RE: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
Sometimes I just don't get anything right.
The link I posted to Nimtz illustrates
how this can be done ( my own work is unpublished or
I'd link you to it instead). The key issue remains, how do we
define velocity?
Original:
It could be defined, for a two way data transmission system, as repeated
meaningful transmission of data x over distance d, and return in average
time t of transmission t of a meaningful response message f(x), as v =
t/(2d).
Correction:
Communication velocity of a two-way data transmission system could be
defined as v = t/(2d) for transmission over straight-line distance d of
varied data x_i and return of a modified verifiable response message f(x_i)
in average transmission-response time t, where data x_i is not transmitted
until receipt of f(x_(i-1)) is verified. The average time t would have to
be for a large set of data transmissions {...,x_i,...}.
Achieving FTL is then the condition v c, or t 2d/c.
Regards,
Horace Heffner
RE: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
Hey Horace. Damned if I can find my copy of QED, but it seems the link to the original story is working again. Two thoughts. First, looking at the graph, we see the reference pulse/count profile for light speed is spread over a huge range, something like 40 feet of free space. There is no need for any of the experimenters clever messing with polarizing filters or birefringent materials, if you are correct fully half of the photons IN THE REFERENCE CONDITION are traveling faster than C, not a tiny percentage of them and at speeds 3*c and much more. Heck, if my reference pulse was doing that, I'd drop the actual experiment immediately and call the nobel prize people. And as you say, it would be trivial to construct the devices you suggest to achieve superluminal velocity. Something is wrong here. What the experimenters are doing to change the group velocity is to make the dissipation different for the leading and trailing edges. The result is an overall reduction in counts, but less on the leading edge than the trailing edge. Again I've done the exact same thing with nonlinear transmission lines, with roughly the same results. You can indeed get the calculated group velocity to exceed C. Here's the rub. The gold standard I used to make measurements in the radio circuits I worked with was the following. The distance d is measured as direct line of site from the sender to the receiver. If, for example, we make a triangle of bare wire and launch a pulse on it, the first detectable signal will arrive as if it traveled directly along the base of the triangle, not up and down the arms. You might say this is a ground wave, but really it looks more like all paths are being traversed, not just the wire path, but at a much lower signal strength. Sounds sort of familiar, huh??? (grin). wire *** * * * d * Sender * -- *Receiver The time is measured as the 50% point on the leading edge of the shock wavefront. We used mercury relays and spark gaps to generate the pulses, risetimes were in the 100's of picosecond range so from the point of view of the total circuit the shock front was basically a straight wall. K. -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 11:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought At 1:53 PM 12/8/4, Keith Nagel wrote: Hi Horace. I wanted to address you points with the article text, but the link has gone sour... Anyway, I think your differentiation is moot. I can build a radio circuit that displays behavior EXACTLY as shown in the graph. Yes, but that is not *my* point. My point is that the graph is really a histogram comprised of individual photon measurements. Some are faster than light. The subject measurements (in the graph) show that, but conventional QM, especially QED shows that to be true theoretically also. Some photons can be *statistically* depended upon to be faster than light. The method I suggest takes advantage of that fact to transmit data faster than light on average. I don't know of any method for detecting single photon radio waves, but such a method might exist. The link I posted to Nimtz illustrates how this can be done ( my own work is unpublished or I'd link you to it instead). The key issue remains, how do we define velocity? It could be defined, for a two way data transmission system, as repeated meaningful transmission of data x over distance d, and return in average time t of transmission t of a meaningful response message f(x), as v = t/(2d). Achieving FTL is then the condition v c, or t 2d/c. I think the method I proposed achieves this. As the authors point out, the older notions of group and phase velocity need be extended to include a third velocity, what they call the signal velocity or what I call the transistion or shock velocity. Horace writes: I think it is fairly well known in QM that all photons do not travel at c, but rather have a distribution of travel times. Really? Are you saying that photons in a vacuum can travel faster or slower than c according to QM? That doesn't seem right to me. Or are you trying to describe the fact that photons tend to take all possible paths from the source to the receiver and therefore arrival times can vary. I seem to remember this from Feynmans QED, and I've seen the exact same thing with free space antennae. Both. In his book *QED - The Strange Theory of Light and Matter*, Princeton University Press, 1985, Feynman states on page 89: The major contribution of P(A to B) occurs at the conventional speed of light - when (X_2 - X_1) is equal to (T_2 - T_1). - where one would expect it all to occur, but there is also an amplitude for light to go faster (or slower) that the conventional speed of light. You found out in the last lecture that light doesn't only
RE: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
At 12:37 PM 12/9/4, Keith Nagel wrote: First, looking at the graph, we see the reference pulse/count profile for light speed is spread over a huge range, something like 40 feet of free space. There is no need for any of the experimenters clever messing with polarizing filters or birefringent materials, if you are correct fully half of the photons IN THE REFERENCE CONDITION are traveling faster than C, not a tiny percentage of them and at speeds 3*c and much more. Heck, if my reference pulse was doing that, I'd drop the actual experiment immediately and call the nobel prize people. And as you say, it would be trivial to construct the devices you suggest to achieve superluminal velocity. Something is wrong here. Yep. Bungled data? For sure, the conclusion, based on the data, that useful information can not be transmitted FTL is wrong. Maybe the experiment is bungled as well? This points out a feature of modern science that I think needs revolutionary change. That is the amount of backup material that should be supplied, and required, and made available for long duration, possibly in national digital archives, or at least in the publisher's archives, for a given scientific article involving experimental results. Given the existence of the web and massive cheap data storage capacity, it is no longer reasonable to depend on the solely integrity and reputation (and for that matter subsequent cooperation) of the researcher and/or peer reviewers (a) to assume the method(s) used to be valid enough to depend on the stated accuracy of the results obtained, and (b) to replicate the experiment. It is often impossible to determine exactly what the researcher did from a published article. Backup material should include photos, videos, logs, notes, plans, equipment specifications, and detailed descriptions, etc., all in digital form. To be accepted for peer review publication, sufficent backup information should be supplied to comfortably do the review and to resolve problems with replication without the cooperation of the author. What the experimenters are doing to change the group velocity is to make the dissipation different for the leading and trailing edges. The result is an overall reduction in counts, but less on the leading edge than the trailing edge. Again I've done the exact same thing with nonlinear transmission lines, with roughly the same results. You can indeed get the calculated group velocity to exceed C. Here's the rub. The gold standard I used to make measurements in the radio circuits I worked with was the following. The distance d is measured as direct line of site from the sender to the receiver. If, for example, we make a triangle of bare wire and launch a pulse on it, the first detectable signal will arrive as if it traveled directly along the base of the triangle, not up and down the arms. You might say this is a ground wave, but really it looks more like all paths are being traversed, not just the wire path, but at a much lower signal strength. Sounds sort of familiar, huh??? (grin). Yes indeed. This is one reason I suggest a two-way transmission standard using transformed data on the return. It raises the bar for the difficulty of FTL proof, due the dual channel requirement plus transformation circuitry, but these costs are comparatively small compared to the importance of the underlying principles at stake. This standard of proof eliminates the alternate path argument, provided d, the distance between Sender Alice and Reciever Bob used for the FTL calculation, is measured in a straight-line fashion. wire *** * * * d * Sender * -- *Receiver I have personally observed this kind of problem of the unexpected secondary path (though not related to the QED multi-path photon amplitudes). It was during a replication of Shoulder's original EV work using a Hewlett Packard analog scope similar to the one he used in his original work. I was getting similar traces to his published traces. Then at one point I disconnected the probe lead to the EV detection (secondary) coil to which it was attached, and yet the EV signal persisted! It was being transmitted by air from the primary spark generator, not through a secondary coil used to detect the EV. You have to really watch out for secodary paths for any measurements related to sparks! The time is measured as the 50% point on the leading edge of the shock wavefront. We used mercury relays and spark gaps to generate the pulses, risetimes were in the 100's of picosecond range so from the point of view of the total circuit the shock front was basically a straight wall. So, why not use multiple channels and lower the trigger point as far as possible? I guess the major problem with the relay and spark technique would be the impossiblity of obtaining a fast data turn-around time due to the use of relays. It
Re: Fast-food for thought
Keith Nagel writes, Yep, that's it exactly. The resonator has two modes, an inductive slow wave mode and a capacitive fast wave mode. The capacitive coupling permits energy to travel directly along the axis of the coil, which means the coil is a true resonator rather than a simple inductor. The implication being that the coil might have two overlapping resonant modes, which could be partially self-canceling unless one was careful to make the ratio between the fast mode and slow mode into an integer multiple Which task is not exactly a simple matter... as Stephen Lawrence points out, especially since the magnet wire in these coils is small dia and may have a varnish of imprecise thickness, so that the refractive index may not even be consistent enough to be published. Maybe that's why so many people have failed to get Scott McKie's tank circuit device to work as claimed? Jones
RE: Fast-food for thought
Hi Jones. Yes, coils have multiple resonances, although generally speaking you'll see a fundamental resonance predicated on the lumped value of the distributed capacity and inductance of the coil. This is why top loading of a coil with a capacity can change the overall resonance, to a point. Stephen is right, PC board traces are strip transmission lines whose wavespeed is determined primarily by the PC board dielectric. Permittivity is about 3 or 4, you can figure the speed to be roughly proportionate to the inverse square root of that. I know very little about Scott Mckie, but I suspect that may be a good thing (grin). K. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 10:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fast-food for thought Keith Nagel writes, Yep, that's it exactly. The resonator has two modes, an inductive slow wave mode and a capacitive fast wave mode. The capacitive coupling permits energy to travel directly along the axis of the coil, which means the coil is a true resonator rather than a simple inductor. The implication being that the coil might have two overlapping resonant modes, which could be partially self-canceling unless one was careful to make the ratio between the fast mode and slow mode into an integer multiple Which task is not exactly a simple matter... as Stephen Lawrence points out, especially since the magnet wire in these coils is small dia and may have a varnish of imprecise thickness, so that the refractive index may not even be consistent enough to be published. Maybe that's why so many people have failed to get Scott McKie's tank circuit device to work as claimed? Jones
RE: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
Hi Horace. I wanted to address you points with the article text, but the link has gone sour... Anyway, I think your differentiation is moot. I can build a radio circuit that displays behavior EXACTLY as shown in the graph. The link I posted to Nimtz illustrates how this can be done ( my own work is unpublished or I'd link you to it instead). The key issue remains, how do we define velocity? As the authors point out, the older notions of group and phase velocity need be extended to include a third velocity, what they call the signal velocity or what I call the transistion or shock velocity. Horace writes: I think it is fairly well known in QM that all photons do not travel at c, but rather have a distribution of travel times. Really? Are you saying that photons in a vacuum can travel faster or slower than c according to QM? That doesn't seem right to me. Or are you trying to describe the fact that photons tend to take all possible paths from the source to the receiver and therefore arrival times can vary. I seem to remember this from Feynmans QED, and I've seen the exact same thing with free space antennae. K. -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 3:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought At 2:08 PM 12/7/4, Keith Nagel wrote: Let's look at that graph again. http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/11/10/1/041110 Notice how the light speed delayed pulse is larger than the slow or fast wave? Let's imagine two machines as you describe, the only difference being that one is implemented using the fast wave and the other with the light speed delayed signal ( the large one ). If I set the detector to trigger at the peak ( roughly the center of mass of the energy of the pulse ) the fast wave will be faster than the delayed wave. If I set the trigger at the 50% point on the risetime, now my light speed delayed system is going to be faster than my fast wave system. It appears you are misinterpreting the subject graphic (or I am.) I take it as in incident count graph. It is a tabulation of photons by arrival times. Some photons arrive early, some late. It is not a pulse trace, but could be if all the photon's detection pulses were summed (pulse time averaged) together. I think it is fairly well known in QM that all photons do not travel at c, but rather have a distribution of travel times. My point is that it pays to go way out on the tip of the trace as far as possible. In this case that would be at the single photon detection level. Now, the problem is that on average, the first photon may arrive early or late. On average we don't do better than c with a single fiber. My suggestion is to simultaneously transmit a given bit on lots of fibers at once. Then, *with any desired degree of but not perfect reliability*, based on the number of fibers used in a bundle, an early photon will be sensed within a time window that provides communication at greater than c velocity. We can do reliable communications way out on the front of the distribution. By sending multiple bits at a time in parallel, along with a timing pulse, we can use error detection and correction techniques to greatly increase reliability. By sending photons on two bundles, one bundle having photons sent if the data bit is 1, the other having photons sent if the data is 0, we can reliably do error correction at the bit level way out on the tip of the pulse, before any photons even arrive at velocity c. A more simple test of concept might be to use two bundles from Alice to Bob, with Bob having a repeater to send the data back to Alice on two return bundles. Alice could then measure the error rate as well as turn-around time. Regards, Horace Heffner
RE: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
At 1:53 PM 12/8/4, Keith Nagel wrote: Hi Horace. I wanted to address you points with the article text, but the link has gone sour... Anyway, I think your differentiation is moot. I can build a radio circuit that displays behavior EXACTLY as shown in the graph. Yes, but that is not *my* point. My point is that the graph is really a histogram comprised of individual photon measurements. Some are faster than light. The subject measurements (in the graph) show that, but conventional QM, especially QED shows that to be true theoretically also. Some photons can be *statistically* depended upon to be faster than light. The method I suggest takes advantage of that fact to transmit data faster than light on average. I don't know of any method for detecting single photon radio waves, but such a method might exist. The link I posted to Nimtz illustrates how this can be done ( my own work is unpublished or I'd link you to it instead). The key issue remains, how do we define velocity? It could be defined, for a two way data transmission system, as repeated meaningful transmission of data x over distance d, and return in average time t of transmission t of a meaningful response message f(x), as v = t/(2d). Achieving FTL is then the condition v c, or t 2d/c. I think the method I proposed achieves this. As the authors point out, the older notions of group and phase velocity need be extended to include a third velocity, what they call the signal velocity or what I call the transistion or shock velocity. Horace writes: I think it is fairly well known in QM that all photons do not travel at c, but rather have a distribution of travel times. Really? Are you saying that photons in a vacuum can travel faster or slower than c according to QM? That doesn't seem right to me. Or are you trying to describe the fact that photons tend to take all possible paths from the source to the receiver and therefore arrival times can vary. I seem to remember this from Feynmans QED, and I've seen the exact same thing with free space antennae. Both. In his book *QED - The Strange Theory of Light and Matter*, Princeton University Press, 1985, Feynman states on page 89: The major contribution of P(A to B) occurs at the conventional speed of light - when (X_2 - X_1) is equal to (T_2 - T_1). - where one would expect it all to occur, but there is also an amplitude for light to go faster (or slower) that the conventional speed of light. You found out in the last lecture that light doesn't only go in straight lines; now you you find out it doesn't only go at the speed of light! He does go on to say [importantly]: It may surprise you that there is an amplitude for a photon to go faster or slower than the conventional speed c. The amplitudes for these possibilities are very small compared to the contribution from speed c; in fact they canel out when light travels over long distances. It appears (from the data) the subject experimenters found a means of extending the range of the alternative amplitudes through use of polarized photons and a birefringent fiber. In any event, I think the data published in the graph support the FTL communications means I proposed. Regards, Horace Heffner
RE: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
The link I posted to Nimtz illustrates how this can be done ( my own work is unpublished or I'd link you to it instead). The key issue remains, how do we define velocity? Typo: It could be defined, for a two way data transmission system, as repeated meaningful transmission of data x over distance d, and return in average time t of transmission t of a meaningful response message f(x), as v = t/(2d). Correction: It could be defined, for a two way data transmission system, as repeated meaningful transmission of data x_i over distance d, and return in average time t of a meaningful response message f(x_i), as v = t/(2d). Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
Kyle wrote: ...if it *is* moving super-c, and not just some distortion, it is important to think about this, regardless of whether or not we can use it at the present time to transmit something. I agree. Harry
RE: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
At 11:52 pm 06-12-04 -0900, you wrote: At 11:01 PM 12/6/4, Keith Nagel wrote: Hi Terry. You will see from their scope graph http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/11/10/1/041110 that the light speed pulse is larger than both; measuring from the peak like that can be deceptive as they show. I also agree with the authors that a signal velocity or what I might call a shock wave velocity need be measured. It seems to me that if the group velocity can be sensed at 3*c then that constitutes data transmitted FTL. Live data can thus be sent FTL using parallel data cables (or fibers) for a single bit (a bundle), and parallel bundles of cables for a binary word, provided it is known *with good confidence* an interval for the arrival of some indication of the value of each of the parallel data bits in a word. Multiple cables can be used to transmit each bit, including multiple cables to transmit (initiate) the timing (strobe) pulse which starts the sensing interval for a binary word. In this manner multi-bit words can be sent FTL asynchronously. The first indication of a signal on any cable for a given bit then sets that bit. This would not be 100 percent reliable, but neither is any other form of transmission. An indication of both a 1 and a 0 value for a given bit would trigger error processing. If 32 cables were used to transmit a pulse indicating a 1 bit in a given position of a binary word, and 32 cables used to indicate a 0 bit in that word position, then it is known with great reliability much faster than the speed of light if a given bit is 0, 1, or in error. Transmitting an 8 bit byte (with parity) in parallel would take 9*64 + 32 = 608 cables. It may be worthwhile to dedicate 64 cables to the timing pulse bundle, which is always a 1 bit, for reliability in identifying an earliest possible start for the strobe window. The 640 cables is extravagant, but so what. It's just a proof of principle. So what indeed. A very clear explanation Horace. Even I managed to follow that. 8^) Cheers Grimer
RE: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
Hi Horace. You write: It seems to me that if the group velocity can be sensed at 3*c then that constitutes data transmitted FTL. Let's look at that graph again. http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/11/10/1/041110 Notice how the light speed delayed pulse is larger than the slow or fast wave? Let's imagine two machines as you describe, the only difference being that one is implemented using the fast wave and the other with the light speed delayed signal ( the large one ). If I set the detector to trigger at the peak ( roughly the center of mass of the energy of the pulse ) the fast wave will be faster than the delayed wave. If I set the trigger at the 50% point on the risetime, now my light speed delayed system is going to be faster than my fast wave system. Hmmm, that doesn't seem very attractive now. does it? Frankly, IMHO, the math is not adequate to describe the physical system. I agree with the authors that a new velocity definition is needed. I have no problem with FTL transmission, I just want to actually DO IT and judge the physical implementations accordingly... By the way, things do get more interesting when the transmission media is nonlinear and active. What is described on the site is pretty much the argument about tunnelling in QM, it's easy to build macroscopic models with radio techniques that behave the same way as the quantum systems do. One can see the same results as this experiment. However, you can probe the radio system much more intimately than the QM system. Very enlightening. Here's some more refs. http://www.aei-potsdam.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/FTL/tunnelingftl.html This guy in particular has some interesting work. http://www.ph2.uni-koeln.de/Nimtz/pub/paper-list.html K.
Re: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
Horace Heffner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 2:08 PM 12/7/4, Keith Nagel wrote: Let's look at that graph again. http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/11/10/1/041110 Notice how the light speed delayed pulse is larger than the slow or fast wave? Let's imagine two machines as you describe, the only difference being that one is implemented using the fast wave and the other with the light speed delayed signal ( the large one ). If I set the detector to trigger at the peak ( roughly the center of mass of the energy of the pulse ) the fast wave will be faster than the delayed wave. If I set the trigger at the 50% point on the risetime, now my light speed delayed system is going to be faster than my fast wave system. It appears you are misinterpreting the subject graphic (or I am.) I take it as in incident count graph. It is a tabulation of photons by arrival times. Some photons arrive early, some late. It is not a pulse trace, but could be if all the photon's detection pulses were summed (pulse time averaged) together. I think it is fairly well known in QM that all photons do not travel at c, but rather have a distribution of travel times. My point is that it pays to go way out on the tip of the trace as far as possible. In this case that would be at the single photon detection level. Now, the problem is that on average, the first photon may arrive early or late. On average we don't do better than c with a single fiber. My suggestion is to simultaneously transmit a given bit on lots of fibers at once. Then, *with any desired degree of but not perfect reliability*, based on the number of fibers used in a bundle, an early photon will be sensed within a time window that provides communication at greater than c velocity. We can do reliable communications way out on the front of the distribution. By sending multiple bits at a time in parallel, along with a timing pulse, we can use error detection and correction techniques to greatly increase reliability. By sending photons on two bundles, one bundle having photons sent if the data bit is 1, the other having photons sent if the data is 0, we can reliably do error correction at the bit level way out on the tip of the pulse, before any photons even arrive at velocity c. A more simple test of concept might be to use two bundles from Alice to Bob, with Bob having a repeater to send the data back to Alice on two return bundles. Alice could then measure the error rate as well as turn-around time. Regards, Horace Heffner The null result of Michelson-Morely experiment may also be some sort of statistical illusion. It seems to me the best way to look for an aether is to directly measure travel times, rather than infer travel times from an interference pattern. Since we now have the technological means to do so, somebody should do so. Harry
Re: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
Physicists in Switzerland have confirmed that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. Hmmmthe writers of the quoted article have made an error in the above statement. It would be more correct to say that it is confirmed that within the experimental proceedures used, information WAS not transmitted faster than the speed of light, not the catch-all phrase that this one experiment proves that information cannot be sent FTL, period. Nicolas Gisin and colleagues at the University of Geneva have shown that the group velocity of a laser pulse in an optical fibre can travel faster than the speed of light but that the signal velocity - the speed at which information travels - cannot This group/phase/information/signal/front/blah velocity stuff is getting old. Most of the experiments I have seen fall into either: A. The signal was distorted severely by its passage through the medium in which FTL is supposed to take place, thus making it appear FTL. Usually the signal is neither brief (compared to the dimensions of the transmission path) nor sharp (usually a spread or gaussian distribution) B. It is just phase/group/whatever velocity which moves super-c. Well, if it *is* moving super-c, and not just some distortion, it is important to think about this, regardless of whether or not we can use it at the present time to transmit something. C. They don't know what is going on for sure. The last category is of course the most interesting. Just my thoughts on this. --Kyle __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Fast-food for thought
...real fast-food. A post arrived from another forum (Blaze Labs) which some observers here might find intriguing (I cannot vouch for the accuracy, but the experimenter is both credible (genius-level perhaps) and credentialed, so I will try to find out more details about the particular experiment). He says, A few years ago, I had done experiments trying to measure the propagation speed within a standing wave, and I can say that propagation speeds much in excess of c were detected. In fact, it seemed that *within the near field,* the signal suffers no aberration Now we all know that *near fields* are a different beast - far removed form normal Hertzian electro-dynamics, but is there really a faster-than-lightspeed component to the near-field, in general, and is that component of the near field what makes it so markedly different? Suspend disbelief for a moment. As mentioned in previous postings about excitons and why LENR does occur at apparently low kinetic energy (actually not low, just greatly underestimated) or at least how that low energy can be multiplied enormously in certain physical structures, this above mentioned result from Blaze about near-fields, IF TRUE, might provide part of the answer. If excitons are the operative structure in some kinds of LENR and can be analogized to coincide geometrically with the phonon structure of certain types of containment matrices, then we suddenly have found what could be the driving force behind the increased level of containment - which is the effect of the FTL near-field. Actually we are not talking about just containment but pulsating containment in the terahertz frequency range. Coincidently, since excitons are on the geometric scale of the Casimir force, one wonders if the Casimir force itself is really all about the effects of an FTL near-field? ...not ot mention the implications of near-fields with regard to magnetic domains. IOW - it was suggested that phonon/exciton pulsation, becomes another kind of inertial ultra-ultra-sound, an ICF reaction on a much smaller geometric scale... and with this additional near-field mechanism, then it becomes clearer that certain kinds of CF may involve a new kind of ICF (inertial confinement fusion) similar to solid-state sonofusion but on a much smaller scale... That scale being the one-and-only crossover region where EMF waves can overlaps with kinetic effects - because of identical wavelengths being possible. When an exciton becomes resonant with a modulated DC current, then exterior kinetic waves form on the exciton particle which may have a FTL component, and all that implies with regard to field-effects: the product being: In-Waves and Out-Waves - which can form a Standing Wave around the Wave-Center 'particle' (it's hard not to bring up Geoff Haselhurst's little animation applet once again for its visual effect). Therefore, to update the previous stab at verbalizing this new slant on an underlying ICF methodology for some kinds of cold fusion: The LENR exciton is best described as a double layer object - a sphere-within-a-sphere of a few microns in outside diameter, containing a central core of perhaps 50 nm in diameter. In the core itself, the loading of deuterium is super-saturated, due to the pumping action of the skin layer (optimally giving 6 D atoms per vacancy). The exciton waves are a result of DC current flow being modulated to essentially a terahertz frequency by both an imposed resonance which develops between geometry and heat, plus the very strong near-field of the exciton. The resultant pulsations end-up doing about the same thing that one finds in ICF or sonofusion, except that here the frequency is 10 billion times higher (and as we know, the net energy of waves is proportional to frequency). Jones Hey... is it time yet?... time for a newly manufactured lingoism to propose for the growing LENR argot, or is this word-of-the-week silliness getting tiresome? There was an art movement in French cinema in the 1960s called nouvelle vague a kind of new wave... cool name and appropriately vague... So - how about the above refinement of previous ideas (which suggest a new kind of ICF methodology for certain LERN)being the opening salvo for a NVE hypothesis for LENR,? NVE being Nouvelle-Vague-Exciton. This is really high-energy ICF as it satisfies Lawson-like criteria (see below), but is masquerading as low-energy LENR). PPS: The Farside criteria ... or Larson vs Lawson Lawson's Density (particles/cm3) x Time (sec) = 10^16 (Deuterium-Deuterium fusion) can easily be recalibrated to make-up for the relatively low ignition temperature of LENR in what I am calling the Farside criteria for LENR. As you notice, I am taking the radical leap of saying that a temperature threshold is not accurate but that the threshold is merely a time-delineated measure of the probability of deuterons getting close enough to each other - so effective pressure can substitute for temperature (actually it
Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
Hey Jones. I saw this post too, and should respond to it there but for the fact that I find the whole forum thing kind of klunky and inconvienent. I wish he would stick with the email list; it's the best technology. I have done many experiments like this. Saviour is correct in his observation that in cavity resonators ( for example ) the relation of wavelength to frequency is determined by the cavity parameters and can be engineered to be about anything you like. This is standard radio theory. The same is true for antennas in the near field. I disagree with his conclusion, that the underlying velocity exceeds C. This claim was made by a researcher at Marquette (sp?) University in the late 80's, using microwave cavities and diode detectors. I was intrigued enough at the time to try the experiment, but I wanted to see what was happening in real time with a sensor that could measure the waveform. The experiment I cooked up was pretty simple. I used 55 gallon drums as waveguide, which gave me a low order TE mode resonance at about 300MHz. For the drum waveguide, that was something like 2 times C ( all this from memory, I can dig up my notes if you want accurate figures ). I used an ancient Farnsworth RF oscillator that could be gated as the source, and an excellent scope ( LeCroy 9450 ) with Tek CT-2 current transformers at the base of 1/4 wave antennas as detectors. The cavity was a couple of drums long, and the detectors space along the cavity to measure velocity. When I excited the cavity continuously, I could easily measure the relation of wavelength to freq and confirm the predicted 2*c result. When I gated the signal, I could also easily see that the gating transition would require the ordinary c delay between detectors ( actually longer, but line of sight signal is always present along with the slower reflected signal ). OTOH, if you could get the longitudinal mode ( LM in the case above ) to propagate by itself outside the cavity perhaps you'd have a superluminal signal. The near field is not so mysterious as you make it out to be, rather it's the consequence of the antenna being physically large w/respect to the wavelength at close range and thus allowing the wave to interact with itself in free space. K. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:20 AM To: vortex Subject: Fast-food for thought ...real fast-food. A post arrived from another forum (Blaze Labs) which some observers here might find intriguing (I cannot vouch for the accuracy, but the experimenter is both credible (genius-level perhaps) and credentialed, so I will try to find out more details about the particular experiment). He says, A few years ago, I had done experiments trying to measure the propagation speed within a standing wave, and I can say that propagation speeds much in excess of c were detected. In fact, it seemed that *within the near field,* the signal suffers no aberration Now we all know that *near fields* are a different beast - far removed form normal Hertzian electro-dynamics, but is there really a faster-than-lightspeed component to the near-field, in general, and is that component of the near field what makes it so markedly different? Suspend disbelief for a moment. As mentioned in previous postings about excitons and why LENR does occur at apparently low kinetic energy (actually not low, just greatly underestimated) or at least how that low energy can be multiplied enormously in certain physical structures, this above mentioned result from Blaze about near-fields, IF TRUE, might provide part of the answer. If excitons are the operative structure in some kinds of LENR and can be analogized to coincide geometrically with the phonon structure of certain types of containment matrices, then we suddenly have found what could be the driving force behind the increased level of containment - which is the effect of the FTL near-field. Actually we are not talking about just containment but pulsating containment in the terahertz frequency range. Coincidently, since excitons are on the geometric scale of the Casimir force, one wonders if the Casimir force itself is really all about the effects of an FTL near-field? ...not ot mention the implications of near-fields with regard to magnetic domains. IOW - it was suggested that phonon/exciton pulsation, becomes another kind of inertial ultra-ultra-sound, an ICF reaction on a much smaller geometric scale... and with this additional near-field mechanism, then it becomes clearer that certain kinds of CF may involve a new kind of ICF (inertial confinement fusion) similar to solid-state sonofusion but on a much smaller scale... That scale being the one-and-only crossover region where EMF waves can overlaps with kinetic effects - because of identical wavelengths being possible. When an exciton becomes resonant with a modulated DC current, then exterior kinetic waves form on the exciton particle
Re: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
Keith, I disagree with his conclusion, that the underlying velocity exceeds C. This claim was made by a researcher at Marquette I can't blame anyone for disagreeing with this. Yesterday, I would have disagreed also. However, having had a little run at Google, there seems to be a fair number of non-cranks espousing this view. This one looks interesting: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0009023
RE: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
Hi Jones. You callin' me a crank!?!? yeah, well I'm pretty cranky... The paper was very nice, but the author failed to gate the generator and measure the transition velocity ( aka group velocity ) of the LM mode. He calculates it from the phase velocity measurement, which isn't exactly according to Hoyle. I have no problem with the measurements as such ( I've seen the same thing ) just the interpretation. Try searching the archives of Aperion magazine, I seem to remember more papers there. As well as LANL's site. The work done with active media looked the most promising to me. The vacuum is tenacious stuff. K. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 5:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought Keith, I disagree with his conclusion, that the underlying velocity exceeds C. This claim was made by a researcher at Marquette I can't blame anyone for disagreeing with this. Yesterday, I would have disagreed also. However, having had a little run at Google, there seems to be a fair number of non-cranks espousing this view. This one looks interesting: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0009023
Re: Fast-food for thought
--- Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...real fast-food. A post arrived from another forum (Blaze Labs) which some observers here might find intriguing (I cannot vouch for the accuracy, but the experimenter is both credible (genius-level perhaps) and credentialed, so I will try to find out more details about the particular experiment). He says, A few years ago, I had done experiments trying to measure the propagation speed within a standing wave, and I can say that propagation speeds much in excess of c were detected. The action of electrical impulses within a tesla coil secondary is said to be a standing wave, and propagation speeds of the impulse are said to exceed C. If the frequency were determined by C, the quarter wavelength of the frequency of the standing wave would be identical to the wire length of the secondary, but opponents of that idea are numerous. Here are some references. The 1/4 wave length theory comes from the thought that signals travel in a straight wire at the speed of light (or something related to it, slightly less for various choices of conductor). BUT, in a TC the wire that would be 100 feet away in a straight line antenna(where 1/4 wave theory does apply) will only be a fraction of an inch away in a TC coil, and the inductive and capacitive coupling between those portions of the coil that are 100 feet apart wire length wise are much closer in the electrical (and physical sense. So the propagation speed of signals along a coil do not have anything to do with the propagation speed in straight wire. -Peter Lawrence. The 1/4 wave resonant frequency of a wire, when wound into a solenoid, is typically more than 50% higher than that of the straight line value. The extraordinary persistance of the wire-length myth comes from the willingness of people to accept things on faith without making even the most basic of cross checks. See the comments and graph in http://www.abelian.demon.co.uk/tssp/misc.html Paul Nicholson I also constructed a TC secondary and attempted to resonate it by figuring in the C propagation speed, where the wire length was given a time period for the impulse to reach the end of the wire at C, and then multiplying by 4 times that time period, and taking the inverse of that time period; arriving at a frequency answer of 250,000 hz. No resonance was found using a primary also resonating at 250 khz. Later methods showed that the natural resonant frequency of the secondary was actually ~ 330,000 hz, well above the value given by a standing wave exhibiting a propagation impulse speed at C. Sincerely HDN = Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
Re: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
Keith Nagel wrote <>Try searching the archives of Aperion magazine, I seem to remember more papers there. Something recent: http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/11/10/1 Good news for causality 18 November 2004 Physicists in Switzerland have confirmed that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. Nicolas Gisin and colleagues at the University of Geneva have shown that the "group velocity" of a laser pulse in an optical fibre can travel faster than the speed of light but that the "signal velocity" - the speed at which information travels - cannot (N Brunner et al. 2004 Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 203902).
Re: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
Oops, sans html: Try searching the archives of Aperion magazine, I seem to remember more papers there. Something recent: http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/11/10/1 Good news for causality 18 November 2004 Physicists in Switzerland have confirmed that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. Nicolas Gisin and colleagues at the University of Geneva have shown that the group velocity of a laser pulse in an optical fibre can travel faster than the speed of light but that the signal velocity - the speed at which information travels - cannot (N Brunner et al. 2004 Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 203902).
RE: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
Hi Terry. You will see from their scope graph http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/11/10/1/041110 that the light speed pulse is larger than both; measuring from the peak like that can be deceptive as they show. I also agree with the authors that a signal velocity or what I might call a shock wave velocity need be measured. Hey, HTML free, saves bandwidth and leaves your virtual breathe minty fresh! K. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:18 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought Oops, sans html: Try searching the archives of Aperion magazine, I seem to remember more papers there. Something recent: http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/11/10/1 Good news for causality 18 November 2004 Physicists in Switzerland have confirmed that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. Nicolas Gisin and colleagues at the University of Geneva have shown that the group velocity of a laser pulse in an optical fibre can travel faster than the speed of light but that the signal velocity - the speed at which information travels - cannot (N Brunner et al. 2004 Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 203902).
Re: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
The world of light I know from daily experience doesn't fit into an optical fibre. Perhaps in other contexts the signal velocity of light does exceed C. Harry http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/11/10/1 Physicists in Switzerland have confirmed that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. Nicolas Gisin and colleagues at the University of Geneva have shown that the group velocity of a laser pulse in an optical fibre can travel faster than the speed of light but that the signal velocity - the speed at which information travels - cannot (N Brunner et al. 2004 Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 203902).
