Testing superluminal transmission of near field light waves.

William wrote:

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.

Which only shows differences in phase velocity not group velocity.
And let me say that if you are observing superluminal nearfield
velocities this is in effect saying that E and H fields travel at near
infinite speed while EM waves travel at c. That seems to be a revival
of the old "action at a distance" theories. I do not believe fields
travel faster than light, because were that so, then information could
be transmitted faster than light.

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.

I think you really don't understand the difficulties you are dealing
with here. Modulating a carrier wave down to one cycle or even a
fraction of a cycle is not a big deal, but designing the experiment to
measure information delay IS. First off, unlike the phase velocity
measurement above using a single frequency, broadband modulation is
going to create all manner of problems given that a dipole (and it's
associated drivers and matching parts) are not broadband.
Instantaneous modulations applied to the dipole will created all
manner of anomalies because it is both resonant and narrow band.

And while I'm on a roll, let me say also that in my humble opinion the
suggested measurements at low frequencies will be hopeless. Unless you
are ready for a trip into deep space, reflections and standing waves
will be crawling all over the place. Your high frequency measurements
are MUCH easier to control even without an anechoic chamber. Outside
in an open field a good distance above the ground can work.

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.

Nah. Not necessary. If you can't get it to work with a simple pulsed
modulation, you don't need to worry about randomizing fine points. And
let me add that the right way to try this is with (as Miller's friend
suggested) a broadband non-resonant antenna...like the Rhombic or
other traveling wave antenna. Resonant systems will always give
misleading results. Traveling wave antennas at the frequencies you
are dealing with are not big deal. But note that they DO often have
superluminal waves on them!

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.

Well, but in spite of the recommendations here that people go back and
read original papers, you DO know that Maxwell developed his theories
based on incompressible fluid models and even invented a "ball
bearing" model to "explain" curl. He was a proponent of Aether theory
and it's a wonder his ideas work at all. Fact is, they often don't!
You do know it is totally common practice when doing theoretical
antenna and E&M designs using Maxwell's equations to encounter all
manner of anomalous results which are summarily pitched out as "non-
physical". These are particularly frequent in the nearfield.

I'm not saying your results are anomalous, but the possibility is
there. I do not believe that information can be transmitted faster
than light using E, H, or nearfield EM waves. Certainly not at near
infinite velocities. If you can demonstrate that, it is indeed on
HUGE breakthrough for a great many reasons, not any of which have to
do with relativity.

Superluminal phase velocities, on the other hand are common as grass!
This is especially true in the presence of STRUCTURES... Like say near
an antenna! So the key to what you are doing is to demonstrate
information transfer faster than c. I hope you realize just how subtle
an experiment it is to reliably measure even the phase speed of light.
Huge distances, precise gear.

I try to not get involved in discussions where relativity is allegedly
proved invalid, but in this case, I'm just saying....

Benj

William wrote:
Hi Doug,

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

****some material removed to shorten reply list


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.

It is vital to have the system carefully matched to 50ohms throughout
the whole path. A tee guarantees that will not be the case.
Instabilities are not the issue. You want the radiating parts to
radiate with minimal interaction and the nonradiating parts to be out
of the experiment.


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.

This is not a ground. Since you can see effects of ground leads a few
mm long, you can appreciate what this means. Also, the ground plane
antenna assumes it has an infinite ground plane which you do not have.
It is much better to use a balanced antenna which works properly in
free space.


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.

Again, you antennas were not impedance matched and the ground was
deficient so you did not have the setup you thought you did. The
geometric arrangement and the electronic arrangement will not agree
if everything is not done correctly.



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.

The calibration is not an issue. The antenna transfer function is only
a second order issue in that, as long as it is radiating somehwere near
its resonance frequency, it does not matter. What I did do was to put
attenuators on the ends of the cables in front of the antenna and the
e field probe so that the cables were terminated and would not either
radiate or pick up signals.


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?

I may not have been clear on the measurements I did. While I observed
the phase versus frequency plot, I moved the antennas apart to look at
the phase versus distance. The comment I made about seeing no anomolous
effects was refering to the phase versus distance curve which I looked
at at several frequencies. The reason for sweeping the frequency is
that it is much easier to see the effects of reflections which tend to
show up the most at specific frequencies. You can then avoid those
frequencies. When I get time, I will set this up in an open area where
the reflections will not be an issue at all.

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?

Since the comments were about measurements done at a specific frequency,
there was no need to deal with the frequency response of the antenna.
The other reason we see this is not an issue is that the results were
the same at the different frequencies. The frequencies that I picked
were limited to the frequencies where the return loss of the antenna
was less than -10db.

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!

Hi Benj,

The discussion under this heading refers to 2 papers I have written on
superluminal near-field EM fields and their incompatibility with
Einstein relativity theory:


http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0603240
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0702166

There is a lot of material there that addresses some of your concerns.


Benj wrote:
William wrote:

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.


Which only shows differences in phase velocity not group velocity.


No, it addresses group velocity as well (ref Eq 78, 1st paper).


And let me say that if you are observing superluminal nearfield
velocities this is in effect saying that E and H fields travel at near
infinite speed while EM waves travel at c. That seems to be a revival
of the old "action at a distance" theories. I do not believe fields
travel faster than light, because were that so, then information could
be transmitted faster than light.


I think that in the nearfield, information does travel faster than light
(ref. p.30-32, 1st paper).




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.


I think you really don't understand the difficulties you are dealing
with here. Modulating a carrier wave down to one cycle or even a
fraction of a cycle is not a big deal, but designing the experiment to
measure information delay IS. First off, unlike the phase velocity
measurement above using a single frequency, broadband modulation is
going to create all manner of problems given that a dipole (and it's
associated drivers and matching parts) are not broadband.
Instantaneous modulations applied to the dipole will created all
manner of anomalies because it is both resonant and narrow band.


I agree it would be difficult, that is why I chose to transmit only one
frequency while noting the phase difference as I separated the antennas.
I then used the theoretical phase speed (Eq. 57)and group speed
(Eq. 78) formulas to determine the the phase and group speed as a
function of distance from the source.



And while I'm on a roll, let me say also that in my humble opinion the
suggested measurements at low frequencies will be hopeless. Unless you
are ready for a trip into deep space, reflections and standing waves
will be crawling all over the place. Your high frequency measurements
are MUCH easier to control even without an anechoic chamber. Outside
in an open field a good distance above the ground can work.


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.


Nah. Not necessary. If you can't get it to work with a simple pulsed
modulation, you don't need to worry about randomizing fine points.


Some researchers think that information involves random changes in a
signal. Although a repetitive pulsed source may enable the group speed
to be measure, there will be reservations that the information speed may
differ.


And
let me add that the right way to try this is with (as Miller's friend
suggested) a broadband non-resonant antenna...like the Rhombic or
other traveling wave antenna. Resonant systems will always give
misleading results. Traveling wave antennas at the frequencies you
are dealing with are not big deal. But note that they DO often have
superluminal waves on them!


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.


Well, but in spite of the recommendations here that people go back and
read original papers, you DO know that Maxwell developed his theories
based on incompressible fluid models and even invented a "ball
bearing" model to "explain" curl. He was a proponent of Aether theory
and it's a wonder his ideas work at all. Fact is, they often don't!
You do know it is totally common practice when doing theoretical
antenna and E&M designs using Maxwell's equations to encounter all
manner of anomalous results which are summarily pitched out as "non-
physical". These are particularly frequent in the nearfield.


That is why it is important to verify the results experimentally.



I'm not saying your results are anomalous, but the possibility is
there. I do not believe that information can be transmitted faster
than light using E, H, or nearfield EM waves. Certainly not at near
infinite velocities. If you can demonstrate that, it is indeed on
HUGE breakthrough for a great many reasons, not any of which have to
do with relativity.



yes I agree, but I think it will impact relativity theory as well, which
is the point of my 2nd paper.


Superluminal phase velocities, on the other hand are common as grass!
This is especially true in the presence of STRUCTURES... Like say near
an antenna! So the key to what you are doing is to demonstrate
information transfer faster than c. I hope you realize just how subtle
an experiment it is to reliably measure even the phase speed of light.



The experiment I show in my 1st paper is very simple and measures the
phase and group speed from the near to far field.



Huge distances, precise gear.

I try to not get involved in discussions where relativity is allegedly
proved invalid, but in this case, I'm just saying....

Benj

Hi Bill,

Thank you for the offer, but I think that duplicating the type of
experiment I showed in paper would not yield much new information. What
really needs to be done is to develop a wideband transmitter and antenna
system that can handle modulations bandwidths 1/10 of the carrier. This
will enable us to study the propagation speed of random information,
which is what everyone wants to know. This is not a trivial design and I
don't even know if it can be done. I will have to give it some thought.
If I do get something to work, I will let you know.

Bill Miller wrote:
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:
Hi Bill,

Thank you for the offer, but I think that duplicating the type of
experiment I showed in paper would not yield much new information. What
really needs to be done is to develop a wideband transmitter and antenna
system that can handle modulations bandwidths 1/10 of the carrier. This
will enable us to study the propagation speed of random information,
which is what everyone wants to know. This is not a trivial design and I
don't even know if it can be done. I will have to give it some thought.
If I do get something to work, I will let you know.


trimmed discussion I am not replying to

I think you have this backwards. The first thing to do is to replicate
the experiment you did. It seems you still believe it is correct. I
have given a list of mistakes you have made. With your setup, no one
with rf experience will take it seriously. I showed it to a colleague
and he laughed. The basic experiment you are basing your work on must
be done correctly and repeatably. You are not using proper antennas, you
have not impedance matched anything so you do not know what the fields
are, you do not have an infinite ground plane.... You probably are
seeing an odd field distribution from the geometry you have created.

My repeat of your experiment showed no anomalous effect on the phase.
In order to have any effect to discuss, you are required to show a
nonlinear phase with distance. I get a straight line for the phase
versus distance curve which means that there is a constant value for c
at all distances. It shows the same effect at different frequencies so I
also have the time dependence which thus also shows no anomaly. There
is no point in doing the time domain experiment when you can do the
frequency domain experiment much more easily. They are equivalent and
can be done on the same piece of equipment.

One can build the modulator you suggest but there is no need. Again
the frequency domain is the same thanks to our friend fourier. I have
spent the last ten years designing and using frequency domain radars. If
the phase versus frequency is linear at all frequencies, there is no
effect to study.

I agree that the experiment I did should be checked, but I think it is
best to do the experiment in the lab using high frequency test equipment
like you are trying to do. As you have said the experiment is very
difficult to do right and there is a better chance of controlling all
the phenomena involved in a standard RF lab environment using commercial
test equipment. I also agree that it is essential that these near-field
measurement tests show nonlinear phase shift behavior in the nearfield
before progressing to a wide bandwidth signal transmission experiments.

I am very surprised by your experimental results. The transverse field
phase vs distance solution I presented in my paper is what is predicted
by Maxwell's equations (p.12, near-field dipole paper). I have checked
it both analytically and numerically (p.23-25). In addition the solution
has also been checked by other researchers, analytically and numerically:

http://ceta.mit.edu/pier/pier56/05.0505121.Sten.H.pdf
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0311061

Intuitively one can also see the nonlinear phase shift by looking at the
transverse field solution (Eq. 53). The exp[i(kr-wt)] term is a light
speed propagating term, and the part in the brackets is a complex term
that is a function of kr. This complex term can be expressed in polar
coordinates as a phasor, where the phase will cause the over phase of
the field to deviate from kr. In the nearfield, the kr term is small
thereby making the making the term in the brackets approximately equal
to 1, corresponding to 0 deg phase difference from kr. In the farfield the
term in the brackets becomes approximately -(kr)^2 corresponding to -180
deg phase difference from kr. In between the nearfield and the farfield
the -i(kr) term is dominant, causing the phase to be about -90 deg
there. If you will refer to the transverse Electric field phase vs kr
curve (ref. fig.12) you will see that the theoretically derived curve
agrees with these observations. Relative to a light propagating field,
the phase is 0 deg in the nearfield, approximately -90 deg in between
the nearfied and farfield, and -180 deg in the farfield.

Experimentally it is known that the E field generated by a slow moving
charge is proportional to it's position. Oscillating charges cause other
nearby charges to oscillate in unison with no observed phase difference.
In the nearfield, the B field is experimentally known to be proportional
to the current. Oscillating charges are known to generate magnetic
fields which are -90 deg phase shifted from the charge motion. In the
farfield it has been experimentally observed that the transverse
electric and magnetic fields are in phase and propagate at the speed of
light. I order for the transverse E field and B field to align in the
farfield, given that they are not aligned in the nearfield, their phase
vs distance curves must be nonlinear in the nearfield.

Do you have any ideas what the problem is? It is hard to believe that
Maxwell's equations could be wrong in the prediction of this nonlinear
phase shift effect.

Until I know more exactly what you have done I can only speculate. First
of all I am extremely wary of any test that uses more than one frequency
which can generate phase shifts from band limited elements such as the
balun and antenna, or from frequency dependent reflections. But if I
understand you correctly, even though the Analyzer is sweeping
frequencies, you are effectively using only one frequency by reading
only the phase at one particular frequency as the E field probe is moved
incrementally away from the Dipole antenna. I assume you have calibrated
the Analyzer and test cables using a calibrated short, open, and 50 ohm
terminators at the end of the test cables, thus effectively flattening
out the transfer function of these elements. I also assume the Analyzer
is able to measure at least 1 deg phase changes, which is needed to
differentiate linear from nonlinear phase behavior in the nearfield. Can
the analyzer be operated at just 1 frequency just to be sure the
sweeping is not causing any problems (eg. intermode mixing etc.).

By the way have you checked that the input impedance of the
probe/Analyzer combined with the antenna to probe reactance (which
changes as the probe is moved away)is not generating a phase shift which
could be masking the true phase in the nearfield?

Could reflections from the probe be reflecting from the Dipole antenna
causing the phase shift in the nearfield to be masked?

In order to be able to really understand your experimental results, I
will need to know more about your experimental test setup and test
results. This will also enable the duplication of your experiment.




doug wrote:
William wrote:

Hi Bill,

Thank you for the offer, but I think that duplicating the type of
experiment I showed in paper would not yield much new information.
What really needs to be done is to develop a wideband transmitter and
antenna system that can handle modulations bandwidths 1/10 of the
carrier. This will enable us to study the propagation speed of random
information, which is what everyone wants to know. This is not a
trivial design and I don't even know if it can be done. I will have to
give it some thought. If I do get something to work, I will let you know.


trimmed discussion I am not replying to

I think you have this backwards. The first thing to do is to replicate
the experiment you did. It seems you still believe it is correct. I
have given a list of mistakes you have made. With your setup, no one
with rf experience will take it seriously. I showed it to a colleague
and he laughed. The basic experiment you are basing your work on must
be done correctly and repeatably. You are not using proper antennas, you
have not impedance matched anything so you do not know what the fields
are, you do not have an infinite ground plane.... You probably are
seeing an odd field distribution from the geometry you have created.

My repeat of your experiment showed no anomalous effect on the phase.
In order to have any effect to discuss, you are required to show a
nonlinear phase with distance. I get a straight line for the phase
versus distance curve which means that there is a constant value for c
at all distances. It shows the same effect at different frequencies so I
also have the time dependence which thus also shows no anomaly. There
is no point in doing the time domain experiment when you can do the
frequency domain experiment much more easily. They are equivalent and
can be done on the same piece of equipment.

One can build the modulator you suggest but there is no need. Again
the frequency domain is the same thanks to our friend fourier. I have
spent the last ten years designing and using frequency domain radars. If
the phase versus frequency is linear at all frequencies, there is no
effect to study.

Hello William...

OK
If I/we can help at some time in the future...

Bill Miller
"William" wrote in message
...
Hi Bill,

Thank you for the offer, but I think that duplicating the type of
experiment I showed in paper would not yield much new information. What
really needs to be done is to develop a wideband transmitter and antenna
system that can handle modulations bandwidths 1/10 of the carrier. This
will enable us to study the propagation speed of random information, which
is what everyone wants to know. This is not a trivial design and I don't
even know if it can be done. I will have to give it some thought. If I do
get something to work, I will let you know.

Bill Miller wrote:
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, do your near field waves decay exponentially as do
evanescent waves? If so it might be possible to get around the problem
of requiring very large antennas to test this at very long
wavelengths.
You could create a very intense pulse that is detectable several
wavelengths away even with exponential attenuation. Extremely high
pulses of light at optical wavelengths have been created with lasers,
albeit very short pulses. These have reached terawatts of power and
higher, though the higher the intensity the shorter pulse. This should
also be possible with masers, lasers at microwave frequencies.
However, I don't know if lasers have been created at very long
wavelengths.


Bob Clark

On Mar 25, 9:34 pm, doug doug@doug wrote:
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.

Perhaps you could answer some questions for me. Carl Sagan said
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The idea of
superluminal transmission and detection of radio waves certainly
qualifies as an extraordinary claim. The evidence of this would be
more cogent if it were easily confirmed by any high school, college,
or university physics department.
It would also be more persuasive if you were able to actually measure
the time of transmission and confirm this transmission time was less
than that of c light speed signals. What kind of timing accuracy would
be easily accessible at low cost? Say at less than $1,000? Timing
accuracy becomes more expensive when it is required to hold over long
periods, days, months or years. However, for testing this at distances
of only tens of meters to a few hundreds of meters you would only need
to have this accuracy to hold over a microsecond. But the accuracy
would have to be within at least hundreds of nanoseconds, better even
would be at tens of nanoseconds.
For these short distances and transmission times you would have to
have a detector to operate rapidly at detecting a signal. Do easily
available and low cost radio receivers have the capability of
detecting a signal within say tens of nanoseconds?
Also, to prove that this was true superluminal transmission of
information you would need to make a two way transmission. Other
experiments that appeared to show faster than light transmissions in
one direction were explained as only due to early precursors being
detected before the full initiating pulse was detected. And to remove
the problem of detecting reflections in the equipment you discussed
you would also have to make it that the return signal was very
different from the initiating signal, different polarization,
frequency etc.
So the return signal shouldn't be by just reflecting the original
signal but by generating a new and different one. Then you want the
detection to be very fast, but also the production of the return
signal to be likewise as fast. Are there also easily available
circuits for generating signals within tens of nanoseconds?


Bob Clark

On Mar 30, 6:02 am, "
wrote:
William, do your near field waves decay exponentially as do
evanescent waves? If so it might be possible to get around the problem
of requiring very large antennas to test this at very long
wavelengths.
You could create a very intense pulse that is detectable several
wavelengths away even with exponential attenuation. Extremely high
pulses of light at optical wavelengths have been created with lasers,
albeit very short pulses. These have reached terawatts of power and
higher, though the higher the intensity the shorter pulse. This should
also be possible with masers, lasers at microwave frequencies.
However, I don't know if lasers have been created at very long
wavelengths.

Bob Clark

Microwaves are easier to get through the kitchen door.
"Quantum Tunneling on Your Kitchen Kitchen Table,
a Hands-On Demonstration. "
http://www.altair.org/Qtunnel.html

Sue...