How to get envelope from AM signal without phase shift

Rune,

Critisisms about where the research was done are irrelevant to the
discussion and pointless. Lets discuss the ideas. They are the only thing
that matter in this discussion.  

William

>On 23 Mar, 02:16, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Randy Yates wrote:
>> > Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> writes:
>>
>> >>[...]
>> >>I can guarantee that you will find that the transients
>> >>propagate down range with a speed exactly equal to c.
>>
>> > <chuckle>
>>
>> It looks like there is more and more of them every day.
>> Scarry.
>
>I don't know if you have looked at the paper he has referred
>to a couple of times. He claims that he at some time was
>affiliated with NTNU. I am not at all surprised - this kind
>of stuff is just what I would expect from that place.
>
>Once upon a time I asked what the procedure is to hand back
>my PhD diplomas etc, as I didn't want more affiliations with
>them than absolutely necessary. Cut as many ties as possible.
>
>It turned out there were no such procedures. So one needs to
>be acutely cautious about whose company one seeks - their stain
>might last a lifetime.
>
>Rune
>

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

William


>On 3/22/2010 5:12 PM, WWalker wrote:
>> I dissagree.
>>
>> Simulation results show that if you add two signals with different
>> frequencies and differnt amplitudes, the resultant signal changes in a
>> random way as far as a detector is concerned. If the signal is
modulated
>> with a carrier and transmitted by a dipole antenna to another dipole
>> antenna in the nearfield, the envelope of the received signal arrives
>> undistorted, faster than light. This is because for a narrowband AM
signal,
>> the dispersion curve (phase and amplitude) is linear over the bandwidth
of
>> the signal. Provided the SNR is high enough, the random modulation
>> information can then be decoded by dividing by the carrier. Comparing
the
>> transmitted modulation to the received modulation clearly shows that
the
>> modulation propagates undistorted, faster than light in the nearfield.
>>
>> But if a pulse is transmitted in the nearfield the pulse will distort
>> because the dispersion curve (phase and amplitude) is not linear over
the
>> bandwidth of the signal, so group speed has no meaning in the
nearfield.
>> But in the farfield, the pulse will realign and propagate without
>> distortion at the speed of light, so the pulse group speed only has
meaning
>> in the farfield.
>>
>> William
>
>Mixing top and bottom posting is very bad form and makes your responses 
>difficult to read, or at least very difficult to sort out the logic 
>train you're responding to.
>
>So what carries the information faster than light?  Clearly it can't be 
>an EM photon, since they're inherently limited to c.   If it's not via 
>EM photons, how does the energy get from the transmit to the receive 
>antenna?
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> On 22 Mar, 22:43, "WWalker"<william.walker@n_o_s_p_a_m.imtek.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Rune,
>>>>
>>>> What ever the the reason for this phenomina, given the known and
>> excepted
>>>> transfer function of a dipole source, It should be possible to
transmit
>>>> information faster than light by transmitting an AM signal in the
>> nearfield
>>>> and decoding the modulation. Simmulations clearly show that the
envelope
>> of
>>>> an AM signal will arrive faster than light and undistorted in the
>>>> nearfield. What is needed now is to find a way to decode the
modulation
>>>> within a fraction of (<1/10) a carrier cycle.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> Your simulations use fixed-parameter sinusoidals and have
>>> as such nothing to do with information, only steady states.
>>> Everything is known all the time; there is nothing new to
>>> be learned from observing the wave field. Hence, no
>>> information is transmitted.
>>>
>>> If you want to transmit *information*, you need to change
>>> something in the wavefield: The amplitude, the frequency
>>> or the phase. Something that is not known, that the reciever
>>> has to lock on to, detect and quantify. It is this *transient*
>>> change to an *unknown* state that carries the information down
>>> range between transmitter and reciever.
>>>
>>> I can guarantee that you will find that the transients
>>> propagate down range with a speed exactly equal to c.
>>>
>>> Rune
>>>
>
>
>-- 
>Eric Jacobsen
>Minister of Algorithms
>Abineau Communications
>http://www.abineau.com
>

On 23 Mar, 11:53, "WWalker" <william.walker@n_o_s_p_a_m.imtek.de>
wrote:
> Rune,
>
> Critisisms about where the research was done are irrelevant to the
> discussion and pointless.

It is relevant in two respects:

- Once you claim affiliations with an institution, you
  also claim to represent the institution.
- You as student is subjected to the standards of the
  institution where you do your work. What you have
  presented in this thread is totally consistent with
  the standards of NTNU.

> Lets discuss the ideas. They are the only thing
> that matter in this discussion. &#4294967295;

There are no ideas. Only misconceptions at a level
where you ought not to have been admitted to a technical
university at all (except, of course, for NTNU) and
sloppy investigations where you consistently and, for
all I know, deliberately disregard the actual explanations
of what you observe.

Rune

Rune,

No one is interested in your emotional rantings. If you have something
intelligent to say about the system in discussion then lets talk. But
support your ideas with logic. I have given you logical arguments
supporting the superluminal conclusion, which ones can you prove are wrong.
If you can't then be quiet. Emotional rantings only make you look foolish.

William 




>On 23 Mar, 11:53, "WWalker" <william.walker@n_o_s_p_a_m.imtek.de>
>wrote:
>> Rune,
>>
>> Critisisms about where the research was done are irrelevant to the
>> discussion and pointless.
>
>It is relevant in two respects:
>
>- Once you claim affiliations with an institution, you
>  also claim to represent the institution.
>- You as student is subjected to the standards of the
>  institution where you do your work. What you have
>  presented in this thread is totally consistent with
>  the standards of NTNU.
>
>> Lets discuss the ideas. They are the only thing
>> that matter in this discussion. =A0
>
>There are no ideas. Only misconceptions at a level
>where you ought not to have been admitted to a technical
>university at all (except, of course, for NTNU) and
>sloppy investigations where you consistently and, for
>all I know, deliberately disregard the actual explanations
>of what you observe.
>
>Rune
>

On 23 Mar, 13:40, "WWalker" <william.walker@n_o_s_p_a_m.imtek.de>
wrote:
> Rune,
>
> No one is interested in your emotional rantings. If you have something
> intelligent to say about the system in discussion then lets talk. But
> support your ideas with logic. I have given you logical arguments
> supporting the superluminal conclusion, which ones can you prove are wrong.

What you have showed in this thread, is that you

1) Consistently fail to use the simplest terminology
   wrt to wave propagation
2) Do not have the faintest clue about data analysis
3) Do not know or understand the implications of
   the speed of light as an absolute limit in physics
4) Do not know or understand the basics of dipole
   antennae
5) Do not know or understand how to set up a simulation
6) Do not know or understand how to analyze the data
   from said simulation
7) Do not know or undesrtand how to criticise the results
   of said simulation
8) Do not know or understand the basics of information
   theory

...and those are just the ones I remember off the top
of my head.

As for fools and proofs - well, it's more than a century since
Einstein presented his relativity theory, where the speed of
light is established as a fundamental limit in physics. When I
say that you ought not to have been admitted as a student
to a technical university, it's because anyone who passes a
high-school level class in physics should know this, and
at least stop and think through their own ideas and arguments
once one starts talking about exceeding the speed of light.

You have failed blatantly on that point. So if anyone her is
a fool, it would be you.

Apart from that, it is up to the person that makes the
extraordinary claim to argue in his own support. *If* you
were to be right, it would mean that anything and everything
that is based on Einstein's relativity theory - nuclear
weapons and powerplants, cosmogology, the stuff they do at
CERN - would turn out to be wrong.

By all means - it's up to you to make that claim. Just be
prepared to be asked thay *you* prove that your are right.
It would take a lot more than a mere simulation you don't
know how to do, of stuff you don't know, to convince anyone
outside NTNU.

Rune

>Rune,
>
>No one is interested in your emotional rantings. If you have something
>intelligent to say about the system in discussion then lets talk. But
>support your ideas with logic. I have given you logical arguments
>supporting the superluminal conclusion, which ones can you prove are
wrong.
>If you can't then be quiet. Emotional rantings only make you look
foolish.

You are the one looking foolish up to now. If you want to claim you have
perpetual motion, you need an *exceedingly* powerful argument before anyone
will stop laughing. If you want to claim you have infinite gain bandwidth
product you need an *exceedingly* powerful argument before anyone will stop
laughing. If you want to claim you can carry information faster than light
you need to a) prove that people like Shannon and others were wrong, and
that information and energy are not interchangeable terms, or b) that you
have found a way to carry energy faster than light. So far, all you've done
it describe a variety of things that look like the phantom fast moving
phase effects we all meet quite regularly. When amplitude or phase
manipulation is really carrying information, its because those things are
directly related to real energy manipulation.

Steve

You still have not come up with any intelligent comments refuting my
arguments. Your resort to insults does not help. 

>On 23 Mar, 13:40, "WWalker" <william.walker@n_o_s_p_a_m.imtek.de>
>wrote:
>> Rune,
>>
>> No one is interested in your emotional rantings. If you have something
>> intelligent to say about the system in discussion then lets talk. But
>> support your ideas with logic. I have given you logical arguments
>> supporting the superluminal conclusion, which ones can you prove are
wrong.
>
>What you have showed in this thread, is that you
>
>1) Consistently fail to use the simplest terminology
>   wrt to wave propagation
>2) Do not have the faintest clue about data analysis
>3) Do not know or understand the implications of
>   the speed of light as an absolute limit in physics
>4) Do not know or understand the basics of dipole
>   antennae
>5) Do not know or understand how to set up a simulation
>6) Do not know or understand how to analyze the data
>   from said simulation
>7) Do not know or undesrtand how to criticise the results
>   of said simulation
>8) Do not know or understand the basics of information
>   theory
>
>...and those are just the ones I remember off the top
>of my head.
>
>As for fools and proofs - well, it's more than a century since
>Einstein presented his relativity theory, where the speed of
>light is established as a fundamental limit in physics. When I
>say that you ought not to have been admitted as a student
>to a technical university, it's because anyone who passes a
>high-school level class in physics should know this, and
>at least stop and think through their own ideas and arguments
>once one starts talking about exceeding the speed of light.
>
>You have failed blatantly on that point. So if anyone her is
>a fool, it would be you.
>
>Apart from that, it is up to the person that makes the
>extraordinary claim to argue in his own support. *If* you
>were to be right, it would mean that anything and everything
>that is based on Einstein's relativity theory - nuclear
>weapons and powerplants, cosmogology, the stuff they do at
>CERN - would turn out to be wrong.
>
>By all means - it's up to you to make that claim. Just be
>prepared to be asked thay *you* prove that your are right.
>It would take a lot more than a mere simulation you don't
>know how to do, of stuff you don't know, to convince anyone
>outside NTNU.
>
>Rune
>

On 23 Mar, 16:42, "WWalker" <william.walker@n_o_s_p_a_m.imtek.de>
wrote:
> You still have not come up with any intelligent comments refuting my
> arguments.

There is avery good reasons for that: You have presented
no arguments to refute.

> Your resort to insults does not help.

What insults? I have only listed the factual errors,
blunders and misconceptions you have displayed througout
this thread.

The person(s) you *really* want to chat with are

1) The guy you see in the mirror each morning
2) Whoever might have led you down this path
   in the first place
3) Whoever you might have encountered in your
   work, who did *not* point out the obvious
   to you, as I have done over the last couple
   of days.

The facts remain: You don't have the faintest clue
what you are doing, at any level.

Rune

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

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. 

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. 

The AM signal is then run through the transfer function of a light speed
propagating system [e^(iwr/c)] by adding phase terms (wr/c) to each
harmonic of the signal, where i is the complex number, w is the radial
frequency, r is the distance of field propagation (r=20cm). The envelope of
this light propagated signal is then determined by dividing by a phase
shifted (wr/c) carrier. 

The AM signal is then run through the Magnetic field component transfer
function of an electric dipole antenna with the known transfer function:
[e^(iwr/c)[-kr-i]] by adding phase terms
(wr/c-ArcCos[(-wr/c)/Sqrt[1+(wr/c)^2]]) to each harmonic of the signal. The
envelope of this dipole propagated signal is determined by dividing by a
phase shifted (wr/c-ArcCos[(-wr/c)/Sqrt[1+(wr/c)^2]]) carrier. Plots are
shown for all three signals with their extracted envelopes which align
perfectly with their signal. 

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. 


William

---------Begin Mathematica code (checked on ver 5.2 and ver7)---------

Signal
Sig = (A1*Cos[wm1 t] + A2*Cos[wm2 t] + 3) 2 Cos[wc t]
TrigReduce[Sig]
Carrier = Cos[wc t];
wc = 2 \[Pi] fc; wm1 = 2 \[Pi] fm1; wm2 = 2 \[Pi] fm2;
c = 3*10^8; fc = 500*10^6; fm1 = 50*10^6; fm2 = 
 22.7*10^6; A1 = 1; A2 = 1.7; r = 0.2;
Plot[Sig, {t, 0, 100*10^-9}, PlotPoints -> 300]
Plot[Carrier, {t, 0, 100*10^-9}, PlotPoints -> 300]
Signal Envelope
SigEnv = Sig/Carrier;
Plot[SigEnv, {t, 0, 100*10^-9}, PlotPoints -> 300]
Plot[{Sig, SigEnv}, {t, 0, 100*10^-9}, PlotPoints -> 300]
Light
Light = 6 Cos[t wc - Lth1] + A1 Cos[t wc - t wm1 - Lth2] + 
   A1 Cos[t wc + t wm1 - Lth3] + A2 Cos[t wc - t wm2 - Lth4] + 
   A2 Cos[t wc + t wm2 - Lth5];
Lth1 = 2 \[Pi] fc r/c;
Lth2 = 2 \[Pi] (fc - fm1) r/c;
Lth3 = 2 \[Pi] (fc + fm1) r/c;
Lth4 = 2 \[Pi] (fc - fm2) r/c;
Lth5 = 2 \[Pi] (fc + fm2) r/c;
Plot[Light, {t, 0, 100*10^-9}, PlotPoints -> 300]
Light Envelope
LightEnv = Light/Cos[t wc - Lth1];
Plot[LightEnv, {t, 0, 100*10^-9}, PlotPoints -> 300]
Plot[{Light, LightEnv}, {t, 0, 100*10^-9}, PlotPoints -> 300]
Ant
Ant = 6 Cos[t wc - Antth1] + A1 Cos[t wc - t wm1 - Antth2] + 
   A1 Cos[t wc + t wm1 - Antth3] + A2 Cos[t wc - t wm2 - Antth4] + 
   A2 Cos[t wc + t wm2 - Antth5];
Antth1 = 2 \[Pi] fc r/c - 
   ArcCos[-2 \[Pi] fc r/c/Sqrt[1 + (2 \[Pi] fc r/c)^2]];
Antth2 = 2 \[Pi] (fc - fm1) r/c - 
   ArcCos[-2 \[Pi] (fc - fm1) r/c/
      Sqrt[1 + (2 \[Pi] (fc - fm1) r/c)^2]];
Antth3 = 2 \[Pi] (fc + fm1) r/c - 
   ArcCos[-2 \[Pi] (fc + fm1) r/c/
      Sqrt[1 + (2 \[Pi] (fc + fm1) r/c)^2]];
Antth4 = 2 \[Pi] (fc - fm2) r/c - 
   ArcCos[-2 \[Pi] (fc - fm2) r/c/
      Sqrt[1 + (2 \[Pi] (fc - fm2) r/c)^2]];
Antth5 = 2 \[Pi] (fc + fm2) r/c - 
   ArcCos[-2 \[Pi] (fc + fm2) r/c/
      Sqrt[1 + (2 \[Pi] (fc + fm2) r/c)^2]];
Plot[Ant, {t, 0, 100*10^-9}, PlotPoints -> 300]
Ant Envelope
AntEnv = Ant/Cos[t wc - Antth1];
Plot[AntEnv, {t, 0, 100*10^-9}, PlotPoints -> 300]
Plot[{Ant, AntEnv}, {t, 0, 100*10^-9}, PlotPoints -> 300]
Envelope Plots
Plot[{SigEnv, AntEnv, LightEnv}, {t, 0, 100*10^-9}, 
 PlotStyle -> {RGBColor[1, 0, 0], RGBColor[0, 1, 0], 
   RGBColor[0, 0, 1]}]
Plot[{SigEnv, AntEnv, LightEnv}, {t, 3.5*10^-8, 3.6*10^-8}, 
 AxesOrigin -> {3.5*10^-8, 7}, 
 PlotStyle -> {RGBColor[1, 0, 0], RGBColor[0, 1, 0], 
   RGBColor[0, 0, 1]}]


----------------End Mathematica code------------------------

>>Rune,
>>
>>No one is interested in your emotional rantings. If you have something
>>intelligent to say about the system in discussion then lets talk. But
>>support your ideas with logic. I have given you logical arguments
>>supporting the superluminal conclusion, which ones can you prove are
>wrong.
>>If you can't then be quiet. Emotional rantings only make you look
>foolish.
>
>You are the one looking foolish up to now. If you want to claim you have
>perpetual motion, you need an *exceedingly* powerful argument before
anyone
>will stop laughing. If you want to claim you have infinite gain bandwidth
>product you need an *exceedingly* powerful argument before anyone will
stop
>laughing. If you want to claim you can carry information faster than
light
>you need to a) prove that people like Shannon and others were wrong, and
>that information and energy are not interchangeable terms, or b) that you
>have found a way to carry energy faster than light. So far, all you've
done
>it describe a variety of things that look like the phantom fast moving
>phase effects we all meet quite regularly. When amplitude or phase
>manipulation is really carrying information, its because those things are
>directly related to real energy manipulation.
>
>Steve
>
>