how fast we could
communicate with this method. The distance between the transmitter and
receiver is the size of the wavelength. But then the size of the
transmitting antenna is of the same order of size as the wavelength.
But, presumably, the electrical signals within the antenna could
travel along it at best close to the speed of light.
Then if the antenna was say half wavelength or quarter wavelength
just creating the signal would take as long as it takes light to
travel this distance, so the time for light to travel 1/4 to 1/2 the
wavelength, which also the distance separating the two signaling
points.
Then even if we could transmit near field signals instantaneously,
the total time would still be the time to travel 1/4 to 1/2 the
wavelength.



Bob Clark

Bill Miller wrote:



As I mentioned earlier, if William can identify a test setup and procedure
that requires nothing but a transmitter/antenna combo, an appropriate
receiver/antenna and a wideband 'scope operating in the range of 3.5 to 50
MHz, I'm pretty sure that I can line up quite a few technically savvy (BEE
up to PhD level) radio operators that can do valid, repeatable testing.

Bill Miller


If you interested in doing an experiment I suggest you first try to
reproduce the experiment in my paper. Simply pick a carrier frequency
then get two dipole antennas and a transmitter designed to transmit at
that carrier frequency. Then connect the antennas to an Oscilloscope,
capable of viewing the carrier frequency whithout much distortion.
During the experiment keep the transmitter antenna stationary and then
move the receiver antenna from the nearfield to the farfield while
measuring the observed phase difference between the transmitted and
received signals. Then use the phase speed and group speed formulas in
my paper (Eqs. 57, 78) to generate the phase speed and group speed
plots. During the experiment check for reflection effects by changing
the location of the antennas. If the reflection effects are significant
then you will have to average the results. Note that 100 experiments
will give you only a factor of 10 reduction of the the random reflection
signals. This is because noise is proportional to the square root of the
number of averages.

The next step would be to try to measure the group speed directly by
transmitting an AM signal between the antennas and measuring the time
delay of the modulation envelope. The carrier signal can be used to
trigger the scope. Note that the modulation frequency should be about
1/10 the carrier frequency. If the modulation frequency is larger, then
the signal will distort as it propagates making it impossible to measure
the group speed. If the modulation frequency is smaller, then the group
envelope will be difficult to measure with a scope since the group
envelope will only move about 1/4 carrier wavelength as the antennas are
moved apart in the nearfield. Most transmitters are designed for
modulations about 1/10000 of the carrier frequency (i.e. 20KHz/200MHz).
I don't know if it is possible to buy a commercial large bandwidth
transmitter capable of transmitting modulation bandwidths 1/10 of the
carrier without significant distortion, so you will probably have to
build a one.

In the beginning you can use a simple oscillator for the modulation, but
what you really want is to transmit a randomly varying modulation
(perhaps an upshifted voice signal) so that you can measure the
propagation speed of information.

Clearly the experiment I did is much easier to do because everything is
commercially available, but it requires theoretical understanding to be
able to trust the phase and group speed formulas needed to generate the
final phase speed and group speed plots.

Hello William...

I'm not the one that, IMNTBHO, should be interested in experimental
verification.

What I have suggested is that I believe I know -- worldwide -- enough
"laboratory assistants" that have the skill, experience and basic equipment
to provide you with experimental information that you could use. But it
would be up to you to devise the experiment, establish the procedures, and
analyze the data.

Unless you take that important step, any experimental data will be fraught
with questions about whether the procedure was followed correctly, whether
the measuremnts were done appropriately, whether the formulas were properly
interpreted, etc. Been There. Done That. Bought the T Shirt and Bumper
Sticker.

This particular ball is, necessarily, in your court.

Bill Miller


"William" wrote in message
...
Bill Miller wrote:



As I mentioned earlier, if William can identify a test setup and
procedure that requires nothing but a transmitter/antenna combo, an
appropriate receiver/antenna and a wideband 'scope operating in the range
of 3.5 to 50 MHz, I'm pretty sure that I can line up quite a few
technically savvy (BEE up to PhD level) radio operators that can do
valid, repeatable testing.

Bill Miller


If you interested in doing an experiment I suggest you first try to
reproduce the experiment in my paper. Simply pick a carrier frequency then
get two dipole antennas and a transmitter designed to transmit at that
carrier frequency. Then connect the antennas to an Oscilloscope, capable
of viewing the carrier frequency whithout much distortion. During the
experiment keep the transmitter antenna stationary and then move the
receiver antenna from the nearfield to the farfield while measuring the
observed phase difference between the transmitted and received signals.
Then use the phase speed and group speed formulas in my paper (Eqs. 57,
78) to generate the phase speed and group speed plots. During the
experiment check for reflection effects by changing the location of the
antennas. If the reflection effects are significant then you will have to
average the results. Note that 100 experiments will give you only a factor
of 10 reduction of the the random reflection signals. This is because
noise is proportional to the square root of the number of averages.

The next step would be to try to measure the group speed directly by
transmitting an AM signal between the antennas and measuring the time
delay of the modulation envelope. The carrier signal can be used to
trigger the scope. Note that the modulation frequency should be about 1/10
the carrier frequency. If the modulation frequency is larger, then the
signal will distort as it propagates making it impossible to measure the
group speed. If the modulation frequency is smaller, then the group
envelope will be difficult to measure with a scope since the group
envelope will only move about 1/4 carrier wavelength as the antennas are
moved apart in the nearfield. Most transmitters are designed for
modulations about 1/10000 of the carrier frequency (i.e. 20KHz/200MHz). I
don't know if it is possible to buy a commercial large bandwidth
transmitter capable of transmitting modulation bandwidths 1/10 of the
carrier without significant distortion, so you will probably have to build
a one.

In the beginning you can use a simple oscillator for the modulation, but
what you really want is to transmit a randomly varying modulation (perhaps
an upshifted voice signal) so that you can measure the propagation speed
of information.

Clearly the experiment I did is much easier to do because everything is
commercially available, but it requires theoretical understanding to be
able to trust the phase and group speed formulas needed to generate the
final phase speed and group speed plots.

William wrote:
wrote:

On Mar 8, 7:45 am, William wrote:

...
In the derivation of Einstein relativity theory, propagating EM fields
are used to measure the location of points from a stationary frame to a
moving frame. This is done by measuring the time delay of a propagating
EM field from one frame to the other. Since the time delays very near
the source are instantaneous then it can be shown that the Lorentz
transforms reduce to the Galilean transforms there. This can be seen by
substituting infinity for c in the Lorentz transforms. In the farfield
the time delays of the fields increase to light-speed time delays and
the Lorentz transform applies there. A more detailed analysis is
presented in my latest paper:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0702166

The dilemma is that the space-time transformations should be independent
on whether near-field or far-field EM fields are used in the analysis.
My proposal is that Einstein relativity theory is a illusion caused by
the EM fields used to measure the space time effects in moving
reference systems. Space and time are actually inflexible as stated in
Galelian relativity and only appear flexible when far-field EM fields
are used to measure the space-time effects in moving reference frames.
When near-field EM fields are used, time dilation and space contraction
effects will disappear.



You may be right that a modification of relativity will be required
that allows superluminal speeds (as I argued this will not require
causality violations) but time dilation effects have been confirmed
for round trip measurements, which do not have the shortcoming of
needing light speed c time synchronization.
So time dilation will still be required.


Bob Clark


Perhaps the results need to be rechecked. All experiments are prone to
experimental error and researcher bias.
The paper appeared to have some interesting results but a closer look
left me with a lot of questions about the experiment. It is difficult
to do rf experiments correctly and there are a huge number of pitfalls
for the inexperienced person to fall into. People assume cables do
not radiate and they assume 50 ohm antennas are 50 ohms, etc.

Before making comments about the experiment, and presenting my look
at doing this properly, I should make a couple of comments about my
background in this area. I have a PhD in physics and have spent the
last forty years doing mostly rf and microwave work. The last decade
or so has been in radar design in this frequency range.

I was disturbed by your drawing fig 45 page 29 as it looked like you
were just splitting the reference signal. I was also disturbed by
what you call an antenna. The 78-069-95 in the Elfa catalog is a
monopole antenna intended to be operated over a ground plane. You
do not show a ground plane so I assume you did not use one.
Additionally, the antenna has a loading coil which is also a nice
way to change the field. Since the antenna is not impedance matched
and since it looks like there is a tee in the cable, you are
probably seeing cable radiation as much as antenna radiation.

The correct way to do this experiment is with a vector network analyzer
whose sole purpose in life is to measure amplitude and phase versus
frequency. A proper antenna is necessay and, even though the antenna
is nominally 50 phms, it is best to put an attenuator in series with the
antenna to be sure to minimize the cable reflections. Using a range of
frequencies rather than a single frequency makes it easier to see
effects from reflections.

I did a quick set of measurements with a balanced dipole with a
split line balun using precision cables, in line attenuators, an
e field probe and an HP network analyzer with an S parameter test
set. The measurements were done over the range of 900-1300MHz at
a range of distances from .5cm to 30cm. There was no indication of
any anomolous phase effects. The phase at all the frequencies
increased linearly with distance as you would expect for a constant
propagation speed.

I will see about doing the measurements using a pair of the dipole
antennas and also with a b field probe.

On Mar 23, 8:53 pm, doug doug@doug wrote:
...
The paper appeared to have some interesting results but a closer look
left me with a lot of questions about the experiment. It is difficult
to do rf experiments correctly and there are a huge number of pitfalls
for the inexperienced person to fall into. People assume cables do
not radiate and they assume 50 ohm antennas are 50 ohms, etc.

Before making comments about the experiment, and presenting my look
at doing this properly, I should make a couple of comments about my
background in this area. I have a PhD in physics and have spent the
last forty years doing mostly rf and microwave work. The last decade
or so has been in radar design in this frequency range.

I was disturbed by your drawing fig 45 page 29 as it looked like you
were just splitting the reference signal. I was also disturbed by
what you call an antenna. The 78-069-95 in the Elfa catalog is a
monopole antenna intended to be operated over a ground plane. You
do not show a ground plane so I assume you did not use one.
Additionally, the antenna has a loading coil which is also a nice
way to change the field. Since the antenna is not impedance matched
and since it looks like there is a tee in the cable, you are
probably seeing cable radiation as much as antenna radiation.

The correct way to do this experiment is with a vector network analyzer
whose sole purpose in life is to measure amplitude and phase versus
frequency. A proper antenna is necessay and, even though the antenna
is nominally 50 phms, it is best to put an attenuator in series with the
antenna to be sure to minimize the cable reflections. Using a range of
frequencies rather than a single frequency makes it easier to see
effects from reflections.

I did a quick set of measurements with a balanced dipole with a
split line balun using precision cables, in line attenuators, an
e field probe and an HP network analyzer with an S parameter test
set. The measurements were done over the range of 900-1300MHz at
a range of distances from .5cm to 30cm. There was no indication of
any anomolous phase effects. The phase at all the frequencies
increased linearly with distance as you would expect for a constant
propagation speed.

I will see about doing the measurements using a pair of the dipole
antennas and also with a b field probe.


There is a program operated by NASA that promotes detection of
decametric radio waves from Jupiter by schools. Very many high
schools, colleges and universities have buit these systems. These
could probably be adapted to detect the near field waves at tens of
meter wavelengths where the difference in transmission time from c
light signals would be easy to determine.

Welcome to the Radio JOVE Project.
http://radiojove.gsfc.nasa.gov/

The Discovery of Jupiter's Radio Emissions.
http://radiojove.gsfc.nasa.gov/libra...discovery.html



Bob Clark

wrote:
On Mar 23, 8:53 pm, doug doug@doug wrote:

...
The paper appeared to have some interesting results but a closer look
left me with a lot of questions about the experiment. It is difficult
to do rf experiments correctly and there are a huge number of pitfalls
for the inexperienced person to fall into. People assume cables do
not radiate and they assume 50 ohm antennas are 50 ohms, etc.

Before making comments about the experiment, and presenting my look
at doing this properly, I should make a couple of comments about my
background in this area. I have a PhD in physics and have spent the
last forty years doing mostly rf and microwave work. The last decade
or so has been in radar design in this frequency range.

I was disturbed by your drawing fig 45 page 29 as it looked like you
were just splitting the reference signal. I was also disturbed by
what you call an antenna. The 78-069-95 in the Elfa catalog is a
monopole antenna intended to be operated over a ground plane. You
do not show a ground plane so I assume you did not use one.
Additionally, the antenna has a loading coil which is also a nice
way to change the field. Since the antenna is not impedance matched
and since it looks like there is a tee in the cable, you are
probably seeing cable radiation as much as antenna radiation.

The correct way to do this experiment is with a vector network analyzer
whose sole purpose in life is to measure amplitude and phase versus
frequency. A proper antenna is necessay and, even though the antenna
is nominally 50 phms, it is best to put an attenuator in series with the
antenna to be sure to minimize the cable reflections. Using a range of
frequencies rather than a single frequency makes it easier to see
effects from reflections.

I did a quick set of measurements with a balanced dipole with a
split line balun using precision cables, in line attenuators, an
e field probe and an HP network analyzer with an S parameter test
set. The measurements were done over the range of 900-1300MHz at
a range of distances from .5cm to 30cm. There was no indication of
any anomolous phase effects. The phase at all the frequencies
increased linearly with distance as you would expect for a constant
propagation speed.

I will see about doing the measurements using a pair of the dipole
antennas and also with a b field probe.



There is a program operated by NASA that promotes detection of
decametric radio waves from Jupiter by schools. Very many high
schools, colleges and universities have buit these systems. These
could probably be adapted to detect the near field waves at tens of
meter wavelengths where the difference in transmission time from c
light signals would be easy to determine.

Welcome to the Radio JOVE Project.
http://radiojove.gsfc.nasa.gov/

The Discovery of Jupiter's Radio Emissions.
http://radiojove.gsfc.nasa.gov/libra...discovery.html



Bob Clark

The right way to do this is to use equipment designed for this purpose.
The JOVE project is interesting but using the equipment for it is not
going to accomplish much. First of all, the higher frequencies make
things a lot easier and more predictable. The important parameter to
measure is the phase since it is directly related to the transit time
which is proportional to the speed of light. The claim William made was
that there was a nonlinear portion of the phase versus distance curve.
The velocity of propagation is related to the inverse of the slope of
the phase versus distance curve. A linear curve of phase versus
distance means a constant speed. You do not need to do any other
measurements.

Hi Doug,

Thank you for your interest in this problem and for taking the time to
make some experimental measurements.


doug wrote:
William wrote:

wrote:

On Mar 8, 7:45 am, William wrote:

...
In the derivation of Einstein relativity theory, propagating EM fields
are used to measure the location of points from a stationary frame to a
moving frame. This is done by measuring the time delay of a propagating
EM field from one frame to the other. Since the time delays very near
the source are instantaneous then it can be shown that the Lorentz
transforms reduce to the Galilean transforms there. This can be seen by
substituting infinity for c in the Lorentz transforms. In the farfield
the time delays of the fields increase to light-speed time delays and
the Lorentz transform applies there. A more detailed analysis is
presented in my latest paper:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0702166

The dilemma is that the space-time transformations should be
independent
on whether near-field or far-field EM fields are used in the analysis.
My proposal is that Einstein relativity theory is a illusion caused by
the EM fields used to measure the space time effects in moving
reference systems. Space and time are actually inflexible as stated in
Galelian relativity and only appear flexible when far-field EM fields
are used to measure the space-time effects in moving reference frames.
When near-field EM fields are used, time dilation and space contraction
effects will disappear.




You may be right that a modification of relativity will be required
that allows superluminal speeds (as I argued this will not require
causality violations) but time dilation effects have been confirmed
for round trip measurements, which do not have the shortcoming of
needing light speed c time synchronization.
So time dilation will still be required.


Bob Clark


Perhaps the results need to be rechecked. All experiments are prone to
experimental error and researcher bias.

The paper appeared to have some interesting results but a closer look
left me with a lot of questions about the experiment. It is difficult
to do rf experiments correctly and there are a huge number of pitfalls
for the inexperienced person to fall into. People assume cables do
not radiate and they assume 50 ohm antennas are 50 ohms, etc.


Yes, rf experiments are very difficult to do, and it is very important
for this research to do this experiment right. I appreciate your looking
into this problem!



Before making comments about the experiment, and presenting my look
at doing this properly, I should make a couple of comments about my
background in this area. I have a PhD in physics and have spent the
last forty years doing mostly rf and microwave work. The last decade
or so has been in radar design in this frequency range.

I was disturbed by your drawing fig 45 page 29 as it looked like you
were just splitting the reference signal.


Splitting the signal using a tee junction will result in reflections
back into the antenna, which can cause instabilities in the transmitter.
But I did not observe any transmitter instabilities at this of low
power. It would be better to use a power splitter.


I was also disturbed by
what you call an antenna. The 78-069-95 in the Elfa catalog is a
monopole antenna intended to be operated over a ground plane. You
do not show a ground plane so I assume you did not use one.


Yes, I used a large metal bench which I grounded to the instruments case.


Additionally, the antenna has a loading coil which is also a nice
way to change the field. Since the antenna is not impedance matched
and since it looks like there is a tee in the cable, you are
probably seeing cable radiation as much as antenna radiation.


I did not observe much phase change to the received signal when I moved
the cables, so this does not seem to be a dominant effect.



The correct way to do this experiment is with a vector network analyzer
whose sole purpose in life is to measure amplitude and phase versus
frequency. A proper antenna is necessay and, even though the antenna
is nominally 50 phms, it is best to put an attenuator in series with the
antenna to be sure to minimize the cable reflections. Using a range of
frequencies rather than a single frequency makes it easier to see
effects from reflections.


I tried using a vector network analyzer with S parameter test set, but I
got unreliable results due to calibrations problems. I could calibrate
the analyzer and the test cables using the test set. But, I could not
find a way to compensate for the antenna transfer function and antenna
reflections seemed to seriously affect the calibration. This is why I
switched to transmitting the signal at one frequency and measuring the
observe phase shift while moving the antenna apart.



I did a quick set of measurements with a balanced dipole with a
split line balun


Doesn't the balun only produce 0 deg phase and 180 deg phase shifted
signals at one frequency, which is required for the balanced dipole to
work as it should? The phase outputs will be different for other
frequencies.

Because of these frequency problems wouldn't it be better to transmit
one frequency and move the antennas apart as I did?


using precision cables, in line attenuators, an
e field probe and an HP network analyzer with an S parameter test
set. The measurements were done over the range of 900-1300MHz at
a range of distances from .5cm to 30cm. There was no indication of
any anomolous phase effects. The phase at all the frequencies
increased linearly with distance as you would expect for a constant
propagation speed.



Could you tell me how you calibrated the setup, which enables the
spectral response of system to be compensated for?


I will see about doing the measurements using a pair of the dipole
antennas and also with a b field probe.


I would be very interested in seeing your results!