what 2.4 article
10-29-2011 | 05:17 PM
#326
RE: what 2.4 article
"seeing" through objects is all about wavelength. I'll leave it to Dave to elucidate the group about how frequency and wavelength are related. (1st cousins I think).
For the impatient this will work
http://www.onlineconversion.com/freq...wavelength.htm
For the impatient this will work
http://www.onlineconversion.com/freq...wavelength.htm
10-29-2011 | 05:45 PM
#327
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: TimBle
my dad is bigger and stronger than your dad...<wipes nose.='''' from='''' snot=''''></wipes>
2.4 has more than sufficient range to allow safe operation of a radio control aircraft. People fly UAVS with the stuff and they fly well beyond 3000m (yes thats 9000ft)
2.4 is not used by cell phones, its used by Wifi, bluetooth and other peripherals.
the band our new rc equipment operates on is not the issue, its the implementation of the hardware. All computers have ''moments'' and our Tx are not immune. There in lies the rub. The 2.4 band is merely a wavelength of light, how TF can it be faulty??! This arguement is stupid.
''i used to work for XYZ blah blah blah''
I used to work for a military contractor and designed devices that required remote activation from a long way away. Hey we used the 2.4 band and many other bands and guess what?! They all frigging worked. The only time it stopped working is when either the hardware or software ''had a moment''.
FFS get over yourselves.
''Brand X and Y and Z and A and B also ahd issues this year...''
Heck how moronic is that arguement. Anyone can have an issue any time. What was the root causes of those ''incidents?'' Don't know huh?
More people have issues they can't explain and suddenly its the wavelienght of light thats at fault. Well lads unless the sun sent out more neutrino's 8min ago I can't see that only 2.4 is going to be affected.
Hardware/software, hardware/software.
PS not direct at you Ken
my dad is bigger and stronger than your dad...<wipes nose.='''' from='''' snot=''''></wipes>
2.4 has more than sufficient range to allow safe operation of a radio control aircraft. People fly UAVS with the stuff and they fly well beyond 3000m (yes thats 9000ft)
2.4 is not used by cell phones, its used by Wifi, bluetooth and other peripherals.
the band our new rc equipment operates on is not the issue, its the implementation of the hardware. All computers have ''moments'' and our Tx are not immune. There in lies the rub. The 2.4 band is merely a wavelength of light, how TF can it be faulty??! This arguement is stupid.
''i used to work for XYZ blah blah blah''
I used to work for a military contractor and designed devices that required remote activation from a long way away. Hey we used the 2.4 band and many other bands and guess what?! They all frigging worked. The only time it stopped working is when either the hardware or software ''had a moment''.
FFS get over yourselves.
''Brand X and Y and Z and A and B also ahd issues this year...''
Heck how moronic is that arguement. Anyone can have an issue any time. What was the root causes of those ''incidents?'' Don't know huh?
More people have issues they can't explain and suddenly its the wavelienght of light thats at fault. Well lads unless the sun sent out more neutrino's 8min ago I can't see that only 2.4 is going to be affected.
Hardware/software, hardware/software.
PS not direct at you Ken
I haven't read every post in this thread.......
So far the quoted post makes the most sense. As far as "buggy" things we all use, Has anybody here ever us a computer operating system that has "problems" ???? How many years has it been since you have NOT had an OS problem? The same OS keeps having problems over and over and over. It's getting better, no doubt, but it's taking a while.
Bottom line, if it's man made it will fail or have an issue at some point in it's life span.
I converted my OLD JR X347 to 2.4 (Spectrum) and have had no issues. So I guess I'll just keep on flying it. And yes I wrapped it in foam and stuffed it under the tank in TWO airplanes.
another Ken
10-29-2011 | 05:47 PM
#328
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Temple City, CA
RE: what 2.4 article
In reply to Post # 325:
To better understand this, we have to look at the electromagnetic wave spectrum where 72MHz
band is in the broadcasting region and the 2.4GHz band is in the microwave region.
WHEN FREQUENCY INCREASES, WAVELENGTH DECREASES. Therefore, the 2.4GHz wavelength
is shorter and closer to visible light on the electromagnetic wave spectrum. Since visible light is also
an electromagnetic wave, 2.4GHz wavelength behaves MORE like visible light and travels in straight lines
until it is reflected, deflected, diffracted or absorbed.
To better understand this, we have to look at the electromagnetic wave spectrum where 72MHz
band is in the broadcasting region and the 2.4GHz band is in the microwave region.
WHEN FREQUENCY INCREASES, WAVELENGTH DECREASES. Therefore, the 2.4GHz wavelength
is shorter and closer to visible light on the electromagnetic wave spectrum. Since visible light is also
an electromagnetic wave, 2.4GHz wavelength behaves MORE like visible light and travels in straight lines
until it is reflected, deflected, diffracted or absorbed.
10-29-2011 | 07:43 PM
#330
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Aguanga,
CA
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: Dave
In reply to Post # 325:
To better understand this, we have to look at the electromagnetic wave spectrum where 72MHz
band is in the broadcasting region and the 2.4GHz band is in the microwave region.
WHEN FREQUENCY INCREASES, WAVELENGTH DECREASES. Therefore, the 2.4GHz wavelength
is shorter and closer to visible light on the electromagnetic wave spectrum. Since visible light is also
an electromagnetic wave, 2.4GHz wavelength behaves MORE like visible light and travels in straight lines
until it is reflected, deflected, diffracted or absorbed.
In reply to Post # 325:
To better understand this, we have to look at the electromagnetic wave spectrum where 72MHz
band is in the broadcasting region and the 2.4GHz band is in the microwave region.
WHEN FREQUENCY INCREASES, WAVELENGTH DECREASES. Therefore, the 2.4GHz wavelength
is shorter and closer to visible light on the electromagnetic wave spectrum. Since visible light is also
an electromagnetic wave, 2.4GHz wavelength behaves MORE like visible light and travels in straight lines
until it is reflected, deflected, diffracted or absorbed.
What does the above have to do with the efficacy of SS for R/C in the 2.4 GHz band as compared to narrowband operation in the 72 MHz band?
You insist on arguing for the superiority of comms in the available (by regulatory process) lower frequency bands, while ignoring the contribution of SS in a higher frequency band to overall robustness of the control link. It has previously been stated (by me and others, without contradiction by anyone else) that S/N is a more indicative measure of effectiveness for a secure link than is raw signal strength alone as a performance measure. I concede as anyone else with a modicum of experience working in the RFarena that signal propagation is a lesser issue in lower bands of the EMspectrum. How does that affect the net result in comms security re a comparison of narrowband comms in a low band to comms augmented by SStechnology in a higher frequency band?
10-29-2011 | 10:27 PM
#331
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: warbird72
I have seen gliders so far up in the air you almost could not see them.. They were on 72meg.. Can you get this kind of alt with 2.4 ??
I have seen gliders so far up in the air you almost could not see them.. They were on 72meg.. Can you get this kind of alt with 2.4 ??
Yes, absolutely. And it is not just altitude but lateral distance. Soaring is all about being able to cover the maximum amount of real estate to find and stay in lift. We fly higher and farther away than anyone else in RC and we do it with planes where the radio is stuffed into a tiny narrow fuselage and where most of the plane is built with lots of carbon fiber.
Most all of us now flying 2.4 in gliders feel we have a more solid link at great altitude and distance than we did with 72. I do not know of a single glider guy who has flown 2.4 who feels they need to go back to 72.
10-30-2011 | 01:09 AM
#332
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: newbury,
OH
RE: what 2.4 article
This post is NOT aimed at anyone in perticular, but is just an observation. After reading through this thread for days, I think we could substitute "Chevy" for "2.4" and "Ford" for "72"! BOTH good for different reasons, and neither side will give credit to the other. Same argument here...
Here's what I think, If you are currently using 72mhz, like it, and have had no problems, STAY WITH IT. If you have been using 2.4, like it, and have had no problems, STAY WITH IT.
Why all the technical arguing trying to get others to change? Sounds like a lot of grade school "my dad's bigger than your dad" if you ask me. This thread is a "poster child" for RA....and funny to read.
NOTE: This post is NOT aimed at "Silent". I just don't know how to make it generic...
Here's what I think, If you are currently using 72mhz, like it, and have had no problems, STAY WITH IT. If you have been using 2.4, like it, and have had no problems, STAY WITH IT.
Why all the technical arguing trying to get others to change? Sounds like a lot of grade school "my dad's bigger than your dad" if you ask me. This thread is a "poster child" for RA....and funny to read.
NOTE: This post is NOT aimed at "Silent". I just don't know how to make it generic...
10-30-2011 | 03:34 AM
#333
Banned
My Feedback: (9)
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,925
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Newberry, FL
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: warbird72
I have seen gliders so far up in the air you almost could not see them.. They were on 72meg.. Can you get this kind of alt with 2.4 ??
I have seen gliders so far up in the air you almost could not see them.. They were on 72meg.. Can you get this kind of alt with 2.4 ??
10-30-2011 | 04:51 AM
#334
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: PTERODACTYL
Yaaay, doctorates are pieces of paper that you hang on the wall.
In case of an emergence a doctorate can be used to wipe your A*s but a finger works better.
Experience is what counts.
Did Einstein have a doctorate?
Did the Wright brothers?
Did Tom Gates?
Did Edison?
How about Galileo?
Ben Franklin?
And the list goes on and on.
Yaaay, doctorates are pieces of paper that you hang on the wall.
In case of an emergence a doctorate can be used to wipe your A*s but a finger works better.
Experience is what counts.
Did Einstein have a doctorate?
Did the Wright brothers?
Did Tom Gates?
Did Edison?
How about Galileo?
Ben Franklin?
And the list goes on and on.
10-30-2011 | 05:02 AM
#335
My Feedback: (14)
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: Dave
JOHN SOHM IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. (Post # 304)
The 2.4GHz wavelength is directional. Since we can not focus a high gain directional parabolic dish antenna
between our constantly moving model airplane and our transmitter, we have to use an omnidirectional vertical
antenna system which has much lower signal intensity. Since we have to use an omnidirectional antenna system,
the electromagnetic waves will scatter and diffract from objects and from the terrain around us. When the diffracted
wave reaches the receiver antenna, it is slightly lags behind the signal which traveled to the receiver antenna in a
straight line that creates interference due to the phase canceling effect.
JOHN SOHM IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. (Post # 304)
The 2.4GHz wavelength is directional. Since we can not focus a high gain directional parabolic dish antenna
between our constantly moving model airplane and our transmitter, we have to use an omnidirectional vertical
antenna system which has much lower signal intensity. Since we have to use an omnidirectional antenna system,
the electromagnetic waves will scatter and diffract from objects and from the terrain around us. When the diffracted
wave reaches the receiver antenna, it is slightly lags behind the signal which traveled to the receiver antenna in a
straight line that creates interference due to the phase canceling effect.
This fails to take into account the digital nature of our 2.4 systems and the inherent error correction digital systems use. Digital systems use a packetized transmission protocal, so every signal is numbered and when the Rx receives a second signal with the same number of a previously received signal (the slightly delayed reflected signal), that command is ignored. Additionally, phase cancelling effect only works if it's 180 degrees out of phase, which is very, very rarely the case for randomly reflected signals.
Also, yes, omni antennas exhibit spherical spreading losses, but "signal intensity" is not that important a value, signal to noise ratio (SNR) is the important value. Who cares if the Rx receives 10,000 watts or 10 MW, as long as the received signal is higher than the "noise" the Rx knows what to do.
10-30-2011 | 06:15 AM
#336
RE: what 2.4 article
Then Im not going to worry about this too much. Then The closer to the plane the more power your receiver gets ?? If you can go that high and still have your plane That is plenty for me.. I cant look up like that anymore.. I try to keep the plane kinda close to me in the air.. Then that way if you crash you dont have as far to walk...Thanks again for the info
10-30-2011 | 06:30 AM
#337
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Temple City, CA
RE: what 2.4 article
<u>
To cj rumley in reply to post # 329:
</u>The proof you are looking for is in the English dictionary. All you have to do is look up the word "ROBUST' you used.
ROBUST: "capable of performing <u>without failure</u> under a wide range of condition"
There is no such radio link and NEVER will be.
The bottom line is that glitch-free software, error-free computers, and interference-free radio link is only an ILLUSION.</p>
10-30-2011 | 07:02 AM
#338
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: s3nfo
Dave,
This fails to take into account the digital nature of our 2.4 systems and the inherent error correction digital systems use. Digital systems use a packetized transmission protocal, so every signal is numbered and when the Rx receives a second signal with the same number of a previously received signal (the slightly delayed reflected signal), that command is ignored. Additionally, phase cancelling effect only works if it's 180 degrees out of phase, which is very, very rarely the case for randomly reflected signals.
Also, yes, omni antennas exhibit spherical spreading losses, but ''signal intensity'' is not that important a value, signal to noise ratio (SNR) is the important value. Who cares if the Rx receives 10,000 watts or 10 MW, as long as the received signal is higher than the ''noise'' the Rx knows what to do.
Dave,
This fails to take into account the digital nature of our 2.4 systems and the inherent error correction digital systems use. Digital systems use a packetized transmission protocal, so every signal is numbered and when the Rx receives a second signal with the same number of a previously received signal (the slightly delayed reflected signal), that command is ignored. Additionally, phase cancelling effect only works if it's 180 degrees out of phase, which is very, very rarely the case for randomly reflected signals.
Also, yes, omni antennas exhibit spherical spreading losses, but ''signal intensity'' is not that important a value, signal to noise ratio (SNR) is the important value. Who cares if the Rx receives 10,000 watts or 10 MW, as long as the received signal is higher than the ''noise'' the Rx knows what to do.
10-30-2011 | 07:07 AM
#339
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: Dave
<u>
To cj rumley in reply to post # 329:
</u>The proof you are looking for is in the English dictionary. All you have to do is look up the word ''ROBUST' you used.
ROBUST: ''capable of performing <u>without failure</u> under a wide range of condition''
There is no such radio link and NEVER will be.
The bottom line is that glitch-free software, error-free computers, and interference-free radio link is only an ILLUSION.</p>
<u>
To cj rumley in reply to post # 329:
</u>The proof you are looking for is in the English dictionary. All you have to do is look up the word ''ROBUST' you used.
ROBUST: ''capable of performing <u>without failure</u> under a wide range of condition''
There is no such radio link and NEVER will be.
The bottom line is that glitch-free software, error-free computers, and interference-free radio link is only an ILLUSION.</p>
10-30-2011 | 07:13 AM
#340
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: Dave
<u>
To cj rumley in reply to post # 329:
</u>The proof you are looking for is in the English dictionary. All you have to do is look up the word ''ROBUST' you used.
ROBUST: ''capable of performing <u>without failure</u> under a wide range of condition''
There is no such radio link and NEVER will be.
The bottom line is that glitch-free software, error-free computers, and interference-free radio link is only an ILLUSION.</p>
<u>
To cj rumley in reply to post # 329:
</u>The proof you are looking for is in the English dictionary. All you have to do is look up the word ''ROBUST' you used.
ROBUST: ''capable of performing <u>without failure</u> under a wide range of condition''
There is no such radio link and NEVER will be.
The bottom line is that glitch-free software, error-free computers, and interference-free radio link is only an ILLUSION.</p>
10-30-2011 | 07:18 AM
#341
RE: what 2.4 article
I know you soring guy's take this pretty serious. So I would think if there were any problems at all on any band you would see it first. Because of the alt you go and distance. Now that is what I call getting high lol...
10-30-2011 | 07:38 AM
#342
RE: what 2.4 article
Who answered me about the pins in my neck may be causing me to have tx rx trouble ?? I found out something really cool last night.. It was rainey snowey here all day yesterday.. I have an old am Attack 4 on ch 40 I bought it new never abused or droped and gold stickered r114 rx... Get this Ant all the way down and the rx ant wraped up like you would get it new..I took a walk with all four servos hooked up charged up battery. I was on my nextel (cant tell) Which ever you call it with my g/f ..I did the ground test . No glitching or loss of signal what so ever. I went out of sight from my house and still had the system.. So Im thinking that the newer radios are made a little differnt on circutry . The older radio systens don't mess up with me but the newer one do.. On the 72 bad of corse.. The last radio I had on 72 MHz was a Futaba T6xas.. I bought it as soon as it hit the market. Never once did I get a hit never.. But one day some one wanted to buddy up with me So I could teach the guy how to fly. So we hooked up and pop. His tx blew up my tx.. We later found out he had bought his buddy box from a flea market.. So I took his apart to see what I could. That was easy who ever had the buddy box had cut and taped all of the wires to the trainer port together. So that dead shorted my tx..And That is now Why Im in the boat Im in now. Any of you guy's have a 6xas tx ? 6 model memory Ch (55) Cause I have alot of 55 rx crystals..If you do and It is in good shape email me. Please..
10-30-2011 | 09:55 AM
#343
Member
My Feedback: (3)
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Laramie, WY
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: Oberst
Why, only for him to be dishonest? He's only going to do what ever he can to protect the business. I doubt that he's studied electronic physics like some people I know. Heck, I doubt he even studied electronic physics 101.
Me I studied all about the 2.4GHz and different Mhz systems when I worked for AT&T. I had to attend classes in order to sell phone and landline systems and I had to a get 90% ot better to qualify in my field.
What Dave Horvath and I have written was based on knowledge, more so from Mr. Horvath. I didn't study electronic physics, but I do use common sense and good judgement from what was taught to me when I was at AT&T.
Why the RC boats work with the 2.4GHz is because the operation distance isn't like how we operate our planes. The spectum antenna is above water and isn't submerged. The hull of these boats are made of a different material and antenna is perfectly sealed.
Again it's like comparing apples to oranges.
No, the wireless phone system connects to a tower, then sent to the recieving stations tower using the 2.4GHz on the G system. The Cell phone and old pagers works under the MHz band to a towered recieving station then up to the satellite. Think of it as a triangle network. Usually they operate on MHz clusters to either Cell Sector A or B at the recieving station inorder to connect with the satellite. We stopped using Cell technology in the 1980's then went to TDMA devices at around 800MHz.
At the same time we went to TDMA the local towers then started to brodcast the MHz signals to the recieving stations tower and no longer connected to a satellite for communications speeding up the connection. When we went to CDMA, the radio signal was intensified as a result speeding up the radio waves. TDMA was even faster but had a tendancy for interference.
When the phone companies switched to a G network, G= Ghz, we no longer used the MHz for signal and went to the 2.4GHz. With the 2.4Ghz signal speed was inhanced and other applications like Wifi, text messaging and data plans could be operated at a faster transmit speed. Aka light travels faster than radio waves.
I think I can speak for Dave Horvath when I say we only are warning people so people don't crash their planes because of a faulty RC system. If we didn't care about our fellow modelers we wouldn't be waisting our time. For me and Mr. Horvath it wouldn't be right not to warn people of what we know. We are not getting paid by anyone so we are not tarnished by any corporate influances. We do it because we know it's the right thing to do. Why? Because we care. That's why you are getting faced with the truth. Anyone from Hitec, Futaba, Airtronics and JR will not tell you the truth. Why? Because they have a lot at stake financially including the AMA.
Follow the money people and use your common sense and put 2 and 2 together. Please! We are supposed to look out for one another in this hobby and not listen to those who makes a living off this hobby. They are there to sell and make money including moderators at RCU, without marketing and promotion RCU would be in trouble financially.
Pete
ORIGINAL: warbird72
Hey guy's I just called Hitec.. I talked to Tony.. I hope Mike gets on here and clears this up. He is a good guy and very heplful.. Hope this eases some minds..
Hey guy's I just called Hitec.. I talked to Tony.. I hope Mike gets on here and clears this up. He is a good guy and very heplful.. Hope this eases some minds..
Me I studied all about the 2.4GHz and different Mhz systems when I worked for AT&T. I had to attend classes in order to sell phone and landline systems and I had to a get 90% ot better to qualify in my field.
What Dave Horvath and I have written was based on knowledge, more so from Mr. Horvath. I didn't study electronic physics, but I do use common sense and good judgement from what was taught to me when I was at AT&T.
Why the RC boats work with the 2.4GHz is because the operation distance isn't like how we operate our planes. The spectum antenna is above water and isn't submerged. The hull of these boats are made of a different material and antenna is perfectly sealed.
Again it's like comparing apples to oranges.
Sport_Pilot
Not a telecommunications expert, but I thought that cell phones were called that because the tramsmitting, recieving stations worked a small areas called cells, as you move about the services are transfered from station to station. Satelite phones do not use these cells.
Not a telecommunications expert, but I thought that cell phones were called that because the tramsmitting, recieving stations worked a small areas called cells, as you move about the services are transfered from station to station. Satelite phones do not use these cells.
At the same time we went to TDMA the local towers then started to brodcast the MHz signals to the recieving stations tower and no longer connected to a satellite for communications speeding up the connection. When we went to CDMA, the radio signal was intensified as a result speeding up the radio waves. TDMA was even faster but had a tendancy for interference.
When the phone companies switched to a G network, G= Ghz, we no longer used the MHz for signal and went to the 2.4GHz. With the 2.4Ghz signal speed was inhanced and other applications like Wifi, text messaging and data plans could be operated at a faster transmit speed. Aka light travels faster than radio waves.
I think I can speak for Dave Horvath when I say we only are warning people so people don't crash their planes because of a faulty RC system. If we didn't care about our fellow modelers we wouldn't be waisting our time. For me and Mr. Horvath it wouldn't be right not to warn people of what we know. We are not getting paid by anyone so we are not tarnished by any corporate influances. We do it because we know it's the right thing to do. Why? Because we care. That's why you are getting faced with the truth. Anyone from Hitec, Futaba, Airtronics and JR will not tell you the truth. Why? Because they have a lot at stake financially including the AMA.
Follow the money people and use your common sense and put 2 and 2 together. Please! We are supposed to look out for one another in this hobby and not listen to those who makes a living off this hobby. They are there to sell and make money including moderators at RCU, without marketing and promotion RCU would be in trouble financially.
Pete
I’m sorry Pete but what you said makes no sense. A radio wave travels at the speed of light, “periodâ€. The speed of light is the speed limit of the universe, nothing known to man travels faster. If you send a wave slower then the speed of light, then it’s not a radio wave. A sound wave travels slower then the speed of light. You can speed up the frequency of a radio wave sending more of the wave in a given period of time but that is a frequency change.
10-30-2011 | 10:57 AM
#344
My Feedback: (1)
RE: what 2.4 article
The speed of light is the speed limit of the universe, nothing known to man travels faster.
In regard to the bending of light - it is due to the "warping of space" due to high gravitational fields. What is warped space? What is actually happening is that time slows down as the gravitation increases. So due to the constant speed of light, it goes through space with a different time, thus bending.
10-30-2011 | 04:01 PM
#345
RE: what 2.4 article
Im going to fly the 2.4 until they say no!! Till then keep keep your sticks on the ice.. If the women don't find you handson atleast they will find you handy hahaha...
10-30-2011 | 05:41 PM
#346
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: HighPlains
The Cern neutrino experiment might void this assumption.
In regard to the bending of light - it is due to the "warping of space" due to high gravitational fields. What is warped space? What is actually happening is that time slows down as the gravitation increases. So due to the constant speed of light, it goes through space with a different time, thus bending.
The speed of light is the speed limit of the universe, nothing known to man travels faster.
In regard to the bending of light - it is due to the "warping of space" due to high gravitational fields. What is warped space? What is actually happening is that time slows down as the gravitation increases. So due to the constant speed of light, it goes through space with a different time, thus bending.
Well, it looks like Ronald van Elburg at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands has come up with a theory that may stand up to disprove the neutrino discovery. It all comes down to the simple idea that OPERA is not accounting for movement in their GPS clocks that are based onsatellites in orbit.</p>
In layman’s terms, <font color="#092b89">CERN</font> is using satellites to track the time it is taking neutrinos to travel from France to Italy. The announced discovery was that the neutrinos arrived 60 nanoseconds before light particles should have. There are many different factors that CERN has to weigh in during the measurements of time and space, and their one fatal flaw may be that because of the nature of the experiment, it considers their detectors to be based on the ground instead of in space. Because of that issue, CERN has not taken into account the relative movement of the GPS clocks on their two satellites. Both satellites are moving, one toward the other, and the other one away from the first.</p>
Because of this movement, van Elburg has suggested that the detector clocks are calculating the wrong distance, because they are assuming that the source of the signal is moving towards them and compensating. Using that idea, van Elburg calculated that the clocks were subtracting about 32 nanoseconds of time, because there was less distance to travel according to the detectors. Now, that in itself would not be enough, since the neutrinos arrived 60 nanoseconds ahead of schedule. Here is the catch: thediscrepancyworks both ways between the detector clocks because they are both in motion. So you would have to multiply the subtracted time by two. The result, 64 nanoseconds of time that has been shaved off due to an error, too close for comfort to the time of the neutrinos.
Happy flying, Oscar</p>
11-02-2011 | 09:13 AM
#350
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: sheograth
How about we leave issues regarding airwaves to the FCC, and go out and enjoy flying planes or something, what a concept.
How about we leave issues regarding airwaves to the FCC, and go out and enjoy flying planes or something, what a concept.
If we had done that in the 70's there would be no R/C today except for a few small toys.
