Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #595451 > unrolled thread

Would Faraday's original experiments have generated intelligent EM?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Would Faraday's original experiments have generated intelligent EM? jpopovaclark@gmail.com - 2016-09-01 02:31 -0700
    Re: Would Faraday's original experiments have generated intelligent EM? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 11:20 -0700
    Re: Would Faraday's original experiments have generated intelligent EM? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-01 15:01 -0500
    Re: Would Faraday's original experiments have generated intelligent EM? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 19:51 -0700
      Re: Would Faraday's original experiments have generated intelligent EM? jpopovaclark@gmail.com - 2016-09-01 22:41 -0700
        Re: Would Faraday's original experiments have generated intelligent EM? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-02 08:47 -0500
          Re: Would Faraday's original experiments have generated intelligent EM? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-02 10:35 -0500
        Re: Would Faraday's original experiments have generated intelligent EM? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-02 09:19 -0700
          Re: Would Faraday's original experiments have generated intelligent EM? jpopovaclark@gmail.com - 2016-09-06 18:28 -0700
      Re: Would Faraday's original experiments have generated intelligent EM? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-03 21:31 -0400
        Re: Would Faraday's original experiments have generated intelligent EM? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 19:58 -0700
          Re: Would Faraday's original experiments have generated intelligent EM? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-05 18:07 -0400
            Re: Would Faraday's original experiments have generated intelligent EM? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-05 23:59 +0000
              Re: Would Faraday's original experiments have generated intelligent EM? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-05 22:26 -0400
                Re: Would Faraday's original experiments have generated intelligent EM? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-06 04:56 +0000
            Re: Would Faraday's original experiments have generated intelligent EM? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-05 19:16 -0500
            Re: Would Faraday's original experiments have generated intelligent EM? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-05 19:46 -0700
              Re: Would Faraday's original experiments have generated intelligent EM? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-05 23:34 -0400
            Re: Would Faraday's original experiments have generated intelligent EM? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-06 10:13 -0700

#595451 — Would Faraday's original experiments have generated intelligent EM?

Faraday's initial electricity experiments were in the 1820s and 30s.  If an alien civilization had exquisite EM detection sensitivity, excellent understanding of stellar physics (to sort out stellar noise from an unnatural EM emission) and the ability to respond immediately, how far away could the first responding civilization be? Wouldn't the answer be about 90-95 Light years away?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#595498

g00d for a novella, at least (or,
at most

> emission) and the ability to respond immediately, how far away could the first responding civilization be? Wouldn't the answer be about 90-95 Light years away?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595515

On 9/1/2016 4:31 AM, jpopovaclark@gmail.com wrote:
> Faraday's initial electricity experiments were in the 1820s and 30s.
> If an alien civilization had exquisite EM detection sensitivity,
> excellent understanding of stellar physics (to sort out stellar noise
> from an unnatural EM emission) and the ability to respond
> immediately, how far away could the first responding civilization be?
> Wouldn't the answer be about 90-95 Light years away?
>


you are missing the bandwidth term. to solve the problem.

and who + how reported Faraday's in an EM format ?


that would have been in the 1960 TV ?

or did someone morse code it in the 1920s?


   noise floor =>  KTBF  cnat get around that, or the d^-2 factor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595585

On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 2:31:57 AM UTC-7, jpopov...@gmail.com wrote:
> Faraday's initial electricity experiments were in the 1820s and 30s.  If an
> alien civilization had exquisite EM detection sensitivity, excellent
> understanding of stellar physics (to sort out stellar noise from an unnatural
> EM emission) and the ability to respond immediately, how far away could the
> first responding civilization be? Wouldn't the answer be about 90-95 Light
> years away?

  Do you know the term "effective radiated power"? It's the energy per unit time emitted from a specified type of antenna in a particular direction, irrespective of losses in the transmitting system other than antenna inefficiency. To be an antenna worthy of the name, it must be a conductor whose length is either in the neighborhood of the same length as the wavelength of the frequency you want to transmit at (resonant half-wave, full-wave dipole, etc.), or so many multiples long that you can radiate at many frequencies (non-resonant long wire). In either case feeding them is tricky. That's a VERY inadequate description by the way; antenna design very quickly starts to look like Black Magic after you dig into it. Nonetheless, those statements are always true.

   Faraday never worked with a whole lot of power to begin with, and certainly knew nothing of antenna design and optimization. Worse, he worked exclusively with direct current, so his equipment could only radiate when current was started or stopped within it, in "spikes" of energy, not continuous trains of waves. Plus, had he known that his equipment was radiating and thus "wasting" energy, he'd have tried to STOP it from radiating so he could do what he was actually trying to do.

  The conductors he used were far too long to serve as resonators for those spikes, and long-wires don't radiate directionally especially when those wires aren't straight and when many long-wires, all with bends and curlicues, are transmitting those spikes such that they interfere with each other. Any directionality would be completely accidental and would change when he changed the experimental setup.

  So, best case he's transmitting a watt or so per spike, isotropically (the energy radiates in all directions rather than being beamed), and intermittently. His signals, if any, would have similar characteristics to those of distance lightning strikes.

  Your average cellphone emits up to five watts with an antenna carefully designed to maximize emission, and they're not hard to make directional. Even then their top range is a couple of miles, weather permitting.

  So no, ETs at any distance had no chance at all to hear Faraday any more than they could have heard the alleged Baghdad battery being hooked up to electroplate metal objects much longer ago.


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595597

On Friday, 2 September 2016 12:51:52 UTC+10, nu...@bid.nes  wrote:
> On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 2:31:57 AM UTC-7, jpopov...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Faraday's initial electricity experiments were in the 1820s and 30s.  If an
> > alien civilization had exquisite EM detection sensitivity, excellent
> > understanding of stellar physics (to sort out stellar noise from an unnatural
> > EM emission) and the ability to respond immediately, how far away could the
> > first responding civilization be? Wouldn't the answer be about 90-95 Light
> > years away?
> 
>   Do you know the term "effective radiated power"? It's the energy per unit time emitted from a specified type of antenna in a particular direction, irrespective of losses in the transmitting system other than antenna inefficiency. To be an antenna worthy of the name, it must be a conductor whose length is either in the neighborhood of the same length as the wavelength of the frequency you want to transmit at (resonant half-wave, full-wave dipole, etc.), or so many multiples long that you can radiate at many frequencies (non-resonant long wire). In either case feeding them is tricky. That's a VERY inadequate description by the way; antenna design very quickly starts to look like Black Magic after you dig into it. Nonetheless, those statements are always true.
> 
>    Faraday never worked with a whole lot of power to begin with, and certainly knew nothing of antenna design and optimization. Worse, he worked exclusively with direct current, so his equipment could only radiate when current was started or stopped within it, in "spikes" of energy, not continuous trains of waves. Plus, had he known that his equipment was radiating and thus "wasting" energy, he'd have tried to STOP it from radiating so he could do what he was actually trying to do.
> 
>   The conductors he used were far too long to serve as resonators for those spikes, and long-wires don't radiate directionally especially when those wires aren't straight and when many long-wires, all with bends and curlicues, are transmitting those spikes such that they interfere with each other. Any directionality would be completely accidental and would change when he changed the experimental setup.
> 
>   So, best case he's transmitting a watt or so per spike, isotropically (the energy radiates in all directions rather than being beamed), and intermittently. His signals, if any, would have similar characteristics to those of distance lightning strikes.
> 
>   Your average cellphone emits up to five watts with an antenna carefully designed to maximize emission, and they're not hard to make directional. Even then their top range is a couple of miles, weather permitting.
> 
>   So no, ETs at any distance had no chance at all to hear Faraday any more than they could have heard the alleged Baghdad battery being hooked up to electroplate metal objects much longer ago.
> 
> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson

Sounds like the answer is "No, the effective power of Faraday's accidental yet unnatural EM emissions would be so low that they would not be detectable from interstellar distances.  In any case the emissions would not be sufficiently unnatural to provide evidence of a contactable intelligence."

So that makes an interesting question "when did human EM emissions, whether deliberate or no, become sufficiently powerful and unnatural to provide proof to an advanced technological intelligence that someone down here is capable of listening to a transmission? And therefore how far away could a responding civilisation be that we could receive a deliberately beamed response?"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595610

On 9/2/2016 12:41 AM, jpopovaclark@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 2 September 2016 12:51:52 UTC+10, nu...@bid.nes  wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 2:31:57 AM UTC-7,
>> jpopov...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Faraday's initial electricity experiments were in the 1820s and
>>> 30s.  If an alien civilization had exquisite EM detection
>>> sensitivity, excellent understanding of stellar physics (to sort
>>> out stellar noise from an unnatural EM emission) and the ability
>>> to respond immediately, how far away could the first responding
>>> civilization be? Wouldn't the answer be about 90-95 Light years
>>> away?
>>
>> Do you know the term "effective radiated power"? It's the energy
>> per unit time emitted from a specified type of antenna in a
>> particular direction, irrespective of losses in the transmitting
>> system other than antenna inefficiency. To be an antenna worthy of
>> the name, it must be a conductor whose length is either in the
>> neighborhood of the same length as the wavelength of the frequency
>> you want to transmit at (resonant half-wave, full-wave dipole,
>> etc.), or so many multiples long that you can radiate at many
>> frequencies (non-resonant long wire). In either case feeding them
>> is tricky. That's a VERY inadequate description by the way; antenna
>> design very quickly starts to look like Black Magic after you dig
>> into it. Nonetheless, those statements are always true.
>>
>> Faraday never worked with a whole lot of power to begin with, and
>> certainly knew nothing of antenna design and optimization. Worse,
>> he worked exclusively with direct current, so his equipment could
>> only radiate when current was started or stopped within it, in
>> "spikes" of energy, not continuous trains of waves. Plus, had he
>> known that his equipment was radiating and thus "wasting" energy,
>> he'd have tried to STOP it from radiating so he could do what he
>> was actually trying to do.
>>
>> The conductors he used were far too long to serve as resonators for
>> those spikes, and long-wires don't radiate directionally especially
>> when those wires aren't straight and when many long-wires, all with
>> bends and curlicues, are transmitting those spikes such that they
>> interfere with each other. Any directionality would be completely
>> accidental and would change when he changed the experimental
>> setup.
>>
>> So, best case he's transmitting a watt or so per spike,
>> isotropically (the energy radiates in all directions rather than
>> being beamed), and intermittently. His signals, if any, would have
>> similar characteristics to those of distance lightning strikes.
>>
>> Your average cellphone emits up to five watts with an antenna
>> carefully designed to maximize emission, and they're not hard to
>> make directional. Even then their top range is a couple of miles,
>> weather permitting.
>>
>> So no, ETs at any distance had no chance at all to hear Faraday any
>> more than they could have heard the alleged Baghdad battery being
>> hooked up to electroplate metal objects much longer ago.
>>
>>
>> Mark L. Fergerson
>
> Sounds like the answer is "No, the effective power of Faraday's
> accidental yet unnatural EM emissions would be so low that they would
> not be detectable from interstellar distances.  In any case the
> emissions would not be sufficiently unnatural to provide evidence of
> a contactable intelligence."
>
> So that makes an interesting question "when did human EM emissions,
> whether deliberate or no, become sufficiently powerful and unnatural
> to provide proof to an advanced technological intelligence that
> someone down here is capable of listening to a transmission? And
> therefore how far away could a responding civilisation be that we
> could receive a deliberately beamed response?"
>

Rather turn Question around, how far can one receive Earth Signals ?

        easy calculation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson%E2%80%93Nyquist_noise

noise power, P = 4 * kB * T * deltaF

where kB is Boltxmanns constant, and deltaF is bandwidth

where your signal power exceeds the noise power, you can hear it.

then find freespace loss equation;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_path_loss


then assume TV signal, 1 meggawatt, 6MHz bandwidth at 70 Mhz (you can 
plug in real data here )

assume a T, google noise figure or noise factor for it convert to K



         solve for r

then do it for the other signals

or use calculators on line

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595616

On 9/2/2016 8:47 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 9/2/2016 12:41 AM, jpopovaclark@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, 2 September 2016 12:51:52 UTC+10, nu...@bid.nes  wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 2:31:57 AM UTC-7,
>>> jpopov...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Faraday's initial electricity experiments were in the 1820s and
>>>> 30s.  If an alien civilization had exquisite EM detection
>>>> sensitivity, excellent understanding of stellar physics (to sort
>>>> out stellar noise from an unnatural EM emission) and the ability
>>>> to respond immediately, how far away could the first responding
>>>> civilization be? Wouldn't the answer be about 90-95 Light years
>>>> away?
>>>
>>> Do you know the term "effective radiated power"? It's the energy
>>> per unit time emitted from a specified type of antenna in a
>>> particular direction, irrespective of losses in the transmitting
>>> system other than antenna inefficiency. To be an antenna worthy of
>>> the name, it must be a conductor whose length is either in the
>>> neighborhood of the same length as the wavelength of the frequency
>>> you want to transmit at (resonant half-wave, full-wave dipole,
>>> etc.), or so many multiples long that you can radiate at many
>>> frequencies (non-resonant long wire). In either case feeding them
>>> is tricky. That's a VERY inadequate description by the way; antenna
>>> design very quickly starts to look like Black Magic after you dig
>>> into it. Nonetheless, those statements are always true.
>>>
>>> Faraday never worked with a whole lot of power to begin with, and
>>> certainly knew nothing of antenna design and optimization. Worse,
>>> he worked exclusively with direct current, so his equipment could
>>> only radiate when current was started or stopped within it, in
>>> "spikes" of energy, not continuous trains of waves. Plus, had he
>>> known that his equipment was radiating and thus "wasting" energy,
>>> he'd have tried to STOP it from radiating so he could do what he
>>> was actually trying to do.
>>>
>>> The conductors he used were far too long to serve as resonators for
>>> those spikes, and long-wires don't radiate directionally especially
>>> when those wires aren't straight and when many long-wires, all with
>>> bends and curlicues, are transmitting those spikes such that they
>>> interfere with each other. Any directionality would be completely
>>> accidental and would change when he changed the experimental
>>> setup.
>>>
>>> So, best case he's transmitting a watt or so per spike,
>>> isotropically (the energy radiates in all directions rather than
>>> being beamed), and intermittently. His signals, if any, would have
>>> similar characteristics to those of distance lightning strikes.
>>>
>>> Your average cellphone emits up to five watts with an antenna
>>> carefully designed to maximize emission, and they're not hard to
>>> make directional. Even then their top range is a couple of miles,
>>> weather permitting.
>>>
>>> So no, ETs at any distance had no chance at all to hear Faraday any
>>> more than they could have heard the alleged Baghdad battery being
>>> hooked up to electroplate metal objects much longer ago.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark L. Fergerson
>>
>> Sounds like the answer is "No, the effective power of Faraday's
>> accidental yet unnatural EM emissions would be so low that they would
>> not be detectable from interstellar distances.  In any case the
>> emissions would not be sufficiently unnatural to provide evidence of
>> a contactable intelligence."
>>
>> So that makes an interesting question "when did human EM emissions,
>> whether deliberate or no, become sufficiently powerful and unnatural
>> to provide proof to an advanced technological intelligence that
>> someone down here is capable of listening to a transmission? And
>> therefore how far away could a responding civilisation be that we
>> could receive a deliberately beamed response?"
>>
>
> Rather turn Question around, how far can one receive Earth Signals ?
>
>        easy calculation
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson%E2%80%93Nyquist_noise
>
> noise power, P = 4 * kB * T * deltaF
>
> where kB is Boltxmanns constant, and deltaF is bandwidth
>
> where your signal power exceeds the noise power, you can hear it.
>
> then find freespace loss equation;
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_path_loss
>
>
> then assume TV signal, 1 meggawatt, 6MHz bandwidth at 70 Mhz (you can
> plug in real data here )
>
> assume a T, google noise figure or noise factor for it convert to K
>
>
>
>         solve for r
>
> then do it for the other signals
>
> or use calculators on line
>
>
>

pathloss in light years here
http://www.qsl.net/pa2ohh/jsffield.htm

assume aliens have +10 db gain antenna and earth antenna gain is 1db
assume it is at .5 MHz for Faraday

your path loss for 1 light year is -274.9 dB

for 500 MHz the path loss is -334.9 dB


how about receive noise power?
assume a temp of -200 C with LNA
assume recieve bandwidth of 1 HZ  (morse code, has problems)
and assume a resistance of 300 ohms

noise power is -179 dBv

http://www.daycounter.com/Calculators/Thermal-Noise-Calculator.phtml


so to get the signal over the path loss you need 334 - 179 = 155 dB 
transmitted in a 1 hz BW on earth at 1/2 MHz

anyone spot the error ?   need to change dBv to dbw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595618

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 1:41:42 AM UTC-4, jpopov...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 2 September 2016 12:51:52 UTC+10, nu...@bid.nes  wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 2:31:57 AM UTC-7, jpopov...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Faraday's initial electricity experiments were in the 1820s and 30s.  If an
> > > alien civilization had exquisite EM detection sensitivity, excellent
> > > understanding of stellar physics (to sort out stellar noise from an unnatural
> > > EM emission) and the ability to respond immediately, how far away could the
> > > first responding civilization be? Wouldn't the answer be about 90-95 Light
> > > years away?

Looks about right.
> > 
[]
> Sounds like the answer is "No, the effective power of Faraday's
> accidental yet unnatural EM emissions would be so low that they
> would not be detectable from interstellar distances.  In any case
> the emissions would not be sufficiently unnatural to provide
> evidence of a contactable intelligence."
> 
> So that makes an interesting question "when did human EM emissions,
> whether deliberate or no, become sufficiently powerful and unnatural
> to provide proof to an advanced technological intelligence that
> someone down here is capable of listening to a transmission? And
> therefore how far away could a responding civilisation[sic] be that we
> could receive a deliberately beamed response?"

Here's my guess: 35 LY away.

Time frame based on this question: is the signature of the EMP
generated by an atomic bomb sufficiently different from natural
signals to be detectable?

If the EMP from the first atom bombs were detected, it was about
70 years ago, so 35 round trip.

SETI are you listening now?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596130

On Saturday, 3 September 2016 02:19:51 UTC+10, edpr...@gmail.com  wrote:
> On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 1:41:42 AM UTC-4, jpopov...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, 2 September 2016 12:51:52 UTC+10, nu...@bid.nes  wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 2:31:57 AM UTC-7, jpopov...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Faraday's initial electricity experiments were in the 1820s and 30s.  If an
> > > > alien civilization had exquisite EM detection sensitivity, excellent
> > > > understanding of stellar physics (to sort out stellar noise from an unnatural
> > > > EM emission) and the ability to respond immediately, how far away could the
> > > > first responding civilization be? Wouldn't the answer be about 90-95 Light
> > > > years away?
> 
> Looks about right.
> > > 
> []
> > Sounds like the answer is "No, the effective power of Faraday's
> > accidental yet unnatural EM emissions would be so low that they
> > would not be detectable from interstellar distances.  In any case
> > the emissions would not be sufficiently unnatural to provide
> > evidence of a contactable intelligence."
> > 
> > So that makes an interesting question "when did human EM emissions,
> > whether deliberate or no, become sufficiently powerful and unnatural
> > to provide proof to an advanced technological intelligence that
> > someone down here is capable of listening to a transmission? And
> > therefore how far away could a responding civilisation[sic] be that we
> > could receive a deliberately beamed response?"
> 
> Here's my guess: 35 LY away.
> 
> Time frame based on this question: is the signature of the EMP
> generated by an atomic bomb sufficiently different from natural
> signals to be detectable?
> 
> If the EMP from the first atom bombs were detected, it was about
> 70 years ago, so 35 round trip.
> 
> SETI are you listening now?

So logically given that a generic all points signal sent in all directions requires the entire output of a star surrounded by a Dyson sphere, it is far more likely that a detectably intelligent signal will be sent to us once its detected that we're here.  We should therefore primarily be listening for deliberately sent signals in our very local vicinity (i.e. within 35LY).  This should vastly decrease the number of potential sources (presuming the responding aliens hang around stars, of course).  But our little thought experiment also makes me think that overhearing an alien signal not directed deliberately at us, even a very advanced one, is not likely given distance and background noises.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595748

On 9/1/2016 10:51 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 2:31:57 AM UTC-7,
> jpopov...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Faraday's initial electricity experiments were in the 1820s and
>> 30s.  If an alien civilization had exquisite EM detection
>> sensitivity, excellent understanding of stellar physics (to sort
>> out stellar noise from an unnatural EM emission) and the ability to
>> respond immediately, how far away could the first responding
>> civilization be? Wouldn't the answer be about 90-95 Light years
>> away?
>
> Do you know the term "effective radiated power"? It's the energy per
> unit time emitted from a specified type of antenna in a particular
> direction, irrespective of losses in the transmitting system other
> than antenna inefficiency. To be an antenna worthy of the name, it
> must be a conductor whose length is either in the neighborhood of the
> same length as the wavelength of the frequency you want to transmit
> at (resonant half-wave, full-wave dipole, etc.), or so many multiples
> long that you can radiate at many frequencies (non-resonant long
> wire). In either case feeding them is tricky. That's a VERY
> inadequate description by the way; antenna design very quickly starts
> to look like Black Magic after you dig into it. Nonetheless, those
> statements are always true.
>
> Faraday never worked with a whole lot of power to begin with, and
> certainly knew nothing of antenna design and optimization. Worse, he
> worked exclusively with direct current, so his equipment could only
> radiate when current was started or stopped within it, in "spikes" of
> energy, not continuous trains of waves. Plus, had he known that his
> equipment was radiating and thus "wasting" energy, he'd have tried to
> STOP it from radiating so he could do what he was actually trying to
> do.
>
> The conductors he used were far too long to serve as resonators for
> those spikes, and long-wires don't radiate directionally especially
> when those wires aren't straight and when many long-wires, all with
> bends and curlicues, are transmitting those spikes such that they
> interfere with each other. Any directionality would be completely
> accidental and would change when he changed the experimental setup.
>
> So, best case he's transmitting a watt or so per spike, isotropically
> (the energy radiates in all directions rather than being beamed), and
> intermittently. His signals, if any, would have similar
> characteristics to those of distance lightning strikes.
>
> Your average cellphone emits up to five watts with an antenna
> carefully designed to maximize emission, and they're not hard to make
> directional. Even then their top range is a couple of miles, weather
> permitting.
>
> So no, ETs at any distance had no chance at all to hear Faraday any
> more than they could have heard the alleged Baghdad battery being
> hooked up to electroplate metal objects much longer ago.
>
>
> Mark L. Fergerson

No question you have approached this question in a logical and 
scientific way with correct assumptions and calculations. The only 
problem with questions like this and answers like yours, Mark, is that 
ETs have ways of sensing electrical activity that you know nothing about.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595754

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 6:31:58 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> On 9/1/2016 10:51 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 2:31:57 AM UTC-7,
> > jpopov...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Faraday's initial electricity experiments were in the 1820s and
> >> 30s.  If an alien civilization had exquisite EM detection
> >> sensitivity, excellent understanding of stellar physics (to sort
> >> out stellar noise from an unnatural EM emission) and the ability to
> >> respond immediately, how far away could the first responding
> >> civilization be? Wouldn't the answer be about 90-95 Light years
> >> away?
> >
> > Do you know the term "effective radiated power"? It's the energy per
> > unit time emitted from a specified type of antenna in a particular
> > direction, irrespective of losses in the transmitting system other
> > than antenna inefficiency. To be an antenna worthy of the name, it
> > must be a conductor whose length is either in the neighborhood of the
> > same length as the wavelength of the frequency you want to transmit
> > at (resonant half-wave, full-wave dipole, etc.), or so many multiples
> > long that you can radiate at many frequencies (non-resonant long
> > wire). In either case feeding them is tricky. That's a VERY
> > inadequate description by the way; antenna design very quickly starts
> > to look like Black Magic after you dig into it. Nonetheless, those
> > statements are always true.
> >
> > Faraday never worked with a whole lot of power to begin with, and
> > certainly knew nothing of antenna design and optimization. Worse, he
> > worked exclusively with direct current, so his equipment could only
> > radiate when current was started or stopped within it, in "spikes" of
> > energy, not continuous trains of waves. Plus, had he known that his
> > equipment was radiating and thus "wasting" energy, he'd have tried to
> > STOP it from radiating so he could do what he was actually trying to
> > do.
> >
> > The conductors he used were far too long to serve as resonators for
> > those spikes, and long-wires don't radiate directionally especially
> > when those wires aren't straight and when many long-wires, all with
> > bends and curlicues, are transmitting those spikes such that they
> > interfere with each other. Any directionality would be completely
> > accidental and would change when he changed the experimental setup.
> >
> > So, best case he's transmitting a watt or so per spike, isotropically
> > (the energy radiates in all directions rather than being beamed), and
> > intermittently. His signals, if any, would have similar
> > characteristics to those of distance lightning strikes.
> >
> > Your average cellphone emits up to five watts with an antenna
> > carefully designed to maximize emission, and they're not hard to make
> > directional. Even then their top range is a couple of miles, weather
> > permitting.
> >
> > So no, ETs at any distance had no chance at all to hear Faraday any
> > more than they could have heard the alleged Baghdad battery being
> > hooked up to electroplate metal objects much longer ago.
> 
> No question you have approached this question in a logical and 
> scientific way with correct assumptions and calculations. The only 
> problem with questions like this and answers like yours, Mark, is that 
> ETs have ways of sensing electrical activity that you know nothing about.

  And, you know this by way of your ESP?

  Signal detection limits over large distances are physics limits, not technology limits. Aliens 90-95 LY away could build receiving antennas as large as this solar system and still not be able to identify Faraday's emissions. They were just too weak, and spectrally indistinguishable from natural sources at that.

  Tesla is a different matter; at the power levels he liked to play with, and the high frequencies, and his conviction that he'd picked up signals from Mars, he could have easily transmitted readable signals 100 LY away. For all we know he did, but any EM reply wouldn't get here for about another century.


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595960

On 9/3/2016 10:58 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 6:31:58 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
>> On 9/1/2016 10:51 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 2:31:57 AM UTC-7,
>>> jpopov...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Faraday's initial electricity experiments were in the 1820s and
>>>> 30s.  If an alien civilization had exquisite EM detection
>>>> sensitivity, excellent understanding of stellar physics (to sort
>>>> out stellar noise from an unnatural EM emission) and the ability to
>>>> respond immediately, how far away could the first responding
>>>> civilization be? Wouldn't the answer be about 90-95 Light years
>>>> away?
>>>
>>> Do you know the term "effective radiated power"? It's the energy per
>>> unit time emitted from a specified type of antenna in a particular
>>> direction, irrespective of losses in the transmitting system other
>>> than antenna inefficiency. To be an antenna worthy of the name, it
>>> must be a conductor whose length is either in the neighborhood of the
>>> same length as the wavelength of the frequency you want to transmit
>>> at (resonant half-wave, full-wave dipole, etc.), or so many multiples
>>> long that you can radiate at many frequencies (non-resonant long
>>> wire). In either case feeding them is tricky. That's a VERY
>>> inadequate description by the way; antenna design very quickly starts
>>> to look like Black Magic after you dig into it. Nonetheless, those
>>> statements are always true.
>>>
>>> Faraday never worked with a whole lot of power to begin with, and
>>> certainly knew nothing of antenna design and optimization. Worse, he
>>> worked exclusively with direct current, so his equipment could only
>>> radiate when current was started or stopped within it, in "spikes" of
>>> energy, not continuous trains of waves. Plus, had he known that his
>>> equipment was radiating and thus "wasting" energy, he'd have tried to
>>> STOP it from radiating so he could do what he was actually trying to
>>> do.
>>>
>>> The conductors he used were far too long to serve as resonators for
>>> those spikes, and long-wires don't radiate directionally especially
>>> when those wires aren't straight and when many long-wires, all with
>>> bends and curlicues, are transmitting those spikes such that they
>>> interfere with each other. Any directionality would be completely
>>> accidental and would change when he changed the experimental setup.
>>>
>>> So, best case he's transmitting a watt or so per spike, isotropically
>>> (the energy radiates in all directions rather than being beamed), and
>>> intermittently. His signals, if any, would have similar
>>> characteristics to those of distance lightning strikes.
>>>
>>> Your average cellphone emits up to five watts with an antenna
>>> carefully designed to maximize emission, and they're not hard to make
>>> directional. Even then their top range is a couple of miles, weather
>>> permitting.
>>>
>>> So no, ETs at any distance had no chance at all to hear Faraday any
>>> more than they could have heard the alleged Baghdad battery being
>>> hooked up to electroplate metal objects much longer ago.
>>
>> No question you have approached this question in a logical and
>> scientific way with correct assumptions and calculations. The only
>> problem with questions like this and answers like yours, Mark, is that
>> ETs have ways of sensing electrical activity that you know nothing about.
>
>   And, you know this by way of your ESP?
>
>   Signal detection limits over large distances are physics limits, not technology limits. Aliens 90-95 LY away could build receiving antennas as large as this solar system and still not be able to identify Faraday's emissions. They were just too weak, and spectrally indistinguishable from natural sources at that.
>
>   Tesla is a different matter; at the power levels he liked to play with, and the high frequencies, and his conviction that he'd picked up signals from Mars, he could have easily transmitted readable signals 100 LY away. For all we know he did, but any EM reply wouldn't get here for about another century.
>
>
>   Mark L. Fergerson

You still don't get it, Mark. You dredge up all your electromagnetic 
rules and "prove" something is "impossible" without understanding that 
you don't know everything. A typical example of this sort of thing was 
when Tesla's professor "proved" that an electric motor MUST have a 
commutator! Get the picture? All you've proved is that aliens could not 
sense if Faraday was doing something using OUR kind of EM receivers. So 
did God know? Yes? So that "proves" that Faraday's activities produced 
SOME other kind of signal than the EM ones you just "proved" can't be 
it. Right? :-)

You've got to stop blindly accepting all the crap HVAC spewed out here. 
He's a journalist loser who knows no science.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595978

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 9/3/2016 10:58 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 6:31:58 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
>>> On 9/1/2016 10:51 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 2:31:57 AM UTC-7,
>>>> jpopov...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Faraday's initial electricity experiments were in the 1820s and
>>>>> 30s.  If an alien civilization had exquisite EM detection
>>>>> sensitivity, excellent understanding of stellar physics (to sort
>>>>> out stellar noise from an unnatural EM emission) and the ability to
>>>>> respond immediately, how far away could the first responding
>>>>> civilization be? Wouldn't the answer be about 90-95 Light years
>>>>> away?
>>>>
>>>> Do you know the term "effective radiated power"? It's the energy per
>>>> unit time emitted from a specified type of antenna in a particular
>>>> direction, irrespective of losses in the transmitting system other
>>>> than antenna inefficiency. To be an antenna worthy of the name, it
>>>> must be a conductor whose length is either in the neighborhood of the
>>>> same length as the wavelength of the frequency you want to transmit
>>>> at (resonant half-wave, full-wave dipole, etc.), or so many multiples
>>>> long that you can radiate at many frequencies (non-resonant long
>>>> wire). In either case feeding them is tricky. That's a VERY
>>>> inadequate description by the way; antenna design very quickly starts
>>>> to look like Black Magic after you dig into it. Nonetheless, those
>>>> statements are always true.
>>>>
>>>> Faraday never worked with a whole lot of power to begin with, and
>>>> certainly knew nothing of antenna design and optimization. Worse, he
>>>> worked exclusively with direct current, so his equipment could only
>>>> radiate when current was started or stopped within it, in "spikes" of
>>>> energy, not continuous trains of waves. Plus, had he known that his
>>>> equipment was radiating and thus "wasting" energy, he'd have tried to
>>>> STOP it from radiating so he could do what he was actually trying to
>>>> do.
>>>>
>>>> The conductors he used were far too long to serve as resonators for
>>>> those spikes, and long-wires don't radiate directionally especially
>>>> when those wires aren't straight and when many long-wires, all with
>>>> bends and curlicues, are transmitting those spikes such that they
>>>> interfere with each other. Any directionality would be completely
>>>> accidental and would change when he changed the experimental setup.
>>>>
>>>> So, best case he's transmitting a watt or so per spike, isotropically
>>>> (the energy radiates in all directions rather than being beamed), and
>>>> intermittently. His signals, if any, would have similar
>>>> characteristics to those of distance lightning strikes.
>>>>
>>>> Your average cellphone emits up to five watts with an antenna
>>>> carefully designed to maximize emission, and they're not hard to make
>>>> directional. Even then their top range is a couple of miles, weather
>>>> permitting.
>>>>
>>>> So no, ETs at any distance had no chance at all to hear Faraday any
>>>> more than they could have heard the alleged Baghdad battery being
>>>> hooked up to electroplate metal objects much longer ago.
>>>
>>> No question you have approached this question in a logical and
>>> scientific way with correct assumptions and calculations. The only
>>> problem with questions like this and answers like yours, Mark, is that
>>> ETs have ways of sensing electrical activity that you know nothing about.
>>
>>   And, you know this by way of your ESP?
>>
>>   Signal detection limits over large distances are physics limits, not technology limits. Aliens 90-95 LY away could build receiving antennas as large as this solar system and still not be able to identify Faraday's emissions. They were just too weak, and spectrally indistinguishable from natural sources at that.
>>
>>   Tesla is a different matter; at the power levels he liked to play with, and the high frequencies, and his conviction that he'd picked up signals from Mars, he could have easily transmitted readable signals 100 LY away. For all we know he did, but any EM reply wouldn't get here for about another century.
>>
>>
>>   Mark L. Fergerson
> 
> You still don't get it, Mark. You dredge up all your electromagnetic 
> rules and "prove" something is "impossible" without understanding that 
> you don't know everything. A typical example of this sort of thing was 
> when Tesla's professor "proved" that an electric motor MUST have a 
> commutator! Get the picture? All you've proved is that aliens could not 
> sense if Faraday was doing something using OUR kind of EM receivers. So 
> did God know? Yes? So that "proves" that Faraday's activities produced 
> SOME other kind of signal than the EM ones you just "proved" can't be 
> it. Right? :-)

If that crap wan't tongue in cheek, you have gone off the deep end.
 
> You've got to stop blindly accepting all the crap HVAC spewed out here. 
> He's a journalist loser who knows no science.

You've got to stop obsessing over HVAC.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595991

On 9/5/2016 7:59 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> On 9/3/2016 10:58 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 6:31:58 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
>>>> On 9/1/2016 10:51 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 2:31:57 AM UTC-7,
>>>>> jpopov...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Faraday's initial electricity experiments were in the 1820s and
>>>>>> 30s.  If an alien civilization had exquisite EM detection
>>>>>> sensitivity, excellent understanding of stellar physics (to sort
>>>>>> out stellar noise from an unnatural EM emission) and the ability to
>>>>>> respond immediately, how far away could the first responding
>>>>>> civilization be? Wouldn't the answer be about 90-95 Light years
>>>>>> away?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know the term "effective radiated power"? It's the energy per
>>>>> unit time emitted from a specified type of antenna in a particular
>>>>> direction, irrespective of losses in the transmitting system other
>>>>> than antenna inefficiency. To be an antenna worthy of the name, it
>>>>> must be a conductor whose length is either in the neighborhood of the
>>>>> same length as the wavelength of the frequency you want to transmit
>>>>> at (resonant half-wave, full-wave dipole, etc.), or so many multiples
>>>>> long that you can radiate at many frequencies (non-resonant long
>>>>> wire). In either case feeding them is tricky. That's a VERY
>>>>> inadequate description by the way; antenna design very quickly starts
>>>>> to look like Black Magic after you dig into it. Nonetheless, those
>>>>> statements are always true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Faraday never worked with a whole lot of power to begin with, and
>>>>> certainly knew nothing of antenna design and optimization. Worse, he
>>>>> worked exclusively with direct current, so his equipment could only
>>>>> radiate when current was started or stopped within it, in "spikes" of
>>>>> energy, not continuous trains of waves. Plus, had he known that his
>>>>> equipment was radiating and thus "wasting" energy, he'd have tried to
>>>>> STOP it from radiating so he could do what he was actually trying to
>>>>> do.
>>>>>
>>>>> The conductors he used were far too long to serve as resonators for
>>>>> those spikes, and long-wires don't radiate directionally especially
>>>>> when those wires aren't straight and when many long-wires, all with
>>>>> bends and curlicues, are transmitting those spikes such that they
>>>>> interfere with each other. Any directionality would be completely
>>>>> accidental and would change when he changed the experimental setup.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, best case he's transmitting a watt or so per spike, isotropically
>>>>> (the energy radiates in all directions rather than being beamed), and
>>>>> intermittently. His signals, if any, would have similar
>>>>> characteristics to those of distance lightning strikes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your average cellphone emits up to five watts with an antenna
>>>>> carefully designed to maximize emission, and they're not hard to make
>>>>> directional. Even then their top range is a couple of miles, weather
>>>>> permitting.
>>>>>
>>>>> So no, ETs at any distance had no chance at all to hear Faraday any
>>>>> more than they could have heard the alleged Baghdad battery being
>>>>> hooked up to electroplate metal objects much longer ago.
>>>>
>>>> No question you have approached this question in a logical and
>>>> scientific way with correct assumptions and calculations. The only
>>>> problem with questions like this and answers like yours, Mark, is that
>>>> ETs have ways of sensing electrical activity that you know nothing about.
>>>
>>>   And, you know this by way of your ESP?
>>>
>>>   Signal detection limits over large distances are physics limits, not technology limits. Aliens 90-95 LY away could build receiving antennas as large as this solar system and still not be able to identify Faraday's emissions. They were just too weak, and spectrally indistinguishable from natural sources at that.
>>>
>>>   Tesla is a different matter; at the power levels he liked to play with, and the high frequencies, and his conviction that he'd picked up signals from Mars, he could have easily transmitted readable signals 100 LY away. For all we know he did, but any EM reply wouldn't get here for about another century.
>>>
>>>
>>>   Mark L. Fergerson
>>
>> You still don't get it, Mark. You dredge up all your electromagnetic
>> rules and "prove" something is "impossible" without understanding that
>> you don't know everything. A typical example of this sort of thing was
>> when Tesla's professor "proved" that an electric motor MUST have a
>> commutator! Get the picture? All you've proved is that aliens could not
>> sense if Faraday was doing something using OUR kind of EM receivers. So
>> did God know? Yes? So that "proves" that Faraday's activities produced
>> SOME other kind of signal than the EM ones you just "proved" can't be
>> it. Right? :-)
>
> If that crap wan't tongue in cheek, you have gone off the deep end.
>
>> You've got to stop blindly accepting all the crap HVAC spewed out here.
>> He's a journalist loser who knows no science.
>
> You've got to stop obsessing over HVAC.

You've got it backwards. It is HVAC obsessing over ME ever since he was 
run off with his tail between his legs by my massive intellect and 
comprehensive science knowledge!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596009

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 9/5/2016 7:59 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2016 10:58 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 6:31:58 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 9/1/2016 10:51 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 2:31:57 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>> jpopov...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Faraday's initial electricity experiments were in the 1820s and
>>>>>>> 30s.  If an alien civilization had exquisite EM detection
>>>>>>> sensitivity, excellent understanding of stellar physics (to sort
>>>>>>> out stellar noise from an unnatural EM emission) and the ability to
>>>>>>> respond immediately, how far away could the first responding
>>>>>>> civilization be? Wouldn't the answer be about 90-95 Light years
>>>>>>> away?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you know the term "effective radiated power"? It's the energy per
>>>>>> unit time emitted from a specified type of antenna in a particular
>>>>>> direction, irrespective of losses in the transmitting system other
>>>>>> than antenna inefficiency. To be an antenna worthy of the name, it
>>>>>> must be a conductor whose length is either in the neighborhood of the
>>>>>> same length as the wavelength of the frequency you want to transmit
>>>>>> at (resonant half-wave, full-wave dipole, etc.), or so many multiples
>>>>>> long that you can radiate at many frequencies (non-resonant long
>>>>>> wire). In either case feeding them is tricky. That's a VERY
>>>>>> inadequate description by the way; antenna design very quickly starts
>>>>>> to look like Black Magic after you dig into it. Nonetheless, those
>>>>>> statements are always true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Faraday never worked with a whole lot of power to begin with, and
>>>>>> certainly knew nothing of antenna design and optimization. Worse, he
>>>>>> worked exclusively with direct current, so his equipment could only
>>>>>> radiate when current was started or stopped within it, in "spikes" of
>>>>>> energy, not continuous trains of waves. Plus, had he known that his
>>>>>> equipment was radiating and thus "wasting" energy, he'd have tried to
>>>>>> STOP it from radiating so he could do what he was actually trying to
>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The conductors he used were far too long to serve as resonators for
>>>>>> those spikes, and long-wires don't radiate directionally especially
>>>>>> when those wires aren't straight and when many long-wires, all with
>>>>>> bends and curlicues, are transmitting those spikes such that they
>>>>>> interfere with each other. Any directionality would be completely
>>>>>> accidental and would change when he changed the experimental setup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, best case he's transmitting a watt or so per spike, isotropically
>>>>>> (the energy radiates in all directions rather than being beamed), and
>>>>>> intermittently. His signals, if any, would have similar
>>>>>> characteristics to those of distance lightning strikes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your average cellphone emits up to five watts with an antenna
>>>>>> carefully designed to maximize emission, and they're not hard to make
>>>>>> directional. Even then their top range is a couple of miles, weather
>>>>>> permitting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So no, ETs at any distance had no chance at all to hear Faraday any
>>>>>> more than they could have heard the alleged Baghdad battery being
>>>>>> hooked up to electroplate metal objects much longer ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> No question you have approached this question in a logical and
>>>>> scientific way with correct assumptions and calculations. The only
>>>>> problem with questions like this and answers like yours, Mark, is that
>>>>> ETs have ways of sensing electrical activity that you know nothing about.
>>>>
>>>>   And, you know this by way of your ESP?
>>>>
>>>>   Signal detection limits over large distances are physics limits, not technology limits. Aliens 90-95 LY away could build receiving antennas as large as this solar system and still not be able to identify Faraday's emissions. They were just too weak, and spectrally indistinguishable from natural sources at that.
>>>>
>>>>   Tesla is a different matter; at the power levels he liked to play with, and the high frequencies, and his conviction that he'd picked up signals from Mars, he could have easily transmitted readable signals 100 LY away. For all we know he did, but any EM reply wouldn't get here for about another century.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   Mark L. Fergerson
>>>
>>> You still don't get it, Mark. You dredge up all your electromagnetic
>>> rules and "prove" something is "impossible" without understanding that
>>> you don't know everything. A typical example of this sort of thing was
>>> when Tesla's professor "proved" that an electric motor MUST have a
>>> commutator! Get the picture? All you've proved is that aliens could not
>>> sense if Faraday was doing something using OUR kind of EM receivers. So
>>> did God know? Yes? So that "proves" that Faraday's activities produced
>>> SOME other kind of signal than the EM ones you just "proved" can't be
>>> it. Right? :-)
>>
>> If that crap wan't tongue in cheek, you have gone off the deep end.
>>
>>> You've got to stop blindly accepting all the crap HVAC spewed out here.
>>> He's a journalist loser who knows no science.
>>
>> You've got to stop obsessing over HVAC.
> 
> You've got it backwards. It is HVAC obsessing over ME ever since he was 
> run off with his tail between his legs by my massive intellect and 
> comprehensive science knowledge!

Please, I just ate... 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595980

On 9/5/2016 5:07 PM, benj wrote:
> On 9/3/2016 10:58 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 6:31:58 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
>>> On 9/1/2016 10:51 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 2:31:57 AM UTC-7,
>>>> jpopov...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Faraday's initial electricity experiments were in the 1820s and
>>>>> 30s.  If an alien civilization had exquisite EM detection
>>>>> sensitivity, excellent understanding of stellar physics (to sort
>

>>
>>   And, you know this by way of your ESP?
>>
>>   Signal detection limits over large distances are physics limits, not
>> technology limits. Aliens 90-95 LY away could build receiving antennas
>> as large as this solar system and still not be able to identify
>> Faraday's emissions. They were just too weak, and spectrally
>> indistinguishable from natural sources at that.
>>
>>   Tesla is a different matter; at the power levels he liked to play
>> with, and the high frequencies, and his conviction that he'd picked up
>> signals from Mars, he could have easily transmitted readable signals
>> 100 LY away. For all we know he did, but any EM reply wouldn't get
>> here for about another century.

need to check that 100LY, path loss is about 300 dB per light year,

>>
>>
>>   Mark L. Fergerson
>
> You still don't get it, Mark. You dredge up all your electromagnetic
> rules and "prove" something is "impossible" without understanding that
> you don't know everything. A typical example of this sort of thing was
> when Tesla's professor "proved" that an electric motor MUST have a
> commutator! Get the picture? All you've proved is that aliens could not
> sense if Faraday was doing something using OUR kind of EM receivers. So
> did God know? Yes? So that "proves" that Faraday's activities produced
> SOME other kind of signal than the EM ones you just "proved" can't be
> it. Right? :-)

Aliens watch our TV channels,
the high power UHF ones,
Aliens withing 10 lightyears out => can watch our old movies for free.

assuming they build good TV sets, a power grid, and have eyes... They 
just want to spy on our womens.


>
> You've got to stop blindly accepting all the crap HVAC spewed out here.
> He's a journalist loser who knows no science.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595993

On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 3:07:49 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> On 9/3/2016 10:58 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 6:31:58 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> >> On 9/1/2016 10:51 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 2:31:57 AM UTC-7,
> >>> jpopov...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Faraday's initial electricity experiments were in the 1820s and
> >>>> 30s.  If an alien civilization had exquisite EM detection
> >>>> sensitivity, excellent understanding of stellar physics (to sort
> >>>> out stellar noise from an unnatural EM emission) and the ability to
> >>>> respond immediately, how far away could the first responding
> >>>> civilization be? Wouldn't the answer be about 90-95 Light years
> >>>> away?
> >>>
> >>> Do you know the term "effective radiated power"? It's the energy per
> >>> unit time emitted from a specified type of antenna in a particular
> >>> direction, irrespective of losses in the transmitting system other
> >>> than antenna inefficiency. To be an antenna worthy of the name, it
> >>> must be a conductor whose length is either in the neighborhood of the
> >>> same length as the wavelength of the frequency you want to transmit
> >>> at (resonant half-wave, full-wave dipole, etc.), or so many multiples
> >>> long that you can radiate at many frequencies (non-resonant long
> >>> wire). In either case feeding them is tricky. That's a VERY
> >>> inadequate description by the way; antenna design very quickly starts
> >>> to look like Black Magic after you dig into it. Nonetheless, those
> >>> statements are always true.
> >>>
> >>> Faraday never worked with a whole lot of power to begin with, and
> >>> certainly knew nothing of antenna design and optimization. Worse, he
> >>> worked exclusively with direct current, so his equipment could only
> >>> radiate when current was started or stopped within it, in "spikes" of
> >>> energy, not continuous trains of waves. Plus, had he known that his
> >>> equipment was radiating and thus "wasting" energy, he'd have tried to
> >>> STOP it from radiating so he could do what he was actually trying to
> >>> do.
> >>>
> >>> The conductors he used were far too long to serve as resonators for
> >>> those spikes, and long-wires don't radiate directionally especially
> >>> when those wires aren't straight and when many long-wires, all with
> >>> bends and curlicues, are transmitting those spikes such that they
> >>> interfere with each other. Any directionality would be completely
> >>> accidental and would change when he changed the experimental setup.
> >>>
> >>> So, best case he's transmitting a watt or so per spike, isotropically
> >>> (the energy radiates in all directions rather than being beamed), and
> >>> intermittently. His signals, if any, would have similar
> >>> characteristics to those of distance lightning strikes.
> >>>
> >>> Your average cellphone emits up to five watts with an antenna
> >>> carefully designed to maximize emission, and they're not hard to make
> >>> directional. Even then their top range is a couple of miles, weather
> >>> permitting.
> >>>
> >>> So no, ETs at any distance had no chance at all to hear Faraday any
> >>> more than they could have heard the alleged Baghdad battery being
> >>> hooked up to electroplate metal objects much longer ago.
> >>
> >> No question you have approached this question in a logical and
> >> scientific way with correct assumptions and calculations. The only
> >> problem with questions like this and answers like yours, Mark, is that
> >> ETs have ways of sensing electrical activity that you know nothing about.
> >
> >   And, you know this by way of your ESP?

  I note your failure to respond.

> >   Signal detection limits over large distances are physics limits, not
> > technology limits. Aliens 90-95 LY away could build receiving antennas as
> > large as this solar system and still not be able to identify Faraday's
> > emissions. They were just too weak, and spectrally indistinguishable from
> > natural sources at that.
> >
> >   Tesla is a different matter; at the power levels he liked to play with,
> > and the high frequencies, and his conviction that he'd picked up signals
> > from Mars, he could have easily transmitted readable signals 100 LY away.
> > For all we know he did, but any EM reply wouldn't get here for about
> > another century.
> 
> You still don't get it, Mark. You dredge up all your electromagnetic 
> rules and "prove" something is "impossible" without understanding that 
> you don't know everything.

  I don't need to know everything. The inverse-square law is sufficient.

  You appear to "know" that ETs exist, and possess magical technology that could have detected Faraday's signals, but provide no support for your "knowledge".

  You keep claiming this "knowledge" in fact, year after year, but never ever provide a shred of evidence.

  That's not physics.

> A typical example of this sort of thing was when Tesla's professor "proved"
> that an electric motor MUST have a commutator!

  It's clear that professor didn't even know EM theory and practice of his day.

> Get the picture? All you've proved is that aliens could not 
> sense if Faraday was doing something using OUR kind of EM receivers.

  I get the picture. You hate physics, so instead you bleat about magical-technology-using ETs, gods, ghosts, and so on.

> So did God know?

  Now you're just trolling.


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595999

On 9/5/2016 10:46 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 3:07:49 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
>> On 9/3/2016 10:58 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 6:31:58 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
>>>> On 9/1/2016 10:51 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 2:31:57 AM UTC-7,
>>>>> jpopov...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Faraday's initial electricity experiments were in the 1820s and
>>>>>> 30s.  If an alien civilization had exquisite EM detection
>>>>>> sensitivity, excellent understanding of stellar physics (to sort
>>>>>> out stellar noise from an unnatural EM emission) and the ability to
>>>>>> respond immediately, how far away could the first responding
>>>>>> civilization be? Wouldn't the answer be about 90-95 Light years
>>>>>> away?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know the term "effective radiated power"? It's the energy per
>>>>> unit time emitted from a specified type of antenna in a particular
>>>>> direction, irrespective of losses in the transmitting system other
>>>>> than antenna inefficiency. To be an antenna worthy of the name, it
>>>>> must be a conductor whose length is either in the neighborhood of the
>>>>> same length as the wavelength of the frequency you want to transmit
>>>>> at (resonant half-wave, full-wave dipole, etc.), or so many multiples
>>>>> long that you can radiate at many frequencies (non-resonant long
>>>>> wire). In either case feeding them is tricky. That's a VERY
>>>>> inadequate description by the way; antenna design very quickly starts
>>>>> to look like Black Magic after you dig into it. Nonetheless, those
>>>>> statements are always true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Faraday never worked with a whole lot of power to begin with, and
>>>>> certainly knew nothing of antenna design and optimization. Worse, he
>>>>> worked exclusively with direct current, so his equipment could only
>>>>> radiate when current was started or stopped within it, in "spikes" of
>>>>> energy, not continuous trains of waves. Plus, had he known that his
>>>>> equipment was radiating and thus "wasting" energy, he'd have tried to
>>>>> STOP it from radiating so he could do what he was actually trying to
>>>>> do.
>>>>>
>>>>> The conductors he used were far too long to serve as resonators for
>>>>> those spikes, and long-wires don't radiate directionally especially
>>>>> when those wires aren't straight and when many long-wires, all with
>>>>> bends and curlicues, are transmitting those spikes such that they
>>>>> interfere with each other. Any directionality would be completely
>>>>> accidental and would change when he changed the experimental setup.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, best case he's transmitting a watt or so per spike, isotropically
>>>>> (the energy radiates in all directions rather than being beamed), and
>>>>> intermittently. His signals, if any, would have similar
>>>>> characteristics to those of distance lightning strikes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your average cellphone emits up to five watts with an antenna
>>>>> carefully designed to maximize emission, and they're not hard to make
>>>>> directional. Even then their top range is a couple of miles, weather
>>>>> permitting.
>>>>>
>>>>> So no, ETs at any distance had no chance at all to hear Faraday any
>>>>> more than they could have heard the alleged Baghdad battery being
>>>>> hooked up to electroplate metal objects much longer ago.
>>>>
>>>> No question you have approached this question in a logical and
>>>> scientific way with correct assumptions and calculations. The only
>>>> problem with questions like this and answers like yours, Mark, is that
>>>> ETs have ways of sensing electrical activity that you know nothing about.
>>>
>>>   And, you know this by way of your ESP?
>
>   I note your failure to respond.
>
>>>   Signal detection limits over large distances are physics limits, not
>>> technology limits. Aliens 90-95 LY away could build receiving antennas as
>>> large as this solar system and still not be able to identify Faraday's
>>> emissions. They were just too weak, and spectrally indistinguishable from
>>> natural sources at that.
>>>
>>>   Tesla is a different matter; at the power levels he liked to play with,
>>> and the high frequencies, and his conviction that he'd picked up signals
>>> from Mars, he could have easily transmitted readable signals 100 LY away.
>>> For all we know he did, but any EM reply wouldn't get here for about
>>> another century.
>>
>> You still don't get it, Mark. You dredge up all your electromagnetic
>> rules and "prove" something is "impossible" without understanding that
>> you don't know everything.
>
>   I don't need to know everything. The inverse-square law is sufficient.
>
>   You appear to "know" that ETs exist, and possess magical technology that could have detected Faraday's signals, but provide no support for your "knowledge".
>
>   You keep claiming this "knowledge" in fact, year after year, but never ever provide a shred of evidence.
>
>   That's not physics.
>
>> A typical example of this sort of thing was when Tesla's professor "proved"
>> that an electric motor MUST have a commutator!
>
>   It's clear that professor didn't even know EM theory and practice of his day.
>
>> Get the picture? All you've proved is that aliens could not
>> sense if Faraday was doing something using OUR kind of EM receivers.
>
>   I get the picture. You hate physics, so instead you bleat about magical-technology-using ETs, gods, ghosts, and so on.
>
>> So did God know?
>
>   Now you're just trolling.
>
>
>   Mark L. Fergerson

I guess you haven't heard that all advanced technology appears like 
magic to the primitive natives such as yourself.

Oh, I forgot, you atheists turn green at the mention of God or Gods. 
Have to use that word "Xtaian" so as to be cure to cross out all those 
erroneous beliefs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596056

On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 6:07:49 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> On 9/3/2016 10:58 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 6:31:58 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
[]
> >> No question you have approached this question in a logical and
> >> scientific way with correct assumptions and calculations. The only
> >> problem with questions like this and answers like yours, Mark, is that
> >> ETs have ways of sensing electrical activity that you know nothing about.
> >
> >   And, you know this by way of your ESP?
> >
> >   Signal detection limits over large distances are physics limits,
> > not technology limits. Aliens 90-95 LY away could build receiving
> > antennas as large as this solar system and still not be able to
> > identify Faraday's emissions. They were just too weak, and spectrally
> > indistinguishable from natural sources at that.
> >
> >   Tesla is a different matter; at the power levels he liked to
> > play with, and the high frequencies, and his conviction that
> > he'd picked up signals from Mars, he could have easily
> > transmitted readable signals 100 LY away. For all we know
> > he did, but any EM reply wouldn't get here for about another
> > century.
> >
> >
> >   Mark L. Fergerson
> 
> You still don't get it, Mark. You dredge up all your electromagnetic 
> rules and "prove" something is "impossible" without understanding that 
> you don't know everything. A typical example of this sort of thing was 
> when Tesla's professor "proved" that an electric motor MUST have a 
> commutator! Get the picture? All you've proved is that aliens could not 
> sense if Faraday was doing something using OUR kind of EM receivers.

NO, he presented an argument using known physics. The signals Faraday
produced look no different than the spark you get from a doorknob on
a cold winter's day.

And the signal strength is so low that it would reach a point where it is a single photon.

> So 
> did God know? Yes? So that "proves" that Faraday's activities produced 
> SOME other kind of signal than the EM ones you just "proved" can't be 
> it. Right? :-)

Wrong.
> 
> You've got to stop blindly accepting all the crap HVAC spewed out here. 
> He's a journalist loser who knows no science.

You've got to stop blindly spewing ETs as God-like scenarios.
ed

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web