Thread: ELF transmitter

Hi guys.......id like to build myself something as a project.

I would like to build myself a short-range (when I say short range, i mean the same kind if range as your average wireless modem) - ELF device, to experiment with. - It has been said that ELF waves can affect the human brain waves i.e moods etc. Id like to test this concept for myself, ive tried googling it, but all i seem to get are conspiracy theories. But id like to buy some kit to enable me to experiment with various frequencies and amplitudes of ELF but not too sure where to start.

Does anyone have any ideas?

Thanks.

You really only need an oscillator a driver and an impediance matched antenna, the antenna bit will be tricky at very low frequencys, there not effective unless they are a certain ratio to the wavelength.
To be honest though im a bit critical of radio waves effecting your brain in any way, especially at low power. Plus I dont think you should be wrapping your home made transmitters around your skull.

Yes, I would like a transmitter that used the mains power in my home supple, not a battery made one. Can you expand a bit on what you mean? - and if possible point me to any online stores that you know of ?

First what sort of waves are you looking to transmit?

Sound (ie pressure) waves or Electromagnetic.
Second what sort of frequency? elf is usually quoted as 3-30Hz.

If (for example) you want to transmit radio waves at or around a few hertz, then
my best advice would be try something else instead (unless you have a garden that's a little longer than most people's).

For audio waves use an audio system with a good low frequency response.

Incidentally a quarter wave antenna at 10 Hz would be around 6 to 7.5 Million metres in length - so short range is just not an option!.

Well, something along the lines of 3-30Hz would be just perfect; and the waves would be electromagnetic. any ideas ?

Why the long garden?

Try to build a radio to pick up the 50Hz radiated from the national power grid, since all uk power is transported this way it must be quite a strong signal...

Can't do it? - I thought not even the US government has only had limited success below 15 khz.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Try to build a radio to pick up the 50Hz radiated from the national power grid, since all uk power is transported this way it must be quite a strong signal...

Can't do it? - I thought not even the US government has only had limited success below 15 khz.

An oscilloscope picks it up nicely, with just a piece of aluminum foil attached, or if you touch the probe to your body.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

Okay ill put it another way. What kind of stuff would i need to give it a go ? Whats my shopping list?

just tell us what you are trying to do first, vauge references to "I wnat to build a machine to transmit elf" isn't really that good.

If you want to shatter a horses skull with a 3Hz electromagnetic wave, first you'lll need to harness power, lots of power, probably about the same amount as our local galaxy gives out since there is no evidence whatsover that waves of this length are harmfull.

The energy in an electromagnetic wave (e)= hf where f is the frequency (3 Hz) and h = planck's constant, now balance the 3 hertz with your average medium wave radio wavelength (1million Hertz) or even UV light at around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 Hz and you get the idea that all the energy transmitted at 50Hz around the world would probably do less harm than shining a torch with almost flat batteries at somebody 10 miles away!

So why not just take the 17million tons of copper wire you will need to shift all this power and drop that onto the horse - much quicker, save the poor thing all that waitling around for it's head to fall off...

Now the easist way to kill a horse with EM radio waves is to jam it's head into a US microwave oven (they are bound to sell one in Texas big enough for a horses head, next frig the interlock switch so you can power it on with the door open then set it to defrost 40lb chicken type setting - result 1 dead horse.


PLEASE NOTE, No horses were used or harmed whilst researching for this post.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

just tell us what you are trying to do first, vauge references to "I wnat to build a machine to transmit elf" isn't really that good.

If you want to shatter a horses skull with a 3Hz electromagnetic wave, first you'lll need to harness power, lots of power, probably about the same amount as our local galaxy gives out since there is no evidence whatsover that waves of this length are harmfull.

The energy in an electromagnetic wave (e)= hf where f is the frequency (3 Hz) and h = planck's constant, now balance the 3 hertz with your average medium wave radio wavelength (1million Hertz) or even UV light at around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 Hz and you get the idea that all the energy transmitted at 50Hz around the world would probably do less harm than shining a torch with almost flat batteries at somebody 10 miles away!

So why not just take the 17million tons of copper wire you will need to shift all this power and drop that onto the horse - much quicker, save the poor thing all that waitling around for it's head to fall off...

Now the easist way to kill a horse with EM radio waves is to jam it's head into a US microwave oven (they are bound to sell one in Texas big enough for a horses head, next frig the interlock switch so you can power it on with the door open then set it to defrost 40lb chicken type setting - result 1 dead horse.


PLEASE NOTE, No horses were used or harmed whilst researching for this post.

I do not agree with frequency being all that important, unless it is a frequency destructive to what you are trying to destroy, feed or effect. In other words what ever you are transmitting the frequency with, is obviously not that effected by the frequency.

But any metal any substance to my knowledge can be destroyed with the right frequency. It is the frequency that causes the atoms/molecules to literally bounce in harmony, causing a lack of form to occur. It causes repulsion induction in the object itself, between the atom/molecules of the object.

Radio, basically a polarizing field, also causes polarity in the body. This can cook you from the inside out. Like a microwave does.

I do explosive testing as my hobby. I can with one pulse of electrical energy, create rays that will effect a human deep inside his body. But what am I doing? If you go back and look at the explosion, you see I created UV rays, and some x-rays, that do penetrate humans. So although I only created one pulse, that pulse creates rays that some would call high frequency rays, like UV.

Well the same is true of electricity/radio that was for over a hundred years the same thing. By creating radio waves, at certain frequencies near certain objects, you will get anything from lethal x-rays, Ultra-Violet, Heat rays, and even electricity and bolts of lightning.
A lot of radio men that were not given this top secret information, were badly injured by x-rays generated by rather low power radio equipment. They just happened to create that sweet spot, of voltage and frequency. This does not require a lot of watts to do. On the contrary many of them recounted in horror the incident and the low power that was being conveyed for the test.

It is this midunderstanding that has lead many to believe that frequency effects the wattage delivered. On a scientific level no it does not. On an actual practical level yes it can.

Frequency, as in any piece of induction equipment is highly important to the efficiency of the device, and is very critical to the motor operating properly and making use of the voltage and amperage, to allow the motor to perform as it was designed. If the frequency feed to a motor is not proper, you do not get the proper conduction of electricity through the motor. It can over heat, it can run to slow or run to fast.

So when you say frequency it does not really change anything except the way the receptor can or cannot make use of the power. The frequency does not effect the power output actually. But may effect how a device receives it. Or how a secondary device reacts to it.
But that is not the power outputs problem. The power is there in both cases, high and low frequency, however it is only made use of, by certain objects or test equipment, in either case.

Some transformers will almost stop functioning at higher hertz, then they were designed for. So you can see that although the same or slightly more wattage at higher hertz can also be rejected or not accepted, and create less wattage at the receiver then lower hertz.

That is why large halogen lights are supposed to be isolated from the grid by transformer.


Sincerely,


William McCormick

Alrighty, I'm going to make my best attempt at really explaining what William tried to say over and over again. (That might be too much credit to him, but his post is very confusing.)

What I think William is trying to say, is that there is an electrical/physical property known as resonance. At resonance, lots of things happen. In mechanical systems, it's vibration. Resonance due to wind has taken down bridges because the vibrations become so strong the structure starts to move, oscillate, and break itself apart.

In electrical systems, resonance occurs at a frequency where the load impedance of the resonant circuit is at a minimum and maximum current can flow. In poorly designed systems, this means that if you hit a resonance of the circuit, your voltages/currents could go high enough to fry some circuitry. Otherwise, it is severely exploited in filtering and communications.

Now, as he correctly stated, resonance itself does not directly affect current or voltage. It does, however, directly affect impedance of a circuit, and therefore, indirectly affect current and voltage causing a higher power output. In this case, the maximum power output of the circuit can be found at the resonant frequency of the circuit. So if you were to make a resonant circuit at 20kHz, and tie the output to an impedance matched 20kHz antenna, then you would get the maximum possible power output.

He is wrong that the frequency of your device has no effect on the power output, or the primary circuit. When you design your ELF gun as it appears you want to do, frequency is going to play a major role in the design, otherwise your design will fail.

As far as ELF advice goes, a lot of people have looked into the 18Hz region. There was one report I read that explains "Ghost activity" in certain places by measuring the ambient fields. Their findings showed about 10 places that were known "haunts" of apparitions where an 18Hz (or close to) signal was present in the ambient fields. This lead them to do a study at low frequencies on human tissue donated to science, and they discovered that a human eye resonates at roughly 18 Hz. That might be a good starting point for you.

Good luck, if you're working with pressure waves/sound waves I'd recommend finding a good transducer instead of going the typical antenna route.

We are talking electromagnetic here, as opposed to sound. THe human eye does NOT resonate at a frequency of 18Hz when considering electromagnetic waves. It might well boil at 2.4GHz but not at 18Hz.

Okay. the brainwaves are elf waves that range from 4Hz when sleeping to 30Hz when fully awake and adrenalin has been pumped into the system.

I want to build a machine that will transmit elf so that I can experiment with it, and my brain in my home. i.e. to see if switched on at different frequencies will affect my moods/sleeping patterns / energy levels etc.

I do not wish to build something to destroy the world. lol.

Actually we're talking about different applications of the same thing. If he's using sound, as I was discussing, the research I've seen indicates funky things happening in or around the 18Hz region. Mainly associated with distortions in the eye.

If we're talking about just radiating the signal, then I doubt he'll see any noticeable anything. It's also important to note that some people think it causes cancer. I'm not one to say it doesn't, but I don't believe it does. That's just my opinion based on logical observation, not concrete science, so don't take it as anything other than an opinion.

Anyway, Happy Easter.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

We are talking electromagnetic here, as opposed to sound. THe human eye does NOT resonate at a frequency of 18Hz when considering electromagnetic waves. It might well boil at 2.4GHz but not at 18Hz.

Your eye can boil from wattage delivered. It can be at one hertz, or 2.4 billion hertz.

Look at metal, some metals, I can tap, hammer, and bend a billion times and nothing happens. I lower the temperature from the average 60-90 degree temperature they are usually used in, by just 45 degrees. What happens?

Some of them shatter like glass when hammered. No extra power, no extra frequency. However their internal structure resonates at a higher frequency, when struck that one time that shatters them.

People are just still in awe of what frequency can do with low wattage. It is just a witch doctor type of awe though. Not unexplained by real science.

Some of the powerful effects tied to frequency are just effects that effect, either the air, or the receiver. I have disintegrated air, with high frequency, and standard equipment, that is designed to be safe, and not do that.
The day this occurred the relative humidity in the place where I was welding was so high, that the frequency literally detonated the air. It lit the air, made the moist air, emit a green light. That is a bit unnerving when you are wet and laying on sheets of metal.

Create an AC current of half of the voltage of a DC current that does not cause you any discomfort. Keep increasing the hertz, until it is uncomfortable to hold it. Why? Your body can deal with the continuous current of twice the delivered voltage.

Part of the reason is that your body, is acting like a conductor and not an element. Part of the reason whey humans live through lightning bolts is because the skin raises in voltage so quickly that, it can repel the amperage in the lightning bolt that would have killed for sure. Boiled you in a flash.

So when you increase the frequency of voltage, amperage and wattage, delivered to the body, by holding two metal terminals. The body in an attempt to be a good insulator overloads. It can heat, and even generate high frequency outputs, with only a tiny bit of wattage.
This can happen in a server farm, to the insulators of all that wire carrying a dizzying array of communications at very high frequency. The insulators become overloaded.

I sometimes work in server farms and they watch in horror as I work in water and touch their stuff.



Sincerely,


William McCormick

Actually it's reading your posts at 18cps that makes my eyes boil, (that's characters per second NOT cycles per second).

Anyway nice to see you are now using the term Hz, whereas your book probably uses the older "Electromotive Fluctuations per Cubit of Candle Burnt".

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Actually it's reading your posts at 18cps that makes my eyes boil, (that's characters per second NOT cycles per second).

Anyway nice to see you are now using the term Hz, whereas your book probably uses the older "Electromotive Fluctuations per Cubit of Candle Burnt".

You need modulator that would modulate the frequency that you wish to tune on your body with transmittable wave media.
Media means radio or light or any other method of signal transmission.

Originally Posted by leohopkins

Hi guys.......id like to build myself something as a project. I would like to build myself a short-range (when I say short range, i mean the same kind if range as your average wireless modem) - ELF device, to experiment with. - It has been said that ELF waves can affect the human brain waves i.e moods etc. Id like to test this concept for myself, ive tried googling it, but all i seem to get are conspiracy theories. But id like to buy some kit to enable me to experiment with various frequencies and amplitudes of ELF but not too sure where to start. Does anyone have any ideas? Thanks.

Wow, that's interesting of you to be involved in such a subject. I don't know much about the topic but what i do know is if you add the carrier signal and add the amount of signal being sent then you have something. Are you planning to use this for a special occasion? Lol. If you are just wanting to experiment then perhaps i can help provided you do not use it for any evil purposes. Care to join forces and find a solution together?

What if i wanted to transmit the wave over a longer range such as 1 km?

the antenna becomes the biggest problem

yes that is true but i think that you can still be able to send data through the materials with a short range antenna. Any ideas on how?

The reason i say this is because the packets that the transmitter sends through the metallic material seem to shed off the outer layers as it goes through it. Funnily enough, the intended target still gets contacted by the remaining packets that manage to get through. Can you explain why this is?

Originally Posted by Steiner101

You really only need an oscillator a driver and an impediance matched antenna,

I'd phrase it a bit differently. You don't need an impedance matched antenna, although it would be desirable for high efficiency. However ELF wavelengths are so great that you are simply not going to be able to get a good match. You'll just have to accept the tradeoff.

The other bit is that the proposed experiment is presumably going to take place within a short distance of the transmitter. By "short" I specifically mean "short compared to a wavelength." That automatically takes you out of the radiation field and into the near-field region of the antenna. In short, you'll be coupling to the transmitter either capacitively or inductively, not through any wave action at all.

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

The reason i say this is because the packets that the transmitter sends through the metallic material seem to shed off the outer layers as it goes through it. Funnily enough, the intended target still gets contacted by the remaining packets that manage to get through. Can you explain why this is?

I don't know precisely what the physical arrangement of your experiment is. However, I can give you a few general guidelines. As I noted in my previous post, you are going to be coupling to the ELF transmitter capacitively or inductively. The wavelengths are very large; shielding will have to take that into account. No shielding is 100% effective; all attenuation factors are finite in practice.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

The reason i say this is because the packets that the transmitter sends through the metallic material seem to shed off the outer layers as it goes through it. Funnily enough, the intended target still gets contacted by the remaining packets that manage to get through. Can you explain why this is?

I don't know precisely what the physical arrangement of your experiment is. However, I can give you a few general guidelines. As I noted in my previous post, you are going to be coupling to the ELF transmitter capacitively or inductively. The wavelengths are very large; shielding will have to take that into account. No shielding is 100% effective; all attenuation factors are finite in practice.

The purpose of my experiment is to produce a wavelength that can have data in it. A wavelength that can be big and small (mm) that when the amount is increased it can go through objects including metal.

For instance, in theory a normal wavelength that hits the metallic object cannot go through it due to its shielding properties. But when you increase the amount sent, what happens is that the data being sent penetrates through the metallic object but it does so at the cost of shredding the outer layers and still being able to heat up the surface of the target.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

The reason i say this is because the packets that the transmitter sends through the metallic material seem to shed off the outer layers as it goes through it. Funnily enough, the intended target still gets contacted by the remaining packets that manage to get through. Can you explain why this is?

I don't know precisely what the physical arrangement of your experiment is. However, I can give you a few general guidelines. As I noted in my previous post, you are going to be coupling to the ELF transmitter capacitively or inductively. The wavelengths are very large; shielding will have to take that into account. No shielding is 100% effective; all attenuation factors are finite in practice.

Also could you explain abit more on what you mean by capacitively or inductively please?

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

Also could you explain abit more on what you mean by capacitively or inductively please?

If an antenna is very short compared to a wavelength (as will almost always be the case for any practical ELF antenna, because ELF wavelengths are thousands to hundreds of thousands of kilometers or more), very little radiation actually occurs. If the antenna is a conventional dipole, most of the energy will be stored in the electric field. It thus behaves capacitively. If the antenna is a loop, most of the energy will be stored in the magnetic field and thus behaves inductively.

The large wavelengths explain why shielding can be difficult to implement. There is a parameter known as "skin depth" which is, roughly speaking, the depth to which an EM field will significantly penetrate a conductor; it varies as the inverse square-root of frequency. In order to be effective, a shield should be many skin depths thick. At 60Hz, copper possesses a skin depth of something like 1cm, if memory serves, so you'd need a piece of copper that is several cm thick to do a good job (the skin depth is given as the square-root of 1/pi*f*sigma*mu, where f is frequency in Hz, sigma is the conductivity in S/m, and mu is the permeability of the material in H/m).

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

Also could you explain abit more on what you mean by capacitively or inductively please?

If an antenna is very short compared to a wavelength (as will almost always be the case for any practical ELF antenna, because ELF wavelengths are thousands to hundreds of thousands of kilometers or more), very little radiation actually occurs. If the antenna is a conventional dipole, most of the energy will be stored in the electric field. It thus behaves capacitively. If the antenna is a loop, most of the energy will be stored in the magnetic field and thus behaves inductively.

The large wavelengths explain why shielding can be difficult to implement. There is a parameter known as "skin depth" which is, roughly speaking, the depth to which an EM field will significantly penetrate a conductor; it varies as the inverse square-root of frequency. In order to be effective, a shield should be many skin depths thick. At 60Hz, copper possesses a skin depth of something like 1cm, if memory serves, so you'd need a piece of copper that is several cm thick to do a good job (the skin depth is given as the square-root of 1/pi*f*sigma*mu, where f is frequency in Hz, sigma is the conductivity in S/m, and mu is the permeability of the material in H/m).

Ok so as far as i know, what you're saying is if it is capacitively then the power source is coming from the electric field itself that is generated and inductively when there is a magnetic field generated? Because i know capacitors are used to store energy and coils are used to create magnetic fields. But for something to be generated and projected out like say burning an image into a wall you'd need to combine these with an antenna. Am i right?

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

Ok so as far as i know, what you're saying is if it is capacitively then the power source is coming from the electric field itself that is generated and inductively when there is a magnetic field generated?

That's close enough for our purposes for now.

Because i know capacitors are used to store energy and coils are used to create magnetic fields. But for something to be generated and projected out like say burning an image into a wall you'd need to combine these with an antenna. Am i right?

Sort of, but not quite. A more accurate statement would be to say that a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of radiation (in which E and H each fall off only as 1/r, instead of as the inverse-square) is the presence of both E and H. The formal mathematics is found in the Poynting vector (integral of ExH -- that's "E cross H," not "E times H", where E and H are vector quantities). If E and H are collinear, then no power is actually conveyed, despite the presence of both E and H; you need a phase shift between E and H. A wire is a good antenna only if it is long enough (i.e., a significant fraction of a wavelength) to satisfy the necessary phase shift condition. That's why short wires (again, denominated in wavelengths) are lousy antennas (and in fact behave more like capacitors). Short wires that are open-circuited behave like capacitors because of the negligible energy stored in a magnetic field. Energy is then reactively exchanged between the transmitter and the environment. Most of it just returns to the transmitter, unlike a true antenna's behavior.

Sort of, but not quite. A more accurate statement would be to say that a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of radiation (in which E and H each fall off only as 1/r, instead of as the inverse-square) is the presence of both E and H. The formal mathematics is found in the Poynting vector (integral of ExH -- that's "E cross H," not "E times H", where E and H are vector quantities). If E and H are collinear, then no power is actually conveyed, despite the presence of both E and H; you need a phase shift between E and H. A wire is a good antenna only if it is long enough (i.e., a significant fraction of a wavelength) to satisfy the necessary phase shift condition. That's why short wires (again, denominated in wavelengths) are lousy antennas (and in fact behave more like capacitors). Short wires that are open-circuited behave like capacitors because of the negligible energy stored in a magnetic field. Energy is then reactively exchanged between the transmitter and the environment. Most of it just returns to the transmitter, unlike a true antenna's behavior.

Ok so if i used capacitors (about 5 of them) to store energy produced from a battery, add a waveform (sine wave, etc..), some controllers for adjustment of quantity and how short/long the waves are, then have the power source wave signal sent to 2 coils (one with 7 turns, another with 9 turns) to create a magnetic field, would i be able to send a signal through an antenna like Motorola? Because i agree that a generic antenna wouldn't work as well like you said.

Originally Posted by eychung1888

You need modulator that would modulate the frequency that you wish to tune on your body with transmittable wave media.
Media means radio or light or any other method of signal transmission.

Does that also mean if i wanted to transmit media through objects (e.g.. walls, etc) that that light is the best method or by radio?

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

Ok so as far as i know, what you're saying is if it is capacitively then the power source is coming from the electric field itself that is generated and inductively when there is a magnetic field generated?

That's close enough for our purposes for now.

Because i know capacitors are used to store energy and coils are used to create magnetic fields. But for something to be generated and projected out like say burning an image into a wall you'd need to combine these with an antenna. Am i right?

Sort of, but not quite. A more accurate statement would be to say that a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of radiation (in which E and H each fall off only as 1/r, instead of as the inverse-square) is the presence of both E and H. The formal mathematics is found in the Poynting vector (integral of ExH -- that's "E cross H," not "E times H", where E and H are vector quantities). If E and H are collinear, then no power is actually conveyed, despite the presence of both E and H; you need a phase shift between E and H. A wire is a good antenna only if it is long enough (i.e., a significant fraction of a wavelength) to satisfy the necessary phase shift condition. That's why short wires (again, denominated in wavelengths) are lousy antennas (and in fact behave more like capacitors). Short wires that are open-circuited behave like capacitors because of the negligible energy stored in a magnetic field. Energy is then reactively exchanged between the transmitter and the environment. Most of it just returns to the transmitter, unlike a true antenna's behavior.

Thanks for that. Also, just wanted to know, which is better: An energy field or magnetic field or both? i know magnetic fields are created from the coils. If you want i can show you what i mean.

How many miles long will your antenna need to be? You know that frequency, wavelength, and antenna size maintain certain relationships, right?

ELF is technically 3 hz to 30 hz. Any idea how long of a wavelength that is?

You would want to control a magnetic field. You aren't goung to get a radio wave of any efficiency.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

How many miles long will your antenna need to be? You know that frequency, wavelength, and antenna size maintain certain relationships, right?

ELF is technically 3 hz to 30 hz. Any idea how long of a wavelength that is?

You would want to control a magnetic field. You aren't goung to get a radio wave of any efficiency.

Yes i know that 3hz to 30 hz is something like a km of a wavelength. But i also know that IR tech works in the mm wavelength range for radar, thermal imaging, etc.. so if we're talking about heating up an object by penetrating the wall that protects it, then i'm guessing by controlling a magnetic field you could control the amount that is projected by the ELF, true?

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

How many miles long will your antenna need to be? You know that frequency, wavelength, and antenna size maintain certain relationships, right?

ELF is technically 3 hz to 30 hz. Any idea how long of a wavelength that is?

You would want to control a magnetic field. You aren't goung to get a radio wave of any efficiency.

Yes i know that 3hz to 30 hz is something like a km of a wavelength. But i also know that IR tech works in the mm wavelength range for radar, thermal imaging, etc.. so if we're talking about heating up an object by penetrating the wall that protects it, then i'm guessing by controlling a magnetic field you could control the amount that is projected by the ELF, true?

Your last several posts reveal such a deep and broad misunderstanding of the subject that I can't hope to offer much.

But here goes a few stabs at repair: First, IR does not work in the mm range. IR's wavelengths are denominated in microns (perhaps 10s of microns, for long-wave IR), so you're off by a factor of 1000 or so. Next, IR imaging doesn't work by heating, any more than visible imaging works by heating. They work the same way. The only difference (besides the resolving power, which scales according to wavelength) is that different wavelengths propagate differently through media.

I don't know where you got this "works by heating" meme stuck in your head, but you need to hit the cranial clear button. Perhaps you got confused by reading that some IR sensors (bolometers) work by converting the incident IR to heat, which then subsequently modulates a resistance, but that indirect chain of transductions is not to be confused with the fundamentals of EM.

Next, I recommend studying Maxwell's equations. You seem to have understood almost nothing of what I wrote, as judged by your follow-up questions and comments. An example is a comment in which you make a distinction between sending the wave as energy or a magnetic field. If you understood E and M, you would have realized that energy can be stored in an electric field, magnetic field, or both. The conveyance of energy is formally computed by evaluating the Poynting integral.

The last point I'll offer is a repetition of one I'd already made, but which did not seem to stick. Precisely because ELF wavelengths are so large, you will not actually be conveying energy as waves in the experiment that you seem to be thinking of (where the source and receiver are relatively close together). That means that you will be coupling these systems together either magnetically/inductively (if your "antenna" is a coil-like) or electrically/capacitively (if your "antenna" is wire-like). In the language of the subject, you will be relying entirely on near-field coupling, not waves.

If none of the foregoing is clear to you, that's a sign that you need to hit the books. Your intuition about electromagnetism is ill-formed, so you run the risk of wasting a lot of time and money building something that you don't understand, and that therefore won't work.

Thanks TK421 for clearing that up. I understood what you wrote about the energy being stored in an electrical field, magnetic or both and apologise if i have misrepresented my meaning of words. i have attached an image to demonstrate what i hope to achieve in my experiment. Perhaps that might clear things up.

researchdiagram.jpg

Still here if you have any questions. I'm pretty sure this tech is already being used though.

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

Thanks TK421 for clearing that up. I understood what you wrote about the energy being stored in an electrical field, magnetic or both and apologise if i have misrepresented my meaning of words. i have attached an image to demonstrate what i hope to achieve in my experiment. Perhaps that might clear things up. .

Sort of.

I confess to being baffled, though, by this idea of "encapsulation" that's shown in the figure. Could you say a bit more about what this means, how you achieve it, and why you think shielding would preferentially affect only the encapsulation, while leaving intact the rest of the signal?

LOL...

Airborne Command Post stretches a cable antenna behind it for miles to transmit to the submarines.

Originally Posted by tk421

Sort of.

I confess to being baffled, though, by this idea of "encapsulation" that's shown in the figure. Could you say a bit more about what this means, how you achieve it, and why you think shielding would preferentially affect only the encapsulation, while leaving intact the rest of the signal?

Certainly. There are two forms of signals: one which carries data and one that does not. In my experiment, i transmit a signal which carries data in it. This data could be anything (pictures, text, sound, combination of all) but just before the ' data packet' gets transmitted it gets wrapped up with protocols (this could either be IEEE 802.11, Wifi, frame relay, etc.). This is referred to 'encapsulation' as the data packet gets wrapped up to let the receiver (switch, router) know where its destination is and where it came from.

In my experiment, the data packet is wrapped up and sent on a carrier signal which has no destination since the signal is being used as the carrier for the data packet. This is sufficient enough for the data packet to be sent and directed to a specific target, whatever that may be. So to put it simply the data packet is wrapped up, gets placed on a carrier signal and sent out to the destination. Now as far as i know, when this data packet hits the metallic object it shreds off abit of the packet for some reason. The more effective shielding in place the more it prevents data packets to be sent through it , thus shredding off the data packet bit by bit starting off from the outside towards the inside of the data packet. However, even though in this experiment the data packet has the outside shredded i noticed that the data packet still manages to get through because of the signal carrier. This could be because of the volume or amount of energy that is applied and/or the frequency it is using.

Now this is where i'm stuck. I'm not sure whether its because of the electric field, magnetic field (or both) that is being applied that is causing the source of the signal carrier to send out multiple mm waves or it is because of the type of signal carrier chosen that is causing it since the intended target object still gets touched even with the metallic object applied for shielding.

You are aware that the amount of data a carrier can contain is proportional to frequency, not wavelength...

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

Certainly. There are two forms of signals: one which carries data and one that does not. In my experiment, i transmit a signal which carries data in it. This data could be anything (pictures, text, sound, combination of all) but just before the ' data packet' gets transmitted it gets wrapped up with protocols (this could either be IEEE 802.11, Wifi, frame relay, etc.). This is referred to 'encapsulation' as the data packet gets wrapped up to let the receiver (switch, router) know where its destination is and where it came from.

I was afraid that this is what you were getting at. As MeteorWayne's question suggests, you seem to be completely unaware of modulation theory and of Shannon's channel capacity theorem. In WiFi, for example, the carrier frequency is 2.4GHz, and we use that to transmit at data rates that are an order of magnitude or more lower.

In your case, you are looking at carrier frequencies of hertz or tens of hertz. Tell me how you are going to encode video onto such a low carrier frequency. What does the spectrum of the signal look like?

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

Certainly. There are two forms of signals: one which carries data and one that does not. In my experiment, i transmit a signal which carries data in it. This data could be anything (pictures, text, sound, combination of all) but just before the ' data packet' gets transmitted it gets wrapped up with protocols (this could either be IEEE 802.11, Wifi, frame relay, etc.). This is referred to 'encapsulation' as the data packet gets wrapped up to let the receiver (switch, router) know where its destination is and where it came from.

I was afraid that this is what you were getting at. As MeteorWayne's question suggests, you seem to be completely unaware of modulation theory and of Shannon's channel capacity theorem. In WiFi, for example, the carrier frequency is 2.4GHz, and we use that to transmit at data rates that are an order of magnitude or more lower.

In your case, you are looking at carrier frequencies of hertz or tens of hertz. Tell me how you are going to encode video onto such a low carrier frequency. What does the spectrum of the signal look like?

video? That is way too much for me at the moment. I am looking at something more lower than video, like text or pictures. I think it would fit in Wifi ok.... by spectrum are you talking about square, sine and sawtooth waves or something else?

here's something that might explain it in more detail, please read:

Are gravitation and electromagnetism related?

I was reading the thread and it contained some useful info about photons and how it carries information in an energy-less way. Interesting no doubt.

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

video? That is way too much for me at the moment. I am looking at something more lower than video, like text or pictures. I think it would fit in Wifi ok.... by spectrum are you talking about square, sine and sawtooth waves or something else?

By spectrum is meant the spectral occupancy of a signal. Every information-bearing signal occupies a non-zero amount of spectrum.

There is a fundamental limit that is a function of bandwidth and signal-to-noise ratio that determines the channel capacity (as measure in bits per second). The lower the carrier frequency, the lower this limit, all other things being equal. So with a carrier frequency in the ELF band, you are consigned to data rates of bits per second, as a rough order of magnitude. So even text or pictures is a challenge.

I still have no idea what this encapsulation/stripping/propagation model is that you have in mind. Makes no sense to me.

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

In my experiment, the data packet is wrapped up and sent on a carrier signal which has no destination since the signal is being used as the carrier for the data packet. This is sufficient enough for the data packet to be sent and directed to a specific target, whatever that may be. So to put it simply the data packet is wrapped up, gets placed on a carrier signal and sent out to the destination. Now as far as i know, when this data packet hits the metallic object it shreds off abit of the packet for some reason.

You description of radio packets being "shredded" makes absolutely no sense to me, I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

here's something that might explain it in more detail, please read

He has posted that on this forum as well. It is complete nonsense.

Wow...

Now with QAM, you can get more data than the frequency rate, but ELF is a very slow type of data. Under the best conditions, expensive transcievers, and the proper miles long antennas, you would be lucky to push 300 baud on it with QAM.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Now with QAM, you can get more data than the frequency rate, but ELF is a very slow type of data. Under the best conditions, expensive transcievers, and the proper miles long antennas, you would be lucky to push 300 baud on it with QAM.

QAM is neither necessary nor sufficient. Indeed, it's not even optimum. OFDM does much better still. Formally, Shannon tells us that the channel capacity is proportional to the bandwidth, and to the log of SNR. If we are talking about a 30 Hz signal, the channel bandwidth will be upper-bounded to 60Hz (for real signals whose spectra will be symmetrical), but will in fact be much smaller than that, as the lower sidebands will not propagate well, and are therefore not truly available.

For a 30dB SNR (and a channel whose noise is well approximated as additive white gaussian), you might get 10 bits/sec/Hz, potentially allowing you to achieve the 300baud value you cited. But lots of things have to go your way to get that value.

The point, of course, is that low carrier frequencies imply low data rates. The OP's "packet-shredding" diagram and verbal description suggest that the OP believes otherwise, among other problems.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Now with QAM, you can get more data than the frequency rate, but ELF is a very slow type of data. Under the best conditions, expensive transcievers, and the proper miles long antennas, you would be lucky to push 300 baud on it with QAM.

QAM is neither necessary nor sufficient. Indeed, it's not even optimum. OFDM does much better still. Formally, Shannon tells us that the channel capacity is proportional to the bandwidth, and to the log of SNR. If we are talking about a 30 Hz signal, the channel bandwidth will be upper-bounded to 60Hz (for real signals whose spectra will be symmetrical), but will in fact be much smaller than that, as the lower sidebands will not propagate well, and are therefore not truly available.


For a 30dB SNR (and a channel whose noise is well approximated as additive white gaussian), you might get 10 bits/sec/Hz, potentially allowing you to achieve the 300baud value you cited. But lots of things have to go your way to get that value.

The point, of course, is that low carrier frequencies imply low data rates. The OP's "packet-shredding" diagram and verbal description suggest that the OP believes otherwise, among other problems.

Has anyone ever heard of microwaves? I think the idea of microwaves as an example should give you a rough idea how the packets get sent and on the other end get shredded. I know its not the sort of thing it's supposed to be used for but i'm just saying in regards to the packets being sent and shredded.

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

Has anyone ever heard of microwaves? I think the idea of microwaves as an example should give you a rough idea how the packets get sent and on the other end get shredded. I know its not the sort of thing it's supposed to be used for but i'm just saying in regards to the packets being sent and shredded.

Microwaves are widely used for radio communication. I don't know how they are relevant to your interest in ELF as they are typically in the GHz range. I am also not sure how it is relevant to packets being "shredded" (or even what that means).

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

Has anyone ever heard of microwaves? I think the idea of microwaves as an example should give you a rough idea how the packets get sent and on the other end get shredded. I know its not the sort of thing it's supposed to be used for but i'm just saying in regards to the packets being sent and shredded.

Of course I've heard of microwaves. And in microwave communication there is no "shredding." That's precisely why your posts make no sense.

The modulations used in digital microwave communications such as WiFi are the result of logical encoding. Decoding them requires logical operations. Your picture shows no apparatus for logical operations. I have no idea what is being shredded, nor how that shredding is supposed to work without circuitry. The longer you post without specifics, the more I am forced to conclude that you're hopelessly confused.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

Has anyone ever heard of microwaves? I think the idea of microwaves as an example should give you a rough idea how the packets get sent and on the other end get shredded. I know its not the sort of thing it's supposed to be used for but i'm just saying in regards to the packets being sent and shredded.

Of course I've heard of microwaves. And in microwave communication there is no "shredding." That's precisely why your posts make no sense.

The modulations used in digital microwave communications such as WiFi are the result of logical encoding. Decoding them requires logical operations. Your picture shows no apparatus for logical operations. I have no idea what is being shredded, nor how that shredding is supposed to work without circuitry. The longer you post without specifics, the more I am forced to conclude that you're hopelessly confused.

That's what i meant when i said packets were encapsulated with data and protocols such as Wifi. Just like cables have Electro magnetic interference shielding to protect the wires from EM interference so data is not lost along the way, the packets that are sent to the target get shredded or reduced by this material without the need of circuitry.

Put it this way: Rather than having the need for logical operations to decode the data packets coming towards the target, the fact that they use energy is another way to, put it in a way, 'decode' it or shred it. Again, the aim of this experiment is to strip the data packets in any way possible. Therefore: 1) yes you can decode the incoming data packets as one method of stripping the packet; and as an alternative - 2) yes you can destroy the energy force (electric) used to bring the data packets to the target as well.

Any of these are successful. But i found the latter to be more useful in the long run as it requires no circuitry or power at all to strip the data packet of its contents, keeps the data packets inside of it reliably intact so data packets don't just drop and it doesn't get worn out so easily. I'd say it would be at least 10 years or more before it starts to show wear and tear? Very useful in cables that run for about 10 metres or more.

To Strange, thanks. Also microwaves get used in microwaves as well so its pretty handy.

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

Just like cables have Electro magnetic interference shielding to protect the wires from EM interference so data is not lost along the way, the packets that are sent to the target get shredded or reduced by this material without the need of circuitry.

I'm afraid your ideas about "shredding" packets are completely meaningless. They don't seem to bear any relation to anything that happens in the real world of wireless communication. Is this something you made up, or have you read about it somewhere?

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

That's what i meant when i said packets were encapsulated with data and protocols such as Wifi. Just like cables have Electro magnetic interference shielding to protect the wires from EM interference so data is not lost along the way, the packets that are sent to the target get shredded or reduced by this material without the need of circuitry.

Put it this way: Rather than having the need for logical operations to decode the data packets coming towards the target, the fact that they use energy is another way to, put it in a way, 'decode' it or shred it. Again, the aim of this experiment is to strip the data packets in any way possible. Therefore: 1) yes you can decode the incoming data packets as one method of stripping the packet; and as an alternative - 2) yes you can destroy the energy force (electric) used to bring the data packets to the target as well.

Any of these are successful. But i found the latter to be more useful in the long run as it requires no circuitry or power at all to strip the data packet of its contents, keeps the data packets inside of it reliably intact so data packets don't just drop and it doesn't get worn out so easily. I'd say it would be at least 10 years or more before it starts to show wear and tear? Very useful in cables that run for about 10 metres or more.

To Strange, thanks. Also microwaves get used in microwaves as well so its pretty handy.

Strange has beaten me to the punch, as usual. Your post is complete and utter nonsense, I'm afraid. You've just fantasized a mechanism; it does not exist. Shredding and encapsulation of the form you envision do not exist. I have no idea what you're talking about, nor where you got this idea into your head. I'll ask the same question that Strange asked: Did you think this up yourself, or did you read it somewhere? I'm curious.

Here's a simple way for you to discover how your idea is "not even wrong": Describe in detail how you:

a) encode/encapsulate a data stream onto an ELF carrier wave. Your detail must have sufficient mathematics to show explicitly how encoding takes place. Since you keep referring to WiFi as an example, show how to encode the simplest sub-variant of WiFi: 2Mb/s DSSS, scaled downward in frequency to be "encapsulated" on a 30Hz ELF carrier. Show what the spectrum of the encapsulated signal looks like (that means you need to show the range of frequencies your encapsulated signal occupies after encapsulation).

b) decode/shred the encoded signal without circuitry to recover the original information (modulation/data stream). Again, you must provide mathematical details. So far all you've described is indistinguishable from "then a magic unicorn takes a kilogram of unobtainium and waves it in my general direction." Details matter. Show them.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

That's what i meant when i said packets were encapsulated with data and protocols such as Wifi. Just like cables have Electro magnetic interference shielding to protect the wires from EM interference so data is not lost along the way, the packets that are sent to the target get shredded or reduced by this material without the need of circuitry.

Put it this way: Rather than having the need for logical operations to decode the data packets coming towards the target, the fact that they use energy is another way to, put it in a way, 'decode' it or shred it. Again, the aim of this experiment is to strip the data packets in any way possible. Therefore: 1) yes you can decode the incoming data packets as one method of stripping the packet; and as an alternative - 2) yes you can destroy the energy force (electric) used to bring the data packets to the target as well.

Any of these are successful. But i found the latter to be more useful in the long run as it requires no circuitry or power at all to strip the data packet of its contents, keeps the data packets inside of it reliably intact so data packets don't just drop and it doesn't get worn out so easily. I'd say it would be at least 10 years or more before it starts to show wear and tear? Very useful in cables that run for about 10 metres or more.

To Strange, thanks. Also microwaves get used in microwaves as well so its pretty handy.

Strange has beaten me to the punch, as usual. Your post is complete and utter nonsense, I'm afraid. You've just fantasized a mechanism; it does not exist. Shredding and encapsulation of the form you envision do not exist. I have no idea what you're talking about, nor where you got this idea into your head. I'll ask the same question that Strange asked: Did you think this up yourself, or did you read it somewhere? I'm curious.

Here's a simple way for you to discover how your idea is "not even wrong": Describe in detail how you:

a) encode/encapsulate a data stream onto an ELF carrier wave. Your detail must have sufficient mathematics to show explicitly how encoding takes place. Since you keep referring to WiFi as an example, show how to encode the simplest sub-variant of WiFi: 2Mb/s DSSS, scaled downward in frequency to be "encapsulated" on a 30Hz ELF carrier. Show what the spectrum of the encapsulated signal looks like (that means you need to show the range of frequencies your encapsulated signal occupies after encapsulation).

b) decode/shred the encoded signal without circuitry to recover the original information (modulation/data stream). Again, you must provide mathematical details. So far all you've described is indistinguishable from "then a magic unicorn takes a kilogram of unobtainium and waves it in my general direction." Details matter. Show them.

ok wait :

A) You mean encapsulate the data and then place them onto a carrier signal in the 802.11B and 802.11g range? I know there are 6 channels in the frequencies that fall in the 2.4ghz amateur radio band. But i think the 802.11a protocol on 3.7ghz with a bandwidth of about 20 and using 36 Mbit/s should be able to project the encapsulated data to the end device.


B) when i said decode/shred i was trying to speak in terms where you would understand but what i really meant was to shred the packet. There is no need to obtain the information contained in the packet as this experiment's aim is based on shredding the packet only. I have no intention of knowing what kind of data is stored in the packet. Perhaps in my next experiment but not this one.

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

[B) when i said decode/shred i was trying to speak in terms where you would understand but what i really meant was to shred the packet.

And what exactly does "shred the packet" mean? I have worked in electronics all my life and this is meaningless to me.

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

ok wait :

A) You mean encapsulate the data and then place them onto a carrier signal in the 802.11B and 802.11g range? I know there are 6 channels in the frequencies that fall in the 2.4ghz amateur radio band. But i think the 802.11a protocol on 3.7ghz with a bandwidth of about 20 and using 36 Mbit/s should be able to project the encapsulated data to the end device.


B) when i said decode/shred i was trying to speak in terms where you would understand but what i really meant was to shred the packet. There is no need to obtain the information contained in the packet as this experiment's aim is based on shredding the packet only. I have no intention of knowing what kind of data is stored in the packet. Perhaps in my next experiment but not this one.

I'm just trying to get you to tell us, after all these many posts, what it is that you mean. You were the one who brought up WiFi, protocols, etc.

The issue is a simple one: You keep invoking terms like "shredding" and "encapsulation" but you have never defined them (except in reference to WiFi, which you now seem to be saying is not at all relevant). Nor have you defined how these operations are performed at a physical level.

I'll try make it easier for you: At the physical level an EM wave is fully characterized by its complex spectrum and polarization. Since you are operating in the near field, polarization isn't available to you as a degree of freedom, so it's just spectrum. So, how do encapsulation and shredding affect the spectrum (a term that earlier you seemed not to recognize)?

[QUOTE=tk421;357222]

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

I'm just trying to get you to tell us, after all these many posts, what it is that you mean. You were the one who brought up WiFi, protocols, etc.

The issue is a simple one: You keep invoking terms like "shredding" and "encapsulation" but you have never defined them (except in reference to WiFi, which you now seem to be saying is not at all relevant). Nor have you defined how these operations are performed at a physical level.

I'll try make it easier for you: At the physical level an EM wave is fully characterized by its complex spectrum and polarization. Since you are operating in the near field, polarization isn't available to you as a degree of freedom, so it's just spectrum. So, how do encapsulation and shredding affect the spectrum (a term that earlier you seemed not to recognize)?

Ok that seems fair. Let's start all over again. What i meant by shredding packets is that once the data packets hit the metallic object it reduces the size of the data packet sent, thus shredding the packet. Encapsulation happens before and after the packet reaches the physical level and gets sent out to the end device. By encapsulation, the data is wrapped up with Destination/source MAC address, destination/source IP address, data it carries (video/text/sound), the protocols it will use (802.11 a,b,c,d,e,f,g), bandwidth and type of carrier signal it will use. BY identifying which protocols is to be used with the data packet and the type of carrier signal it will carry, you must use the appropriate type of physical connection for it to travel on (Ethernet CAT 5e UTP 10/100/1000 mbps, CAT 6, Fiber optic, Infra red, WiFi, copper,etc.)

By encapsulating the data sent with defined protocols that it will use, type of data (video, text, sound) it contains, the carrier signal it will be placed on (3.7ghz) and the physical it will come out of (fiber optic, CAT 5e UTP, etc) then shooting it out of the device onto the end device (metallic object in this experiment) should shred the data packet by 1cm at least. This in turn should weaken the signal carrier and how far the data packet is able to go in terms of distance.

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

What i meant by shredding packets is that once the data packets hit the metallic object it reduces the size of the data packet sent, thus shredding the packet.

Reduces the "size" in what sense? length, amplitude, frequency? And again, shredding has no physical meaning in this context.

When electromagnetic radiation strikes metal it may be absorbed, transmitted and reflected. The relative ratio of these depends on the frequency of the signal and the nature of the metal. There is no "shredding" involved. And it certainly won't have anything to do with the data encoded in the signal.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

What i meant by shredding packets is that once the data packets hit the metallic object it reduces the size of the data packet sent, thus shredding the packet.

Reduces the "size" in what sense? length, amplitude, frequency? And again, shredding has no physical meaning in this context.

When electromagnetic radiation strikes metal it may be absorbed, transmitted and reflected. The relative ratio of these depends on the frequency of the signal and the nature of the metal. There is no "shredding" involved. And it certainly won't have anything to do with the data encoded in the signal.

True and correct. Only thing is i put it my own words because that's how i understood it. I apologise if i confused you, i know it can be frustrating sometimes to try and understand what someone is trying to say when they say it in the way they understand it. But patience does go a long way.

Also would just like to point out that having text does not matter, like you said strange, as the target will have burn marks shown if the signal is powerful enough. But if you just want a picture to appear on a solid piece of wood for results to know you've done it correctly, then having data with it should not be too much of a problem.

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

True and correct. Only thing is i put it my own words because that's how i understood it.

So, by "shredding" do you mean the fact that some proportion of the energy will be absorbed, some may be reflected and some may be transmitted?

But you still seem to think that these phenomena have some relationship to the data carried by the carrier signal (which it doesn't) and even more oddly that it will somehow "decode" that data (which it won't).

But patience does go a long way.

I'm trying to be patient. I thought that if I understood what you were trying to do, or what you imagined is happening, I might be able to help.

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

Also would just like to point out that having text does not matter, like you said strange, as the target will have burn marks shown if the signal is powerful enough. But if you just want a picture to appear on a solid piece of wood for results to know you've done it correctly, then having data with it should not be too much of a problem.

Sorry, it's still all gibberish. Burn marks? WTH?

You still have utterly failed to define -- at a physical level -- what shredding is. You have also still failed to define (again, at a physical level) what protocols/data/headers/etc have to do with anything in the context you intend. Your words thus far are wholly equivalent to "I send waves with stuff on them, and then magic happens. Shredding occurs; things get shorter, and other stuff burns."

Now read that to yourself with the mindset of someone other than you. Do you honestly believe any of that communicates your ideas?

[QUOTE=Strange;357476]

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

So, by "shredding" do you mean the fact that some proportion of the energy will be absorbed, some may be reflected and some may be transmitted?

But you still seem to think that these phenomena have some relationship to the data carried by the carrier signal (which it doesn't) and even more oddly that it will somehow "decode" that data (which it won't).


I'm trying to be patient. I thought that if I understood what you were trying to do, or what you imagined is happening, I might be able to help.

Yes true and correct. Ok lets forget about the decode part and focus on the carrier signal and the amount of energy used to gain that signal instead. From what i was told, If Amplitude and Frequency were used to control the amount sent out on a carrier signal of 3.7ghz then its possible that you could make it do more than just sending out an empty energy packet on a distance of about 16 000 m or more - like perhaps pushing the energy to go through walls like how mobile devices pick up on other people's wireless internet connections but only more powerful?

btw i wasn't saying that anyone was impatient of course but i appreciate what help you (and anyone else for that matter) can give me. Thanks

Also sorry for confusing you Tk421, but what Strange wrote is closer to what i meant. Ok just forget about what was said and think of it like this: energy is transmitted on a signal of about 2.4 or 3.7 ghz, you have the amplifier and a frequency controller to control the amount of energy transmitted up to a distance of 16 000 m. How would you do it?

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

Yes true and correct. Ok lets forget about the decode part and focus on the carrier signal and the amount of energy used to gain that signal instead.

What do you mean by "gain that signal"?

From what i was told, If Amplitude and Frequency were used to control the amount sent out on a carrier signal of 3.7ghz then its possible that you could make it do more than just sending out an empty energy packet on a distance of about 16 000 m or more - like perhaps pushing the energy to go through walls like how mobile devices pick up on other people's wireless internet connections but only more powerful?

Again, you seem to be making up your own physics. Look -- the situation is far simpler than you're making it out to be. Think of a radio wave as light (because that's what it is). You want to go farther? Make a brighter flashlight. It's really no more complicated than that.

Now, how far can you go? It depends on one thing alone: How much power can you deliver to the receiver? And that, in turn, depends on only three things: How bright is the flashlight; how well-focused onto your target is that flashlight's beam; and how much does intervening matter dim the beam?

See? No talk of packets, shredding, or encoding.

Frequency comes into play in at least two ways. The interaction of matter with light depends on frequency. That's why radio waves propagate differently depending on frequency.

And we've already mentioned that the rate at which data may be conveyed over a carrier wave is determined in part by the frequency of that carrier wave.

Again, no shredding involved. It's just light.

Also sorry for confusing you Tk421, but what Strange wrote is closer to what i meant. Ok just forget about what was said and think of it like this: energy is transmitted on a signal of about 2.4 or 3.7 ghz, you have the amplifier and a frequency controller to control the amount of energy transmitted up to a distance of 16 000 m. How would you do it?

If you want to go a greater distance, just use more power. In free space, you would have an inverse-square law working against you. In terrestrial communications, you should expect something closer to an inverse-cube law.

Here's how you calculate how much power is received:

Prcv = Pxmit*Gxmit*Lpath*Grcv

where Prcv and Pxmit are the received and transmitted powers, respectively; Gxmit and Grcv are the gains of the transmitting and receiving antennas; and Lpath is the attenuation of the path between the transmitter and receiver.

Again, no shredding. Just physics.

Numerical example: Say you have a WiFi link that functions out to 100m, with a 100mW transmitter. Now you propose extending the range to 10,000m (a factor of 100). If we keep the antennas we have, and assume an inverse-cubed dependence, we'll have to increase power by a factor of one million (the cube of 100, the range-extension factor we seek). So we'll have to get a transmitter with a 100kW output power.

If you don't like that result, you can replace the antennas with ones that direct more of the power in the particular direction you care about. Such antennas provide "gain" in the sense that more ends up where it matters (but no energy conservation principles are violated). You could easily reduce the required power by a couple orders of magnitude, but at the cost of obligating you to aim the antennas at each other more precisely.

Etc.

HTH

Thanks Tk421 and Strange. Its alot more clearer now than it was before.

By the way, would you (and anyone else for that matter) be interested in doing this experiment with me? I mean not in the same spot as me but you doing it there in your country and me doing it here? It's a simple experiment if you're interested.... I don't mind having third party opinions.

You might need to start by describing exactly what this experiment is.

Originally Posted by Strange

You might need to start by describing exactly what this experiment is.

Sure. The experiment is basically sending data on a carrier signal of 3.7 ghz with amp and freq dials. Interested? This 3.7 signal is kinda new but if successful then just thinkof the possibilities.

How is this different from any of the other radio transmitters in this frequency range?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_band

No? No details? Nothing? What sort of transmitter do you intend to use? What power? What frequency? How do you intend to detect/measure the signal? Apart from a transmitter and some sort of measurement device, what else is involved in your experimental setup? What results do you expect to get? How will you compare the measured result against prediction?

And why is a discussion of microwave transmission in a thread on Extremely Low Frequency?

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

Originally Posted by Strange

You might need to start by describing exactly what this experiment is.

Sure. The experiment is basically sending data on a carrier signal of 3.7 ghz with amp and freq dials. Interested? This 3.7 signal is kinda new but if successful then just thinkof the possibilities.

With each successive post, you show that you are deeply, perhaps irreversibly confused.

This is a thread about ELF transmitters, and now you're prattling on about 3.7GHz. First, that's not "new" by any stretch of the imagination. The spectrum is almost completely used from ELF on up to millimeter waves. Do a google search for "US Spectrum Chart" to see an American example. The 3.7GHz band is used for satcom, among other things. Today.

As for "amp and freq dials" you seem to be ignorant of an instrument known as a signal generator, sold by companies like Agilent (formerly HP), Anritsu, Rohde and Schwartz, etc. These instruments have been available for the better part of a century, and are used for testing. The user may specify carrier frequency and amplitude. More advanced boxes allow you to modulate the carrier with complex waveforms of your choosing.

What "possibilities" do you think have been unexplored? Keep in mind that wireless is an incredibly well-developed art, having been the focus of intense academic, commercial, military and hobbyist investigation for over a century.

And again, how the heck is 3.7GHz wireless related to your original ELF thread, and what happened to all that nonsense about shredding and such?

Lol I will explain on the weekends... right now i have to work mon to fri

Sci_Research:

When you do return, please open your own thread and I prefer in the New Hypothesis section for the mean time. Thanks.

Hi would just like to know how do i open a new thread please? I haven't done that before on this site.

[QUOTE=tk421;359312][QUOTE=Sci_Research;358763]

Originally Posted by Strange

You might need to start by describing exactly what this experiment is.

Hey, sorry about the confusion. But if you're still interested here's the experiment goal: To build a radar that can detect freq's in between the range of 2 and 24 ghz. It's for detecting objects within 100 m at least. please be interested, you are very valuable.

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

Hi would just like to know how do i open a new thread please? I haven't done that before on this site.

Go to the section of the forum (Electrical and Electronics) and click [New Thread]

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

Hey, sorry about the confusion. But if you're still interested here's the experiment goal: To build a radar that can detect freq's in between the range of 2 and 24 ghz. It's for detecting objects within 100 m at least. please be interested, you are very valuable.

So now you want to build a radar system? Your ideas seem to be all over the place... That is more a signal processing challenge than anything else, I suspect. And how is this intended to be any different from existing radar systems (many of which operate within this range of frequencies)? Is this an experiment? And, if so, to what are you trying to find out? Or just a science project? (How do I go about building my own radar).

[QUOTE=Strange;360744]

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

Hi would just like to know how do i open a new thread please? I haven't done that before on this site.

Go to the section of the forum (Electrical and Electronics) and click [New Thread]

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

So now you want to build a radar system? Your ideas seem to be all over the place... That is more a signal processing challenge than anything else, I suspect. And how is this intended to be any different from existing radar systems (many of which operate within this range of frequencies)? Is this an experiment? And, if so, to what are you trying to find out? Or just a science project? (How do I go about building my own radar).

Thanks Strange for the link. Anyway, i'm looking for abnormal signals, you know, like the ones that don't act normally on radar. They tend to show 'ripples' that are abnormally larger than they are supposed to be or producing faster ripple waves than they should. That's the first part of the project. The second part doesn't come until the first part becomes true. You can build your own radar by looking for the fundamentals such as the antenna, magnetron, eeprom chip for programming, etc... bit there is an easier way with software on a laptop and a custom built antenna with magnetron.

We're looking for something in the range of 2 and 24ghz. These freqs are for radio astronomy, wireless devices, mobile phones, PDA's, Military Hummers, Satellite dishes, etc... You can tell which ones are normal and abnormal anyway.

ELF (extremely low frequency) is generally defined a electromagnetic frequencies of 3 Hz to 3 Khz. Since this whole range is within the audio range you can use an audio generator and audio amplifier. Steiner101 is correct. Wind a coil with an inner diameter large enough to insert your head and connect it to the speaker output on the amplifier. The amplifier might not like the purely inductive load (especially tube amps) so you might want to add a small series resistor (say 4-8 ohms) to make the amp happy.