How to get envelope from AM signal without phase shift

Eric,

Interesting article, but I don't see how it applies to my system. The
system described in the paper is a bandpass filter in a feedback loop,
where the bandpass filter phase function is altered by the feedback. The
feedback forces the endpoints of the phase to zero, creating regions of
possitive slope, which yield negative group delays for narrow band signals.
This causes narrow band signals at the output of the circuit appear to
arrive earlier than signals at the input of the circuit. Because the
information in the signals is slightly redundant, the circuit is able to
reconstruct future parts of the signal from the present part of the
signal.


First of all, this is a circuit which alters the phase function with
respect to time and not space, as it is in my system. The phase function in
the circuit is not due to wave propagaton, where mine is.

Secondly,unlike the circuit, my system is causal. The recieved signal in my
system arrives after the signal is transmitted. It just travels faster than
light. 

Thirdly, the negative group delay in the circuit was accomplished by using
feedback which does not exist in my system.


Information (modulations) are clearly transmitted using narrowband AM radio
communication, just listen to an AM radio. The simulation I presented
simply shows that random AM modulations arrive undistorted across space, in
the nearfield, earlier than a light speed propagated signal.

Signal purturbations can not be used to measure the signal propagation in
the nearfield because they distort in the nearfield, and group speed has no
meaning if the signal distorts as it propagates. 

William

 

>Actually, bottom posting is the preferred method, since a single entry 
>can be read logically in order.   I'm top-posting here just because 
>mixing top and bottom is worse than top posting.
>
>It seems to me that you're not grasping what people are trying to tell 
>you.   Jerry mentioned a relevant article, but I'll post a link for you:
>
>http://www.dsprelated.com/showarticle/54.php
>
>Study that carefully, because it describes completely the phenomenon 
>that you're seeing, and it has nothing to do with propagation faster 
>than the speed of light or predicting the future.   It is the nature of 
>narrowband signals that they can be predicted in the short term, unless 
>a perturbation arrives.   This is what people have been trying to point 
>out to you, and this (or some other phenomenon other than exceeding c) 
>is what you're seeing.
>
>You're not the first to be lured down this path and you won't be the
last.
>
>On 3/23/2010 11:05 AM, WWalker wrote:
>> Jerry,
>>
>> AM radio stations transmit narrow band information signals every day,
just
>> turn on an AM radio and listen. Clearly narrow band signals can carry
>> information.
>>
>> The information in an AM signal is the modulation and propagates at the
>> group speed. This is what I am saying propagates faster than light in
the
>> nearfield.
>>
>> In my simulations I generated a random signal by adding two Cosines
with
>> different amplitudes and frequencies, which are not harmonic. This
>> modulation is then multiplied with a higher frequency Cosine carrier
and
>> the signals are sent 20 cm across space through a light speed transfer
>> function and an electric dipole transfer functon. The envelopes are
then
>> detected by dividing by the carrier and the envelopes are compared. The
>> results clearly show that the modulation envelope from the dipole
arrives
>> earlier than the light speed propagated envelope.
>>
>> William
>>
>>
>>> WWalker wrote:
>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for the confusion. I will try to stick to top posting.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding your question about what carries the information faster
than
>>>> light, I can not say for sure, but I suspect it is the virtual
photon.
>> The
>>>> only thing I can say for sure is that the envelope of a narrow band
>>>> modulated signal propagates undistortted, faster than light in the
>>>> nearfield of a dipole source. If this is true then Relativity theory
>> will
>>>> need to be reevaluated. For more information, refer to my other
paper:
>>>> http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0702166
>>>
>>> Being narrow band, the envelope is predictable. The narrower the band,
>>> the further the prediction (i.e. extrapolation) can be carried. (Think
>>> "coherence length".) The more predictable a phenomenon is, the more
one
>>> can pretend to know of it (or delude oneself into believing one knows
>>> it) it in advance of its happening. Knowing the date of the next
eclipse
>>> is not the same as receiving a signal from the future.
>>>
>>> The phase velocity in a waveguide _always_ exceeds the speed of light
in
>>> vacuo. Ask any radar engineer. You have rediscovered a triviality.
>>>
>>> Your useless simulations are all done with steady state. Steady state
>>> carries no information. All information is in transients;
non-redundant,
>>> unpredictable transients. If you can show transients propagating
faster
>>> than light speed, people will listen.
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>> --
>>> it reverses the order of the flow of a discussion.
>>> Top posting seems unnatural to most people because
>>>
>
>
>-- 
>Eric Jacobsen
>Minister of Algorithms
>Abineau Communications
>http://www.abineau.com
>

WWalker wrote:
> Eric,
> 
> Interesting article, but I don't see how it applies to my system.

Prior art:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=csYDAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false




Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

On 3/23/2010 6:06 PM, WWalker wrote:
> Eric,
>
> Interesting article, but I don't see how it applies to my system. The
> system described in the paper is a bandpass filter in a feedback loop,
> where the bandpass filter phase function is altered by the feedback. The
> feedback forces the endpoints of the phase to zero, creating regions of
> possitive slope, which yield negative group delays for narrow band signals.
> This causes narrow band signals at the output of the circuit appear to
> arrive earlier than signals at the input of the circuit. Because the
> information in the signals is slightly redundant, the circuit is able to
> reconstruct future parts of the signal from the present part of the
> signal.

Snipped context to allow bottom-posting.

Feedback is not necessary to produce negative group delay.   Here's 
another example with a passive notch filter that exhibits negative group 
delay.

http://www.radiolab.com.au/DesignFile/DN004.pdf

It doesn't matter what's inside a black box if it has a negative group 
delay characteristic if the transfer function is LTI.   Whether there's 
feedback or not in the implementation is inconsequential.   Consider 
that the passive notch filter could also be implemented as an active 
circuit with feedback, and if the transfer functions are equivalent they 
are functionally equivalent.   This is fundamental.  I don't think the 
feedback has anything to do with it.

You're argument on the redundancy, though, is spot-on.   Note that, as 
others have already pointed out multiple times, the signals you're using 
in your experiment are HIGHLY redundant, so much so that they carry 
almost no information.   These signals are therefore not suitable for 
proving anything about information propagation.


> First of all, this is a circuit which alters the phase function with
> respect to time and not space, as it is in my system. The phase function in
> the circuit is not due to wave propagaton, where mine is.

As far as I've been able to tell, your evidence is based on a 
simulation, in which case dimensionalities are abstractions.   You are 
not performing anything in either time or space, you're performing a 
numerical simulation.  Space-time transforms are not at all unusual and 
it is likely that a substitution is easily performed.  Nothing has 
propagated in your simulation in either time or space.

> Secondly,unlike the circuit, my system is causal. The recieved signal in my
> system arrives after the signal is transmitted. It just travels faster than
> light.

Uh, the circuit is causal.  That was the point.

You have not demonstrated that your system is causal or not causal. 
That cannot be concluded using the waveforms you show in your paper due 
to the high determinism and narrow band characteristics.

> Thirdly, the negative group delay in the circuit was accomplished by using
> feedback which does not exist in my system.

As I stated above, this is inconsequential.


> Information (modulations) are clearly transmitted using narrowband AM radio
> communication, just listen to an AM radio. The simulation I presented
> simply shows that random AM modulations arrive undistorted across space, in
> the nearfield, earlier than a light speed propagated signal.

Your simulation does not demonstrate that.  Turn the signal off, even at 
a zero crossing if you want to minimize perturbations, and see what happens.

> Signal purturbations can not be used to measure the signal propagation in
> the nearfield because they distort in the nearfield, and group speed has no
> meaning if the signal distorts as it propagates.
>
> William

If you cannot use a perturbation (i.e., information transmission) to 
measure signal propagation then you cannot demonstrate the speed of 
information propagation.   Until you can actually demonstrate something 
other than phase velocity (which is NOT information transmission and 
many here have acknowledged can be faster than c, as do I), then you 
cannot make the conclusions that you are claiming.


-- 
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com

Jerry,

The signal is random for the detection method I used. I would agree with
you if I had used a curvefitting envelope detection method. But by simply
dividing by the carrier, the detector is simply decoding as the signal
comes by. The proof is that if I use a curvefitting detection method, I
would need to sample many cycles of the signal to get a good match. But
with the detection method I am using, I get the envelope at the beginning
of the signal and at each iteration point.

William

>WWalker wrote:
>> Steve,
>> 
>> The only thing one has to do to prove that information can be
propagated
>> faster than light, is to simply demonstate it. The simulation below
clearly
>> denonstrates that this is possible. Check it for yourself. Simply copy
and
>> paste it into Mathematica. 
>
>That's not the only thing. You also have to show that the demonstration 
>is about information. Yours is not.
>
>> The simulation generates a random modulated 100ns span signal by adding
a
>> 50MHz,1V Peak Cosine to a 22.7MHz, 1.7V peak Cosine. Then the Modulation
is
>> multiplied with 500MHz, 1V peak Cosine carrier. The reference envelope
is
>> extracted by dividing by the carrier. 
>
>That is deterministic, not random.  Once the waveform starts, you can 
>announce what it will be tomorrow. No information at all!
>
>   ...
>
>> Finally the envelopes are plotted and a zoom of the plot clearly shows
that
>> the information (modulation envelope) arrives earlier than a light
speed
>> propagated signal. 
>
>You knew -- or should have known -- before submitting anything to 
>mathematical analysis what the outcome would be. There *is* no
information.
>
>Jerry
>-- 
>Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what
>nobody has thought.    .. Albert Szent-Gyorgi
>�����������������������������������������������������������������������
>

Vladimir,

Interesting patent but the idea presented is very different from the one I
am proposing. Many of the ideas being discussed in this thread are
published in my Ph.D. thesis submitted in 1997 at ETH Zurich, Switzerland.
Since I have published most of what I have presneted, I doubt a patent
would be possible. 

William

>
>
>WWalker wrote:
>> Eric,
>> 
>> Interesting article, but I don't see how it applies to my system.
>
>Prior art:
>
>http://www.google.com/patents?id=csYDAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false
>
>
>
>
>Vladimir Vassilevsky
>DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
>http://www.abvolt.com
>

>On 3/23/2010 6:06 PM, WWalker wrote:
>> Eric,
>>
>> Interesting article, but I don't see how it applies to my system. The
>> system described in the paper is a bandpass filter in a feedback loop,
>> where the bandpass filter phase function is altered by the feedback.
The
>> feedback forces the endpoints of the phase to zero, creating regions of
>> possitive slope, which yield negative group delays for narrow band
signals.
>> This causes narrow band signals at the output of the circuit appear to
>> arrive earlier than signals at the input of the circuit. Because the
>> information in the signals is slightly redundant, the circuit is able
to
>> reconstruct future parts of the signal from the present part of the
>> signal.
>
>Snipped context to allow bottom-posting.
>
>Feedback is not necessary to produce negative group delay.   Here's 
>another example with a passive notch filter that exhibits negative group 
>delay.
>
>http://www.radiolab.com.au/DesignFile/DN004.pdf
>
>It doesn't matter what's inside a black box if it has a negative group 
>delay characteristic if the transfer function is LTI.   Whether there's 
>feedback or not in the implementation is inconsequential.   Consider 
>that the passive notch filter could also be implemented as an active 
>circuit with feedback, and if the transfer functions are equivalent they 
>are functionally equivalent.   This is fundamental.  I don't think the 
>feedback has anything to do with it.
>
>You're argument on the redundancy, though, is spot-on.   Note that, as 
>others have already pointed out multiple times, the signals you're using 
>in your experiment are HIGHLY redundant, so much so that they carry 
>almost no information.   These signals are therefore not suitable for 
>proving anything about information propagation.
>
>
>> First of all, this is a circuit which alters the phase function with
>> respect to time and not space, as it is in my system. The phase function
in
>> the circuit is not due to wave propagaton, where mine is.
>
>As far as I've been able to tell, your evidence is based on a 
>simulation, in which case dimensionalities are abstractions.   You are 
>not performing anything in either time or space, you're performing a 
>numerical simulation.  Space-time transforms are not at all unusual and 
>it is likely that a substitution is easily performed.  Nothing has 
>propagated in your simulation in either time or space.
>
>> Secondly,unlike the circuit, my system is causal. The recieved signal in
my
>> system arrives after the signal is transmitted. It just travels faster
than
>> light.
>
>Uh, the circuit is causal.  That was the point.
>
>You have not demonstrated that your system is causal or not causal. 
>That cannot be concluded using the waveforms you show in your paper due 
>to the high determinism and narrow band characteristics.
>
>> Thirdly, the negative group delay in the circuit was accomplished by
using
>> feedback which does not exist in my system.
>
>As I stated above, this is inconsequential.
>
>
>> Information (modulations) are clearly transmitted using narrowband AM
radio
>> communication, just listen to an AM radio. The simulation I presented
>> simply shows that random AM modulations arrive undistorted across space,
in
>> the nearfield, earlier than a light speed propagated signal.
>
>Your simulation does not demonstrate that.  Turn the signal off, even at 
>a zero crossing if you want to minimize perturbations, and see what
happens.
>
>> Signal purturbations can not be used to measure the signal propagation
in
>> the nearfield because they distort in the nearfield, and group speed has
no
>> meaning if the signal distorts as it propagates.
>>
>> William
>
>If you cannot use a perturbation (i.e., information transmission) to 
>measure signal propagation then you cannot demonstrate the speed of 
>information propagation.   Until you can actually demonstrate something 
>other than phase velocity (which is NOT information transmission and 
>many here have acknowledged can be faster than c, as do I), then you 
>cannot make the conclusions that you are claiming.
>
Well he doesn't have to actually demonstrate a perturbation going faster
than light. If he could demonstrate energy travelling faster than light, it
would be equivalent. However, only one person here doesn't seem to grasp
that this ain't gonna happen.

Steve

WWalker wrote:

   ...

> Secondly,unlike the circuit, my system is causal. The recieved signal in my
> system arrives after the signal is transmitted. It just travels faster than
> light. 

Andor's circuit can be built from real parts. How could it not be causal?

> Thirdly, the negative group delay in the circuit was accomplished by using
> feedback which does not exist in my system.

Negative group delay is just that, no matter how produced. Test your 
system with real transients.

> Information (modulations) are clearly transmitted using narrowband AM radio
> communication, just listen to an AM radio. The simulation I presented
> simply shows that random AM modulations arrive undistorted across space, in
> the nearfield, earlier than a light speed propagated signal.

You don't seem to know what "random" really means. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness might help.

> Signal purturbations can not be used to measure the signal propagation in
> the nearfield because they distort in the nearfield, and group speed has no
> meaning if the signal distorts as it propagates. 

True randomness guarantees perturbations.

> William

Jerry
-- 
Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what
nobody has thought.    .. Albert Szent-Gyorgi
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

steveu wrote:

>     ... only one person here doesn't seem to grasp
> that this ain't gonna happen.

It was the subject of his thesis and he passed his defence, so it must 
be valid. Isn't that how it goes?

Jerry
-- 
Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what
nobody has thought.    .. Albert Szent-Gyorgi
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On 3/23/2010 9:02 PM, Jerry Avins wrote:
> steveu wrote:
>
>> ... only one person here doesn't seem to grasp
>> that this ain't gonna happen.
>
> It was the subject of his thesis and he passed his defence, so it must
> be valid. Isn't that how it goes?
>
> Jerry

I'm struggling to believe that this is true.   That's a pretty sad 
indictment of that institution if this got by a PhD committee.

I suspect there's more to this story.  There's a number of things that 
don't make sense here, beyond the obvious claims.

-- 
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com

Eric,

There is fundamental difference between a phase shift caused by a filter
and a time delay caused by wave propagation across a region of space. The
Op Amp filter circuit is simply phase shifting the harmonic components of
the signal such that the overall signal appears like it has arrived before
it was transmitted. The circuit is not really predicting the signal it is
only phase shifting it.

In my system, the time delay of the signal is completely due to wave
propagation across space. It is not a filter.

The simulation I presented simply shows the time delay of the modulation of
an AM signal transmission between two nearfield dipole antennas. If you
zoom in one can see that the modulations arrive earlier than a light
propagated signal. 

This is not phase velocity, this is group velocity i.e. time delay of the
envelope.

William




>On 3/23/2010 6:06 PM, WWalker wrote:
>> Eric,
>>
>> Interesting article, but I don't see how it applies to my system. The
>> system described in the paper is a bandpass filter in a feedback loop,
>> where the bandpass filter phase function is altered by the feedback.
The
>> feedback forces the endpoints of the phase to zero, creating regions of
>> possitive slope, which yield negative group delays for narrow band
signals.
>> This causes narrow band signals at the output of the circuit appear to
>> arrive earlier than signals at the input of the circuit. Because the
>> information in the signals is slightly redundant, the circuit is able
to
>> reconstruct future parts of the signal from the present part of the
>> signal.
>
>Snipped context to allow bottom-posting.
>
>Feedback is not necessary to produce negative group delay.   Here's 
>another example with a passive notch filter that exhibits negative group 
>delay.
>
>http://www.radiolab.com.au/DesignFile/DN004.pdf
>
>It doesn't matter what's inside a black box if it has a negative group 
>delay characteristic if the transfer function is LTI.   Whether there's 
>feedback or not in the implementation is inconsequential.   Consider 
>that the passive notch filter could also be implemented as an active 
>circuit with feedback, and if the transfer functions are equivalent they 
>are functionally equivalent.   This is fundamental.  I don't think the 
>feedback has anything to do with it.
>
>You're argument on the redundancy, though, is spot-on.   Note that, as 
>others have already pointed out multiple times, the signals you're using 
>in your experiment are HIGHLY redundant, so much so that they carry 
>almost no information.   These signals are therefore not suitable for 
>proving anything about information propagation.
>
>
>> First of all, this is a circuit which alters the phase function with
>> respect to time and not space, as it is in my system. The phase function
in
>> the circuit is not due to wave propagaton, where mine is.
>
>As far as I've been able to tell, your evidence is based on a 
>simulation, in which case dimensionalities are abstractions.   You are 
>not performing anything in either time or space, you're performing a 
>numerical simulation.  Space-time transforms are not at all unusual and 
>it is likely that a substitution is easily performed.  Nothing has 
>propagated in your simulation in either time or space.
>
>> Secondly,unlike the circuit, my system is causal. The recieved signal in
my
>> system arrives after the signal is transmitted. It just travels faster
than
>> light.
>
>Uh, the circuit is causal.  That was the point.
>
>You have not demonstrated that your system is causal or not causal. 
>That cannot be concluded using the waveforms you show in your paper due 
>to the high determinism and narrow band characteristics.
>
>> Thirdly, the negative group delay in the circuit was accomplished by
using
>> feedback which does not exist in my system.
>
>As I stated above, this is inconsequential.
>
>
>> Information (modulations) are clearly transmitted using narrowband AM
radio
>> communication, just listen to an AM radio. The simulation I presented
>> simply shows that random AM modulations arrive undistorted across space,
in
>> the nearfield, earlier than a light speed propagated signal.
>
>Your simulation does not demonstrate that.  Turn the signal off, even at 
>a zero crossing if you want to minimize perturbations, and see what
happens.
>
>> Signal purturbations can not be used to measure the signal propagation
in
>> the nearfield because they distort in the nearfield, and group speed has
no
>> meaning if the signal distorts as it propagates.
>>
>> William
>
>If you cannot use a perturbation (i.e., information transmission) to 
>measure signal propagation then you cannot demonstrate the speed of 
>information propagation.   Until you can actually demonstrate something 
>other than phase velocity (which is NOT information transmission and 
>many here have acknowledged can be faster than c, as do I), then you 
>cannot make the conclusions that you are claiming.
>
>
>-- 
>Eric Jacobsen
>Minister of Algorithms
>Abineau Communications
>http://www.abineau.com
>