On 3/7/2011 7:04 PM, Jim Lux wrote:
tom wrote:


I have, at another amateur's station, on 432 MHz. Surprisingly the
speed came out almost dead on 300m/microsecond. Used .wav file
recording of transmit and echo and a good sound file editor with
sub-millisecond resolution when zoomed.


Surprisingly?

With implied facetiousness. Should have been more obvious I guess.

10m dish with full legal power, BTW. Very good signal to noise.

tom
K0TAR


You were thinking that propagation might be at some other rate?

the dominant error source in your measurement is probably the sound
card's clock.

For other fun measurements of em propagation speed.. melting the mode
pattern of a microwave oven cooking chamber at 2450 MHz into a single
layer of marshmallows on a plate (turning off the rotating turntable and
mode-stirrer, of course). Chocolate morsels might also work.


Other methods, for visible light, include the spinning toothed wheels of
Fizeau and rotating multifacet prisms of Foucault (later updated by
Michelson)

Interference fringes from a laser, as well.

if one is looking for more "radio" than "light".. look at the doppler
effect from a moving source. The fractional change in frequency is equal
to the velocity/propagation velocity.

If you do something like measure the frequency from, oh, an orbiting
satellite and get the whole "doppler curve" you can figure out the
frequency of the oscillator (it's the frequency at which the second
derivative of measured frequency goes through zero). You can measure the
velocity of the satellite optically (if you pick a satellite which is
visible, like ISS)

"tom" napisal w wiadomosci
. net...
On 3/7/2011 11:27 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Uzytkownik napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Mar 7, 8:17 am, "Szczepan wrote:
" Using such a pulse pattern makes the echo, which arrives back from the
moon 2.4 seconds later". From:http://www.rense.com/general79/haarp.htm

"During the experiment, which was carried out on Oct. 28 and 29, 2007,
the
radar signals from HAARP were at 7.4075 MHz and 9.4075 MHz"

I do not know the distance to Moon on that days but for the mean
distance
384 000 km the speed is:

384 000/2.4 = 320 000 km/s.

Should be 2x384 000/2.4 = 320 000 km/s.

Speed of light is 300 000.

But long waves travel quicker in glass. Would be the same in space?
S*

i'm glad you checked their calculation and found that obvious error...
i guess all the other radar calibrations in the world have to be
changed to account for the bialek speed effect... i wonder if that
would get you out of a radar gun speeding ticket?

Did you communications via Moon?
S*



I have, at another amateur's station, on 432 MHz. Surprisingly the speed
came out almost dead on 300m/microsecond. Used .wav file recording of
transmit and echo and a good sound file editor with sub-millisecond
resolution when zoomed.

I have checked the Moon history and now I know that on Oct. 28 2007 was
"full Moon" at perygeum. So the speed was close to 300m/microsecond.

But I am steel loking for the evidences that the speed of radio waves is
temperature and wave lenght dependant.
S*

"K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Mar 7, 5:22 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
U ytkownik "-.-. --.-" napisa w wiadomo
...



"Szczepan Bialek" ha scritto nel messaggio
.. .

384 000/2.4 = 320 000 km/s.

Speed of light is 300 000.

But long waves travel quicker in glass. Would be the same in space?
S*

No. Maybe I don't understand the complex calculation under your quoted
division by 2.4, but....

You understand. Should be: 2x384 000 = 320 000.



Your "mean distance" have to be doubled: received *back* in 2,4 sec mean
that the signal traveled the double distance.
At minimum distance the moon is 356375 km far from earth. 356375*2 is
712750 km, that at light speed means a travel time of 2,37 sec.

The test was made at "full Moon". ""Even though lunar echoes have been
detected before at higher frequencies, it was really exciting to see them
arrive in real time out under the full moon in the New Mexico desert,"

I do not know the distance. But some radio amateur practice communication
via Moon. Have they own observations?



Any greatest distance agree with classical physics laws, and a normal
mind
don't care if the light travel faster, maybe care about the distance of
the moon at the time of test: exactly 360000 km from the earth.

Now are transmitters on the Mars. They are able to give the answer
forMaxwell. He wrote:

" " Incidentally, Maxwell once suggested that Roemer's
method could be used to test for the isotropy of light speed, i.e., to
test
whether the speed of light is the same in all directions. Roemer's method
can be regarded as a means of measuring the speed of light in the
direction
from Jupiter to the Earth. Jupiter has an orbital period of about 12
years,
so if we use Roemer's method to evaluate the speed of light several times
over a 12 year period, we will be evaluating the speed in all possible
directions (in the plane of the ecliptic). "
From:http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath203/kmath203.htm

As you see Maxwell care if the light travel everywhere with the same
speed.

The same is with the wave lenght. Longer water waves travel faster. Is it
the same with radio waves?
S*

no

No for your (Heavisde's) paper waves.
My waves are Tesla's waves: http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1929-09-22.htm

Tesla say in 1929: " The effects, according to my view, were due to minute
particles of matter carrying enormous electrical charges, which, for want of
a better name, I designated as matter not further decomposable.
Subsequently those particles were called electrons."

The same wrote Faraday in 1846: http://www.padrak.com/ine/FARADAY1.html

I assume that the two greatest man are right.

Electrons are produced by the Sun (rare plasma +dust). They rotate with the
Sun and their temperature is place dependent. Speed of the pressure waves
must be also the place and frequency dependent.

But you do not care about that . You are fine with the EM waves. Are you?
S*

Uzytkownik "John - KD5YI" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 3/7/2011 2:17 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
" Using such a pulse pattern makes the echo, which arrives back from the
moon 2.4 seconds later". From: http://www.rense.com/general79/haarp.htm

"During the experiment, which was carried out on Oct. 28 and 29, 2007,
the
radar signals from HAARP were at 7.4075 MHz and 9.4075 MHz"

I do not know the distance to Moon on that days but for the mean distance
384 000 km the speed is:

2x 384 000/2.4 = 320 000 km/s.

Speed of light is 300 000.

But long waves travel quicker in glass. Would be the same in space?

There is no space. It is packed with compressed aether.

No aether as "a medium filling all space, called the ether, which was
structureless, of inconceivable tenuity and yet solid and possessed of
rigidity incomparably greater than that of the hardest steel" (Tesla).

Space is filled with the ISM (rare plasma +dust). ISM is produced by stars
and rotate with them. So radio waves are the electron waves. Acoustic waves
are ions waves.
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
"tom" napisal w wiadomosci
. net...
On 3/7/2011 11:27 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Uzytkownik napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Mar 7, 8:17 am, "Szczepan wrote:
" Using such a pulse pattern makes the echo, which arrives back from the
moon 2.4 seconds later". From:http://www.rense.com/general79/haarp.htm

"During the experiment, which was carried out on Oct. 28 and 29, 2007,
the
radar signals from HAARP were at 7.4075 MHz and 9.4075 MHz"

I do not know the distance to Moon on that days but for the mean
distance
384 000 km the speed is:

384 000/2.4 = 320 000 km/s.
Should be 2x384 000/2.4 = 320 000 km/s.
Speed of light is 300 000.

But long waves travel quicker in glass. Would be the same in space?
S*
i'm glad you checked their calculation and found that obvious error...
i guess all the other radar calibrations in the world have to be
changed to account for the bialek speed effect... i wonder if that
would get you out of a radar gun speeding ticket?

Did you communications via Moon?
S*


I have, at another amateur's station, on 432 MHz. Surprisingly the speed
came out almost dead on 300m/microsecond. Used .wav file recording of
transmit and echo and a good sound file editor with sub-millisecond
resolution when zoomed.

I have checked the Moon history and now I know that on Oct. 28 2007 was
"full Moon" at perygeum. So the speed was close to 300m/microsecond.

But I am steel loking for the evidences that the speed of radio waves is
temperature and wave lenght dependant.
S*



in vacuum, of course, there is no dependency on wavelength.

in a dispersive medium, there is a dependency on wavelength. A good
practical example of a dispersive medium for radio is the ionosphere.

interplanetary space also is very slightly dispersive (due to the small,
but non-zero, ion content)

Inasmuch as temperature and ionization are related, I suppose there's a
relation, but nothing like you see with sound, where there's a very
strong relationship between propagation velocity and temperature (but
that's because the mechanism of sound propagation is molecules/atoms
colliding with each other)

On 3/8/2011 2:25 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
I have, at another amateur's station, on 432 MHz. Surprisingly the speed
came out almost dead on 300m/microsecond. Used .wav file recording of
transmit and echo and a good sound file editor with sub-millisecond
resolution when zoomed.

I have checked the Moon history and now I know that on Oct. 28 2007 was
"full Moon" at perygeum. So the speed was close to 300m/microsecond.


Well that's a nice bit of trivia you bring up, but that was not the
correct date, and not even the correct decade.

So why did you bring it up?

But I am steel loking for the evidences that the speed of radio waves is
temperature and wave lenght dependant.
S*

You won't see it except when it's not in vacuum and then it's very
difficult for people like you to detect it. You actually have to do
something.

tom
K0TAR

"tom" napisal w wiadomosci
et...
On 3/8/2011 2:25 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
I have, at another amateur's station, on 432 MHz. Surprisingly the
speed
came out almost dead on 300m/microsecond. Used .wav file recording of
transmit and echo and a good sound file editor with sub-millisecond
resolution when zoomed.

I have checked the Moon history and now I know that on Oct. 28 2007 was
"full Moon" at perygeum. So the speed was close to 300m/microsecond.


Well that's a nice bit of trivia you bring up, but that was not the
correct date, and not even the correct decade.

So why did you bring it up?

On Oct. 28 2007 radio echo appeared after 2.4s.

But I am steel loking for the evidences that the speed of radio waves is
temperature and wave lenght dependant.
S*

You won't see it except when it's not in vacuum and then it's very
difficult for people like you to detect it. You actually have to do
something.

Jim wrote: "interplanetary space also is very slightly dispersive (due to
the small,
but non-zero, ion content)"

Are many people who detect physical phenomenon. I am looking for the
description.
S*

"Jim Lux" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
.

But I am steel loking for the evidences that the speed of radio waves is
temperature and wave lenght dependant.

in vacuum, of course, there is no dependency on wavelength.

in a dispersive medium, there is a dependency on wavelength. A good
practical example of a dispersive medium for radio is the ionosphere.

interplanetary space also is very slightly dispersive (due to the small,
but non-zero, ion content)

Inasmuch as temperature and ionization are related, I suppose there's a
relation, but nothing like you see with sound, where there's a very strong
relationship between propagation velocity and temperature (but that's
because the mechanism of sound propagation is molecules/atoms colliding
with each other)

If Tesla is right than the radio waves propagation is electrons colliding
with each other.
Faraday was the same opinion: "I suppose we may compare together the matter
of the aether and ordinary matter (as, for instance, the copper of the wire
through which the electricity is conducted), and consider them as alike in
their essential constitution; i.e. either as both composed of little nuclei,
considered in the abstract as matter, and of force or power associated with
these nuclei"

Faraday known that the speed of waves is the same in copper and space. The
media must be the same. Charged particles = electrons.

Analogy sound - electric waves is full.
S*

On Mar 9, 3:42*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Faraday known that the speed of waves is the same in copper and space.

RF waves (fields/photons) cannot exist or flow IN copper. RF waves
(fields/photons) flow in the space surrounding copper. The free
electrons in a copper wire move only at a tiny fraction of the speed
of light, 0.00028 m/s in the Wikipedia example. For RF signals, the
electrons move hardly at all and can be considered to be vibrating in
place acting as a sort of bucket brigade for the photons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Mar 9, 3:42 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Faraday known that the speed of waves is the same in copper and space.

RF waves (fields/photons) cannot exist or flow IN copper. RF waves
(fields/photons) flow in the space surrounding copper. The free
electrons in a copper wire move only at a tiny fraction of the speed
of light, 0.00028 m/s in the Wikipedia example. For RF signals, the
electrons move hardly at all and can be considered to be vibrating in
place acting as a sort of bucket brigade for the photons.

All waves are the vibrations in place.

Faraday wrote: " The velocity of light through space is about 190,000 miles
in a second; the velocity of electricity is, by the experiments of
Wheatstone, shown to be as great as this, if not greater: the light is
supposed to be transmitted by vibrations through an aether which is, so to
speak, destitute of gravitation, but infinite in elasticity; the electricity
is transmitted through a small metallic wire, and is often viewed as
transmitted by vibrations also."

The electrons drift is like Stokes drift:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_drift
S*