| General > General Technical Chat |
| "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ? |
| << < (287/396) > >> |
| penfold:
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 01, 2022, 01:49:34 am --- --- Quote ---[...] Do you know what "permittivity" means? --- End quote --- No, but i doubt that anyone knows what permittivity means. Firstly u would have to know what permittivity is. In other words u would have to know what causes permittivity. Obviously it has to do with the aether. [...] --- End quote --- Before we get bogged down with "what permittivity means", what does "electricity" mean? "Electricity" is a bit of a strange concept, to say that "the electricity flows at a rate" is a weak statement. In terms of observable quantities, electric field, magnetic field, and current, constitute "electricity", they are all inter-related. It is also the meeting point of several interpretations of nature, where electrons must be considered both as discrete particles and a continuous flux (J component of Maxwell), on a nano-scale some effects described by quantum theories are evident, and at the larger scale observations follow a mostly Maxwellian behaviour. In either case, there are defined relationships between all the quantities that agree with all those theories. Just some involve properties that don't have an effect at other scales and some properties that are otherwise embodied by the model and are apparently ignored and higher or lower levels. Electronicians typically refer to the propagation of a signal when quantifying a rate of propagation. The signal would typically be a voltage, but measurement of that voltage is, at least, difficult to do without drawing some current, that current is a burden and requires that to simply measure a voltage, some current must flow. So, in anything other than an abstract thought experiment, measurement instruments cannot be an after-thought and must be part of "the experiment" (the physical collection of stuff that we intend to analyse). Modern test equipment is less burdensome, but you have to think about how their connections and the effect that will have on the measurement, oscilloscopes with "earthed" ground clips are a prime example. Most common voltage and current measurement instruments have a "resistance" at the input, which immediately puts a known relationship between the voltage and current, there is a unique relationship between I,V,R (under most circumstances, knowing any two gives the third, a common interpretation of Ohm's law) - additionally, we have a law whereby the thermal/Ohmic losses have been observed to follow a unique relationship between P,I,V P,I,R and P,V,R. Poynting showed that the relationship between electric and magnetic fields AND ohmic losses was a theorem of the Maxwell equations when assumed axiomatic. So... the flow of power is a good candidate. Poynting is inescapable, the conclusion in this thread has been that when it is appropriately calculated and all facets of the "experiment" are considered, it is indeed true and valid... which is good because it has been proven as a unique theorem relating the flows of ohmic, stored and E-cross-B interpretations of energy. The hardest (my opinion only in rigger, existence is indisputable) evidence of drift velocity has been its agreement with special relativity interpretations of magnetism and the more global observations of special relativity - but it agrees also with non-relativistic analysis (just maybe the mean path length, velocity, collision time etc don't get a unique solution there). The relationship between the momentum of electrons and how the fields behave around them is a key part of the delay in energy transfer and the evolution of fields between steady-state conditions. The propagation of a voltage along a wire, what are we observing? The E-field, the current, the B-field or power (E-cross-H, I*V, V^2/R etc)? In terms of time, there may be dispersive effects and generally, the signal entering will not be exactly what we put in, so what properties of the signals define the time? If we measure the energy we have input'ed to the system and the energy we get out, we see an interesting property. There will be a time where there has been no energy output'ed and some energy input'ed, if we wait a while and stop inputting to the system, there will still be some energy output'ed with none input'ed. From that, we infer that energy is stored in the system and that is well validated by measurements. Comparison of the profile of energy input and energy output from a zoomed-out perspective will just look shifted in time (ignoring losses etc for the moment) so we can infer that there is a delay between energy entering and leaving at two points. That is all well predicted by Maxwell's equations. The properties of dielectric mediums are embodied in the permittivity term and have a calculatable and measurable effect on the system. So, you want to view the E-cross-H, S, field as constituted by photons? Sure, why not, but what properties are we installing in these S-tons (new name to show I'm talking about E-cross-H)? The Poynting S-field would do some interesting dynamic things like dive in and out of the surface when electrons change momentum, more like dolphins than kangaroos. But what evidence is there to say that field behaves more like a lot of quanta than a continuous field? I guess the idea of a circulating "photon" comes from reciprocity with a circulating electron producing something photon like... any comments? |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: penfold on March 01, 2022, 09:46:54 am --- --- Quote from: aetherist on March 01, 2022, 01:49:34 am --- --- Quote ---[...]Do you know what "permittivity" means? --- End quote --- No, but i doubt that anyone knows what permittivity means. Firstly u would have to know what permittivity is. In other words u would have to know what causes permittivity. Obviously it has to do with the aether.[...] --- End quote --- Before we get bogged down with "what permittivity means", what does "electricity" mean? "Electricity" is a bit of a strange concept, to say that "the electricity flows at a rate" is a weak statement. In terms of observable quantities, electric field, magnetic field, and current, constitute "electricity", they are all inter-related. It is also the meeting point of several interpretations of nature, where electrons must be considered both as discrete particles and a continuous flux (J component of Maxwell), on a nano-scale some effects described by quantum theories are evident, and at the larger scale observations follow a mostly Maxwellian behaviour. In either case, there are defined relationships between all the quantities that agree with all those theories. Just some involve properties that don't have an effect at other scales and some properties that are otherwise embodied by the model and are apparently ignored and higher or lower levels. --- End quote --- Permittivity to me is a sign of failure. Constants are a sign of failure. Except i suppose constants needed to make the units work ok. But permittivity is a non-constant constant – a double failure. Fields are usually to do with forces, force fields. A field might also describe what we see, rather than a force, we might see the occurrence of something, or a length or speed or colour, & we can measure it, & give it a number(s), & plot it on paper or in 3D, & we might draw lines or contours or colours to help make some sense of it. We might invent models & equations to describe it and to help predict things & to aid design of gadgets. After a while we forget what is a model & what is an equation &what is a drawing & we start to treat some things as having a real existence or some clever meaning. We miss out on finding fields for things we can't see, or forces that we have not yet imagined, or have imagined but have not yet found a way to measure. And in the meantime reality & the truth are getting further away. Especially when the ignorant masses get tribal & fight to the death to protect their dogma. Our notions of the meanings or causes of electricity along a wire fail in every way. We don’t know much, & we don’t agree on what we do or don’t know. Where does the energy reside. How does it move. How is the force of the energy transmitted. We have various notions of where the energy exists (is it in the wire, in conduction electrons)(or on the wire)(or in the space, in the em radiation). Do conduction electrons drift along, does drift add to electricity or is drift because of electricity & is merely a waste of energy. Is the energy or power in the Poynting Vectors, ie are they real. Does drawing Poynting Vectors help us to predict, or are they useless (like entropy & enthalpy)(what i call enthaltropy). Some of us are followers of Heaviside & believe that electricity is an E×H slab of energy current, a transvers em wave, in the space surrounding the wires. Slab meaning that there is no rolling E to H to E etc throbbing, the E×H are both fixed & in the ratio 377 to 1. And electron drift if it exists is merely a waste of energy. Some of us believe that electricity is in the E×H Poynting Vectors surrounding the wires, & that the E part mobilises conduction electrons, & the drift of conduction electrons introduces the magnetic field (the H part) back into the Poynting Vectors, by virtue of the charge gained due to the length contraction of inter electron gaps suffered by the drifting conduction electrons based on their average drift speed when that speed is treated as a relative speed that can be inserted into Einstein's gamma in his equation for length contraction in his Special Theory of Relativity. Tell me if i am wrong, but wouldn’t that relativistic explanation for the magnetic field mean that if the wire was double the thickness then the same amperage would give a magnetic field with a quarter the strength. And, if on the other hand the wire was a half of the thickness then the same amperage would give a magnetic field with four times the strength. Is that in accord with the laws? But there are more versions of electricity than there are electronicians. My new (electon) electricity says that the energy is partly in the main body of the photons (electons) hugging the wire, & partly in the em radiation emitted by the electons. The energy is carried by each electon as it propagates along the wire at the speed of light, & the energy is continuously emitted via its em radiation, which radiates out from in effect a static point on the wire, & that outwards em radiation radiates outwards from the wire at the speed of light. And there are no relativistic effects needed. An electon has infinite energy, what i mean is that it lives for eternity (sort of), & emits em radiation continuously. The aether feeds the electon with energy, continuously. Hence electons, indeed all photons, violate conservation during every second of their existence. This is a property of the aether. Indeed there are other instances of such violation of conservation of energy, all of which are ignored by what we call modern science. Electons on the negative plate of a capacitor propagate for ever (almost), in every direction, their dielectric fields adding, & their magnetic fields cancelling, thusly giving the impression of there being static charge, & zero magnetic field. But the magnetic field is not zero, it is nett zero, the magnetic fields cancel, they don’t annihilate. --- Quote from: penfold on March 01, 2022, 09:46:54 am ---Electronicians typically refer to the propagation of a signal when quantifying a rate of propagation. The signal would typically be a voltage, but measurement of that voltage is, at least, difficult to do without drawing some current, that current is a burden and requires that to simply measure a voltage, some current must flow. So, in anything other than an abstract thought experiment, measurement instruments cannot be an after-thought and must be part of "the experiment" (the physical collection of stuff that we intend to analyse). Modern test equipment is less burdensome, but you have to think about how their connections and the effect that will have on the measurement, oscilloscopes with "earthed" ground clips are a prime example. Most common voltage and current measurement instruments have a "resistance" at the input, which immediately puts a known relationship between the voltage and current, there is a unique relationship between I,V,R (under most circumstances, knowing any two gives the third, a common interpretation of Ohm's law) - additionally, we have a law whereby the thermal/Ohmic losses have been observed to follow a unique relationship between P,I,V P,I,R and P,V,R. Poynting showed that the relationship between electric and magnetic fields AND ohmic losses was a theorem of the Maxwell equations when assumed axiomatic. So... the flow of power is a good candidate. --- End quote --- Electons produce an Ohmic loss, probably by losing energy to the copper atoms in the wire, via the excitation of the conduction electrons inside the wire, & via the bumping of the free surface electrons on the wire. The mystery to me is how do electons find the energy to heat the wire. It must come from the aether. We know that aether continuously feeds energy to photons, so that photons can radiate continuously. The heating of the wire must come from the radiation (already) emitted by the photon, ie the heating duznt steal from the photon proper (photons have a helical central body). I think that the heating of the wire duz not slow the electon. What i mean is that heating the wire needs a force, but that force i think duz not retard the speed of the electon. An electon hugging a wire in vacuum has the same speed as a photon propagating through space. With the exception that all light (ie all photons)(ie including electons) is slowed by the presence of any mass nearby. Hence an electon being (by definition) near the wire must suffer a slight slowing. Indeed that slowing is moreso on the nearside to the wire, which is why the electon wants to bend in to the wire, which results in the electon following the wire, which i call hugging. But if the wire has a sharp bend then the electon can escape from the surface, perhaps falling back later, a kind of hopping, & while off the surface the electon is possibly a photon again. But perhaps the electon duznt fall back, perhaps it escapes, & then remains a photon. If it then happens to collide with the wire, will it reflect, or will it stick to the wire, & revert to being an electon. Which raises the question, how far can an electon hop away from a wire before it refuses to stick back onto the wire. Still thinking. --- Quote from: penfold on March 01, 2022, 09:46:54 am ---Poynting is inescapable, the conclusion in this thread has been that when it is appropriately calculated and all facets of the "experiment" are considered, it is indeed true and valid... which is good because it has been proven as a unique theorem relating the flows of ohmic, stored and E-cross-B interpretations of energy. The hardest (my opinion only in rigger, existence is indisputable) evidence of drift velocity has been its agreement with special relativity interpretations of magnetism and the more global observations of special relativity - but it agrees also with non-relativistic analysis (just maybe the mean path length, velocity, collision time etc don't get a unique solution there). The relationship between the momentum of electrons and how the fields behave around them is a key part of the delay in energy transfer and the evolution of fields between steady-state conditions. --- End quote --- I have already mentioned one way that STR fails when explaining the electron drift nature of the magnetic field. There might be ten ways it fails. I will add another. It is not permissible to use the average electron drift for the velocity in the equation for gamma. The V in gamma is the relative speed, not the average relative drift speed. The relative speed of an electron must include its vibrational speed while it is say static in its lattice. Or, if it is orbiting, then its V includes its orbital speed. At room temperature no electron in a wire has a V of 0.1 mm/s, they are all moving a million times faster, albeit in different directions. --- Quote from: penfold on March 01, 2022, 09:46:54 am ---The propagation of a voltage along a wire, what are we observing? The E-field, the current, the B-field or power (E-cross-H, I*V, V^2/R etc)? In terms of time, there may be dispersive effects and generally, the signal entering will not be exactly what we put in, so what properties of the signals define the time? If we measure the energy we have input'ed to the system and the energy we get out, we see an interesting property. There will be a time where there has been no energy output'ed and some energy input'ed, if we wait a while and stop inputting to the system, there will still be some energy output'ed with none input'ed. From that, we infer that energy is stored in the system and that is well validated by measurements. Comparison of the profile of energy input and energy output from a zoomed-out perspective will just look shifted in time (ignoring losses etc for the moment) so we can infer that there is a delay between energy entering and leaving at two points. That is all well predicted by Maxwell's equations. The properties of dielectric mediums are embodied in the permittivity term and have a calculatable and measurable effect on the system. --- End quote --- Lumped element TL models are a bit silly. The Ohmic description of TL impedance is a bit silly. The input of electric energy into a system is the energy needed to create electons & to place them onto a wire. The energy to create electons is merely the energy needed to convert electrons to electons. Once the electons are created they get their energy from the aether, automatically, all the time, for ever. This is almost a case of having free energy. Actually, when the electon was an electron (a confined photon), it too got its energy from the aether, all the time. All photons do that, all the time. The say battery feeds the wire with electons, until the (surface of the) wire is saturated, & will take no more electons, at which time the feeding of energy stops. Or, more commonly, the electricity on the wire will reach a steady state, with the battery feeding energy (electons) into the wire at a steady rate. The energy stored in the system is in the electons, plus i suppose the heat in the wires. The radiated em radiation can't be counted as stored energy, it has escaped, & can do work in the far field, but can't be regained. Except that if the em radiation is in the form of em radiation in a coil then some of it can be regained as we all know. And the energy in a capacitor can be regained. No, wait, both of those are examples of the regaining of electons, not the regaining of the energy of the already emitted em radiations (not sure). I don’t see that Maxwell's equations (ie Heaviside's 4 equations) predict anything about the delay of electricity, or the delay in any transients etc whatsoever. I think that they describe steady state electricity, not transients, not delays. --- Quote from: penfold on March 01, 2022, 09:46:54 am ---So, you want to view the E-cross-H, S, field as constituted by photons? Sure, why not, but what properties are we installing in these S-tons (new name to show I'm talking about E-cross-H)? The Poynting S-field would do some interesting dynamic things like dive in and out of the surface when electrons change momentum, more like dolphins than kangaroos. But what evidence is there to say that field behaves more like a lot of quanta than a continuous field? --- End quote --- I say that radio waves are em radiation, & that em radiation is not photons, & that photons are not em radiation. EM radiation is emitted by photons, em radiation is if u like a part of a photon(s). EM fields do behave like lots of quanta, because em fields come from photons, ie each photon has a field. A photon's field starts at the photon, & radiates out to infinity for ever. The field itself is made of lots of mini-photons if u like. A mini-photon is rooted to a point on the central helix of the photon. When the tail end of the photon passes the mini-photon the mini-photon loses its connection to the central helix & it then follows the head of the mini-photon, ie it becomes the tail of the mini-photon, propagating out into space for eternity (almost). The free (em) mini-photon has its own (em) mass & its own (em) energy. It might even be helical, ie like its mum. An electron, a photon that has bitten its own tail, has no tail end. Its mini-photons do not detach. They remain attached for ever. When an electron moves (through the aether) it has to drag all of its mini-photons with it, because they don’t ever detach. That there dragging (ie sideways) is the key to the cause of the magnetic field. A static dielectric field (or electric field if u like) gives us charge. A dragged dielectric field (dragged sideways) gives us the magnetic field (but this is a work in progress)(still thinking). Anyhow, the Poynting Field at every point in space around a circuit is the big-S sum of all of the mini-s Poynting Field vectors. A mini-s vector is the vector product of the mini-E field & the mini-M field from each photon (ie every photon electon & electron) in the circuit. We can if we like draw lines of big-S but i don’t see how that helps anything. Anyhow, big-S fields do not exist, & mini-s fields do not exist, they exist in mathland. We can draw lines of nett dielectric field starting at (say positive) charges & ending at (negative) charges, & these might help our thinking, but nett fields only exist in mathland. Some might say that all fields only exist in mathland. All the more complicated when u realize that there is a 500 km/s aetherwind. --- Quote from: penfold on March 01, 2022, 09:46:54 am ---I guess the idea of a circulating "photon" comes from reciprocity with a circulating electron producing something photon like... any comments? --- End quote --- I wonder what electricity would be like if it were due to drifting electrons. The speed of propagation of the electricity would be the speed of the wavefront of the electron to electron bumping, say 10 m/s for DC. Computers would take 57 years to do something that should take 1 second. Free surface electrons might flow at c/1000, instead of the 0.1 mm/s of the drifting electrons. But the idea of electons hugging wires comes from the need for electricity to propagate at c/1 on bare wire & 2c/3 on insulated wire. |
| TimFox:
"Early atomic clocks had a quartz crystal in their circuitry. Are u sure that there are some moderner versions that dont have quartz? Anyhow, if an atomic clock has quartz, then there is a chance that the aetherwind can have a similar ticking dilation effect as for a plain quartz clock." Yes, atomic clocks contain control circuitry that includes quartz crystals, copper conductors for electron current, capacitors with displacement current coursing through them, semiconductors that exploit quantum mechanics, and other results of 20th-century electronic engineering from physical principles. What makes them "atomic" is that the frequency from which the time outputs are derived is that of a specific transition between atomic energy levels (in the microwave range) of cesium, analogous to the two yellow wavelengths found in transitions between levels in sodium atoms. The control circuitry locks the various internal generators to that transition frequency, independent of physical dimensions of the apparatus. This interesting article from the Hewlett-Packard fan club shows the original -hp- 5060A configured for traveling. Later in the article, the 5060A is posed next to larger laboratory units. https://www.hpmemoryproject.org/news/flying_clock/celebration_01.htm The 5060 series was introduced in 1964, and the cesium clocks are now a mature technology. You can find further details on the web, should you care to see what you are talking about. The 1977 popular article cited in that reference, https://www.hpmemoryproject.org/timeline/alan_bagley/measure_77-04.htm discusses the details of a later time dilation experiment using specially ruggedized versions of the basic instrument to avoid potential practical problems (vibration, etc.) in the original 1971 experiment. The final cesium clock model from -hp-/Agilent/Keysight, the 5071A, was spun off to Symmetricom (now Microsemi) in 2005. https://www.microsemi.com/product-directory/clocks-frequency-references/3832-cesium-frequency-references It is still available, yet expensive. You can find used 5060A units on eBay. |
| penfold:
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 01, 2022, 02:40:42 pm ---[...] But there are more versions of electricity than there are electronicians. [...] Indeed that slowing is moreso on the nearside to the wire, which is why the electon wants to bend in to the wire, which results in the electon following the wire, which i call hugging. [...] --- End quote --- As the lengths of these posts is climbing, I'm going to struggle even more to relevantly comment without misinterpreting, and all this sitting on the fence is hurting my behind... I'm gonna have to call it a day after this. I've enjoyed the debate, but it has been a long away off-topic for long enough and the powers that be have been more than generous by allowing it to continue - I hope that's because there is a glimmer of value, somewhere deep. Last post from me... I promise. I cherry-picked the two points in the quote above, because, yes, I'm sure I commented earlier that electronics, electricity, EM etc does bring together some rather distinct areas of physics with different interpretations of what's going on. The take-away from that really shouldn't be that they necessarily disagree, but theories and models have differing applications, as a practitioner of electronarianism, calculating the power delivered from a battery to a bulb, I will not be evaluating 10^32 wave-functions or calculating fields unless I need to, Poynting says that Kirchoff agrees with Ohm, so I'm happy. If the timing is critical to the ns, yeah, I'll solve for fields, and I'll charge my client accordingly and justify it because of the pesky imaginary terms in Poynting. Neither solution invalidates the other, I am just accepting the approximation and ignorance of the transients of one for its immense efficiency, likewise, with a lumped transmission line, it is immensely more numerically efficient when compared with a full Maxwell solution - doesn't apply to all applications but it is my choice to make the trade-off between accuracy and speed - if measurement and observation disagree enough, I'll rethink... hence the original theme of this thread, a lumped model plus an appreciation of minimum speed-of-light delay is a far more practical method to approach the experiment, Poynting produces a universally valid answer but may require 10^10 more multiplications. (SandyCox vs official statement of Poynting not discounted) The second point was really where I struggled, a diagram would have been nice because I can't follow what's hugging what and whether hugging is essential and when it's allowed to make a jump. There is a conventional physics problem with the photon chasing its own tail and why it isn't a stable existence IIRC... is it the observed magnetic moment and quantum spin? But yeah, I can't keep track of all those words, it's pushing the limits of the thread and my reluctance to type-set maths and the contents of my brain too far. On the plus side, I do see where you're coming from with the screw thread concept better now, (did I mention that it sounded interesting because I can't imagine what the B field would look like... I meant to, maybe forgot)... I think it would look very interesting with regard to electon flow but wouldn't discredit a Maxwell/Poynting solution. Thanks for the debate, you've out-worded me! |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: penfold on March 01, 2022, 05:30:25 pm --- --- Quote from: aetherist on March 01, 2022, 02:40:42 pm ---[...]But there are more versions of electricity than there are electronicians.[...] Indeed that slowing is moreso on the nearside to the wire, which is why the electon wants to bend in to the wire, which results in the electon following the wire, which i call hugging. [...] --- End quote --- As the lengths of these posts is climbing, I'm going to struggle even more to relevantly comment without misinterpreting, and all this sitting on the fence is hurting my behind... I'm gonna have to call it a day after this. I've enjoyed the debate, but it has been a long away off-topic for long enough and the powers that be have been more than generous by allowing it to continue - I hope that's because there is a glimmer of value, somewhere deep. Last post from me... I promise. I cherry-picked the two points in the quote above, because, yes, I'm sure I commented earlier that electronics, electricity, EM etc does bring together some rather distinct areas of physics with different interpretations of what's going on. The take-away from that really shouldn't be that they necessarily disagree, but theories and models have differing applications, as a practitioner of electronarianism, calculating the power delivered from a battery to a bulb, I will not be evaluating 10^32 wave-functions or calculating fields unless I need to, Poynting says that Kirchoff agrees with Ohm, so I'm happy. If the timing is critical to the ns, yeah, I'll solve for fields, and I'll charge my client accordingly and justify it because of the pesky imaginary terms in Poynting. Neither solution invalidates the other, I am just accepting the approximation and ignorance of the transients of one for its immense efficiency, likewise, with a lumped transmission line, it is immensely more numerically efficient when compared with a full Maxwell solution - doesn't apply to all applications but it is my choice to make the trade-off between accuracy and speed - if measurement and observation disagree enough, I'll rethink... hence the original theme of this thread, a lumped model plus an appreciation of minimum speed-of-light delay is a far more practical method to approach the experiment, Poynting produces a universally valid answer but may require 10^10 more multiplications. (SandyCox vs official statement of Poynting not discounted) The second point was really where I struggled, a diagram would have been nice because I can't follow what's hugging what and whether hugging is essential and when it's allowed to make a jump. There is a conventional physics problem with the photon chasing its own tail and why it isn't a stable existence IIRC... is it the observed magnetic moment and quantum spin? But yeah, I can't keep track of all those words, it's pushing the limits of the thread and my reluctance to type-set maths and the contents of my brain too far. On the plus side, I do see where you're coming from with the screw thread concept better now, (did I mention that it sounded interesting because I can't imagine what the B field would look like... I meant to, maybe forgot)... I think it would look very interesting with regard to electon flow but wouldn't discredit a Maxwell/Poynting solution. Thanks for the debate, you've out-worded me! --- End quote --- Yes the administrators have been kind. Electons could/should have their own thread, but they are not irrelevant to this thread. I have had some further thinx re my screwthread X. I will start a new thread. When i came here i paid for an argument (i didn’t pay for abuse), to both learn & teach, while helping to explain the Veritasium gedanken, & the AlphaPhoenix X pt1, & i reckon that i have gotten my money's worth. In the meantime while waiting for AlphaPhoenix X pt2 we had a quasi-diversion re aether & Einstein. But i am starting to think that the AlphaPhoenix X pt2 aint coming. Still, the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 did partly answer the Veritasium gedanken. There is an anomalous (for me anyhow)(not for folk around here) early significant signal, ie before the main signal arrives. And, the Howardlong X told us that (e)(ie 1/c) was indeed correct. Alltho there is a small say 20 ns hiatus tween the Howardlong X (which shows us the first say 10 ns from 00 ns to 10 ns, & the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 which duznt clearly show us much before about 30 ns but shows from say 30 ns to 3000 ns. That greyish 20 ns zone could be eliminated if Howardlong zoomed out (he used i think a 650 ps pulse), &/or if AlphaPhoenix zoomed in (he used a step)(but we don’t know the rise time of the leading edge of his step). But i doubt that the grey zone would have any surprises. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |