It is true that ferrite loopsticks are used as antennas for AM broadcast receivers, but they are totally useless as radio transmitting antennas. You will find the answer in the websites listed below.

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4140782/Linking-Home-Devices-with-Magnetic-Induction
and
http://www.ultra-electronics.com/tactical_systems/magneto_inductive_equipment.php

The name Bunzel isn’t familiar, and a quick check on google doesn’t show anything relevant, so you attempt at appeal to authority fails to impress me.

The examples in your Gedankenexperiment are not too impressive either. Just what do you believe is carrying the energy, and what distinguishes it from “radio waves” other than your assertion? Oddly enough, the ferrite loopstick is considered an antenna, and is often used in portable AM broadcast receivers.

Try this mind experiment (“Gedankenexperiment” as Einstein called it).

Take a permanent bar magnet and spin it around so that the North and South poles alternately face a pickup coil a distance away. The pickup coil will generate a weak AC current.

Now replace the bar magnet with an electromagnet powered by a battery. The pickup coil will again generate a weak AC current.

Now, remove the battery from the metal bar and connect an AC power supply to the coil terminal, but don’t rotate the bar. The pickup coil will again generate and AC current; that is the process of induction. How is that really different from what happened before. So we have power transmission by induction in every case mentioned above. There are no radio waves involved in the process.

If you should get a hold of an early Bluetooth, you will find that it used loopsticks (which actually are coils wound on a ferrite stick) for signal transmission, at an AC frequency of 10 Megahertz. There were also no radio waves involved, even if the AC was in the radio frequency spectrum.

So go argue with Harry Bunzel, I believe that is his name. He can probably explain it better than I can.

You are doing an excellent job of demonstrating why no professional will take you seriously.

Since you claim your brother is a Ham, you should probably borrow his copy of the ARRL handbook, as from your example of running a radio signal through a coil, its obvious you don’t know the first thing about how antennas work, or how EM signals are emitted from conductors. You can’t have a changing electric or magnetic field, without producing EM radiation.

How did Maxwell come up with the speed of an electromagnetic wave when he was not able to transmit one? What really determines the speed is the time delay which occurs when the energy shifts back and forth between the E an the H field, and that is what Maxwell was able to measure, and that is how he came up with the equation. When there is no shifting of energy between fields, there is no time delay.

The equation using zero for the individual components was just a joke. Anyway, I thought it was funny. Here is another one: The definition of a Theoretical Physicist is “All talk no action”.

What I don’t get is why, when you consider only an electrostatic or only a magnetic field, you set the permeability or permittivity to 0 in calculating c, and that c then dictates the speed of that electrostatic or magnetic field. On the one hand, you seem to be saying that Maxwell’s equations (in which c is the speed of an electromagnetic wave) should apply here, and on the other (earlier) you seemed to be saying that there is no reason why an electrostatic field should travel at the same speed as an electromagnetic wave. IOW, it appears that you are trying to have your cake and eat it.

I agree that the sqrt of 0 is 0, and that 1/0 = infinity (this is one of the reasons that Einsteins GR cannot handle what goes on inside a black hole), although you use the word “therefore” in a way that does not make sense to me.

One other thought occurs to me – how does an electrostatic field propagate without generating any magnetic fields along the way? Surely all it would take is for that E field to move some charges around to generate at least a tiny H field? As I said, I know a little, but certainly not enough to make an adequate assessment of what you are proposing.

The permeability of vacuum (free space) is: 1.2566371×10−6 henries per meter
The permittivity of vacuum (free space) is 8.854… × 10−12 Farads per meter

If we put these figures into the equation, we get: C = 299792.458 km/s

Let’s take the above calculation a step further. If we were to send a pure electrostatic signal without any magnetic component whatsoever (a highly electrically charged body can be sensed from a distance), then the signal would travel infinitely fast according to Maxwell’s equation: C = 1 divided by the square root of the product of the permittivity time the permeability of free space.
That is because the product of 8.854… × 10−12 and 0 (zero) = 0 (zero).
Therefore, the square root of zero is also zero.
And finally: 1 divided by 0 = infinity.
If we were to remove the electrostatic component from the signal, we would get the same result.
For example, if we replaced the antenna of a radio transmitter with a coil, only an alternating magnetic field would be produced, but not a radio wave.

So there you have it, by using Maxwell’s equations, we can prove that purely electrostatic fields and purely magnetic fields propagate infinitely fast, and therefore definitely faster than the speed of light.

As Nigel said: “James Clerk Maxwell, wave equations have been shown to successfully describe the behaviour of electromagnetic wave propagation for about 150 years”.

I for one won’t argue with Maxwell, he was one of the most brilliant men in the history of science.

In My opinion, for as little as it counts, the problem with Theoretical Physicists is that a lot of the don’t understand the difference between electromagnetic waves and pure E and H fields. They call it the “Electromagnetic field”, when they actually talk about electromagnetic waves.

Have you ever ever read Einstein’s book youeself; you should. Some Einstein defenders, don’t have a clue what the man actually said. I once added a paragraph from his book onto a Wikipedia article; it was immediately removed by people who claimed that it was confusing and contradicted Einstein.

I wish people would actually try our experiments before claiming that we must be wrong, because our experiment contradict Einstein.

Too little detail supplied. I followed your first linky from #65 and, while it makes interesting reading, you really need to get into more detail.

First, it appears that you are ignorant of one James Clerk Maxwell, whose wave equations have been shown to successfully describe the behaviour of electromagnetic wave propagation for about 150 years.

Second, the description seems so set on proving that you have a genuine FTL phenomenon that it provides no meat for theorists to get to grips with. Have you looked at frequency-dependence? Have you tried to make your idea fail (it does not look like it from that first PDF)? Have you found sets of conditions in which your FTL thing “works” and conditions in which it does not? How thorough have you been in working out what is going on?

Data of this sort is what will be needed for others to (a) take your proposal seriously, (b) test it for themselves, and (c) come up with a theoretical framework that can connect it to some known physics. Better still, you should come up with this framework yourselves.

You cannot simply claim from one limited set of experiments that Einstein was wrong, because there is so much evidence that supports his theories. You must also address that evidence, and conceive an explanation that encompasses both your new result and existing non-FTL experimental data. Sorry, but “we think it’s because the E and H fields propagate at right-angles” (my paraphrase) is not an explanation.

Seriously, have you spoken about your phenomenon to any physicists who work in relevant fields? As a radio ham, I know a little of such things, but nowhere near enough to write a credible grant application on the basis of your preliminary findings.

I wish people would actually try our experiments before claiming that we must be wrong, because our experiment contradict Einstein. But then, Einstein said: “If the facts contradict the theory, you simply change the facts”. So, I guess that is what people are doing.

I have asked a number of scientists to tell me, where and when, and by whom the speeds of magnetic fields and electrostatic fields have been measured. Sofar, I have not got an answer. Maybe, someone who is reading this can give me an answer.

My brother and I conducted some experiments which showed that magnetic fields and electrostatic fields propagate infinitely faster than the speed of light.

Infinitely faster? What does that even mean?

. . . scientists work together to try and explain it instead of flying off the handle and selling FTL Neutrino bracelets

Wait, what?

You mean I shouldn’t have been selling those bracelets yet?

. . . about 1nS/foot.

1 nanoSiemens per foot? A conductivity? I thought you had been talking about time.

Perhaps you meant 1 ns/foot?

Though, if confirmed, an unplugged cable will demonstrate once again the very high value of having humans in these processes, to figure out what went wrong when and if things go wrong, and especially humans who use checklists to make sure everything goes right.

If the scientists at Cern wanted to prove Einstein wrong, they should have picked a faster horse than a neutrino. My brother and I conducted some experiments which showed that magnetic fields and electrostatic fields propagate infinitely faster than the speed of light.
Our experiments are outlined here: http://www.wbabin.net/physics/erdmann.pdf
and http://www.wbabin.net/physics/erdmann2.pdf

Please don’t anybody dismiss these experiments before you try them out for yourself. The beauty is that any electronics experimenter can successfully repeat our experiments with less than a thousand dollars worth of equipment. It will be hard for the great minds to dispute these findings. Although, there may be some that will give it a try.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current#Drift_speed

And no, I don’t think “AC” electrons get very far before the polarity changes. Only a fraction of a mm, I guess.

I dont think the use only the data (i.e. time value) trasmitted, but they do calculate the Time Of Flight of the data (gps sat to atomic clock), to provide a most accurate sync between the atomic clocks. This also help a kind of this error as I guess they would have to sync the clocks only once. Real ToF is longer cause of the issue, so the neutrinos appear to arrive earlier.

I guess in the enormous complexity of a system like that, a hundred places would exist where an error like this would happen.

There would be quite interesting times if it didnt.

That bugs me too. Even though this is an example of the scientific method working properly (something really exciting pops up, but scientists work together to try and explain it instead of flying off the handle and selling FTL Neutrino bracelets), many in the public will still interpret it was “Hurr, those goofy, geeky scientists! They aren’t so smart!
…
Oh look, a quantum energy balancing bracelet. And just forty bucks each. I’ll take ten!”

@58 Robin: Surely you don’t mean that the OPERA results re: neutrinos and FTL velocities are agreed upon by 98% of the experts in the field and supported by thousands of papers…..

No, he’s responding to Tony Mach, one of the resident climate contrarians, who just played the “Scientists were wrong here, why not there?” ‘skepticism’ card.

Relativity is not sacred. Einstein-Cartan-Kibble-Sciama gravitation ignores the Equivalence Principle. EP = true is relativity. EP = false has testable EP violations. One ECKS emergent observable is newly interactive: physical chirality. Relativity has no defense – violation without contradiction.

Crystallography illuminates. Chemically and macroscopically identical single crystals in enantiomorphic space groups are EP-violations: gamma-Glycine [space groups P3(1) versus P3(2)] or alpha-quartz [space groups P3(1)21 versus P3(2)21]. Good observation prunes theory. Somebody should look.

Why would he put that disclaimer in a post talking about experimentally verified science, agreed upon by 98% of experts in the field and supported by thousands of published papers?

CERN Press release

UPDATE 23 February 2012

The OPERA collaboration has informed its funding agencies and host laboratories that it has identified two possible effects that could have an influence on its neutrino timing measurement. These both require further tests with a short pulsed beam. If confirmed, one would increase the size of the measured effect, the other would diminish it. The first possible effect concerns an oscillator used to provide the time stamps for GPS synchronizations. It could have led to an overestimate of the neutrino’s time of flight. The second concerns the optical fibre connector that brings the external GPS signal to the OPERA master clock, which may not have been functioning correctly when the measurements were taken. If this is the case, it could have led to an underestimate of the time of flight of the neutrinos. The potential extent of these two effects is being studied by the OPERA collaboration. New measurements with short pulsed beams are scheduled for May.

So there are two factors in question. One of which could mean that neutrinos travel even *faster* than thought before. The fat lady has yet to sing.