measuring with 100 picosecond resolution

[Frank Buss]

Any ideas, how to measure the time (1ns-100ns) between two pulses with
100ps (100ps=1e10-10s) resoultion?

 

[John Larkin]

Any ideas, how to measure the time (1ns-100ns) between two pulses with
100ps (100ps=1e10-10s) resoultion?

Hey, this is what I do.

Questions:

Single-shot or repetitive (averaged) measurement?

Production or lab application? Packaging/cost/power constraints?

Rep rate/measurement speed?

Output interface?

John

 

[Ban]

Any ideas, how to measure the time (1ns-100ns) between two pulses with
100ps (100ps=1e10-10s) resoultion?

Something like a sample/hold:
I assume you have ECL-outputs. the -10mA current source(390R) charges the
3.3nf capacitor when the input is at -1.6V with -3.03mV/ns. Just arrange
that the input is low between the pulses only. Have the capacitor set back
with a FET. Take parts with very small parasitic capacitance. Choose the A/D
according to your desired resolution and repetition rate. You can also
integrate multiple events(with appropriately increased charge resistance) to
increase accuracy and noise immunity.

Buffer
STDD15-05 |\ / -----.
|\ | | /| | \ / |
o----| >|----+---|< |------+-------+-----| >-----< A/D |
ECL |/ | | | \| | | | / \ |
| | | |/ \ -----'
| | | |
.-. 3300p | | ref. Voltage
390| | --- +-| |
| | --- |>-- 0V= hold |
'-' | +-| <-3V= reset |
| | | |
o === +-------------------+
-5.3V GND |
|
o
-0.9V

ciao Ban
Bordighera/Italy

 

[Frank Buss]

Hey, this is what I do.

I've visited your website. Nice products.

Single-shot or repetitive (averaged) measurement?

Production or lab application? Packaging/cost/power constraints?

Rep rate/measurement speed?

Output interface?

I want to use it for measuring the "faster-than-light" cable, when
arrived, so it can be repetitive, and a lab application. Repetition speed
doesn't matter, but would be nice to have a digital output. I think of
building a little device with a PIC, which can measure the time between
two pulses and display it on a LED, just for my hobby use after testing
the FTL cable.

But I don't know if I can built it, because other products with this
resolution, like the HP counter are really expensive (
http://www.febo.com/time-freq/hardware/5370B/ ), but it has a resolution
of 20ps, I want 100ps, only

Perhaps there are cheap ICs available, which provides the counter? Or an
analog approach is easier, for example converting the time difference to
a voltage and then using an ADC?

 

[mike]

I've visited your website. Nice products.




I want to use it for measuring the "faster-than-light" cable, when
arrived, so it can be repetitive, and a lab application. Repetition speed
doesn't matter, but would be nice to have a digital output. I think of
building a little device with a PIC, which can measure the time between
two pulses and display it on a LED, just for my hobby use after testing
the FTL cable.

But I don't know if I can built it, because other products with this
resolution, like the HP counter are really expensive (
http://www.febo.com/time-freq/hardware/5370B/ ), but it has a resolution
of 20ps, I want 100ps, only

Perhaps there are cheap ICs available, which provides the counter? Or an
analog approach is easier, for example converting the time difference to
a voltage and then using an ADC?

Here's one way to do it.
Run both inputs into a gate to generate a pulse.
Average the pulse amplitude with a resistor and a cap
and use this voltage into an op-amp referenced to v/2 to control an
oscillator that drives
the inputs to all this. You have a kind-of phase locked loop
with the period of the oscillator being twice the width of the pulse.
You can measure this frequency with any old counter.
The problem is at the short end where the frequency gets high.
No problem, add a fixed known delay to widen the minimum pulse width.

Understand that measuring pulse width or time a->b is fraught with
errors. You really need the risetimes of your signals (EVERYWHERE in
the system) to be MUCH less
than the resolution you need. If this is not the case, you'll get a lot
of errors creeping in to risetime differences, threshold levels,
assymetry, etc.

If you use the best commercial counter available and try to measure the
pulse width of a 5ns pulse with 1ns risetime, you can make it read any
value you want by adjusting the trigger threshold voltage. Time a->b is
worse 'cause you have four voltage levels, two edges, two thresholds,
two risetimes, two sets of frequency dependent level shifts and
rise/falltime shifts...on and on and on... to worry about.

Food for thought...
If you could easily build a test fixture to demonstrate FTL operation,
that would mean that it works and there would be BIG commercial
applicatons and you would be able to buy a commercial FTL device on
every street corner. I think I'd wait for the big boys at the NIST
to test it. They've got the equipment.
Stated another way, if you could verify FTL operation, the cost of a
$100,000 counter would be peanuts.

mike


--
Bunch of stuff For Sale and Wanted at the link below.
laptops and parts Test Equipment
4in/400Wout ham linear amp.
Honda CB-125S
400cc Dirt Bike 2003 miles $550
Police Scanner, Color LCD overhead projector
Tek 2465 $800, ham radio, 30pS pulser
Tektronix Concept Books, spot welding head...
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/4710/

 

[John Larkin]

I've visited your website. Nice products.


I want to use it for measuring the "faster-than-light" cable, when
arrived, so it can be repetitive, and a lab application. Repetition speed
doesn't matter, but would be nice to have a digital output. I think of
building a little device with a PIC, which can measure the time between
two pulses and display it on a LED, just for my hobby use after testing
the FTL cable.

But I don't know if I can built it, because other products with this
resolution, like the HP counter are really expensive (
http://www.febo.com/time-freq/hardware/5370B/ ), but it has a resolution
of 20ps, I want 100ps, only

Perhaps there are cheap ICs available, which provides the counter? Or an
analog approach is easier, for example converting the time difference to
a voltage and then using an ADC?

If you use a time-interval counter (like a 5370B [1]) to measure the
prop delay of the FTL atrocity, setting trigger levels to mid-slope,
you may well see FTL delays... even negative delays. That's the beauty
of Orman's trick. He starts off with a low slope leading edge and
essentially steepens the wavefront by underterminating the
transmission line. A simple time interval counter (or a simple
observer!) could well be deceived. Actually, if you use the im/proper
set of definitions, prop delay *is* FTL; but nothing unusual, or even
very interesting, is going on here.

There's nothing amazing about reshaping the leading edge of a slow
pulse. Whether Orman himself believes this merely decides whether he
is an obsessed lunatic or just a con man. I suspect he's the former,
because any decent con man would be exploiting this with a lot more
skill (ie, privately.)

A good, fast oscilloscope and a bit of thought will dispel the
illusion.

John


[1] the history and technology of the HP5370 TIC is well worth a
thread of its own.

 

[Helmut Sennewald]

I've visited your website. Nice products.


I want to use it for measuring the "faster-than-light" cable, when
arrived, so it can be repetitive, and a lab application. Repetition speed
doesn't matter, but would be nice to have a digital output.

Hello Frank,
don't spend any time for building a time meter for this case. Just take
a fast enough oscilloscope. This FTL cable isn't worth it. It's a big lie;
believe me.

Best Regards
Helmut

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Food for thought...
If you could easily build a test fixture to demonstrate FTL operation,
that would mean that it works and there would be BIG commercial
applicatons and you would be able to buy a commercial FTL device on
every street corner.

Hang on here. You seem to be claiming that if one could design a system
to measure FTL, then FTL would exist. If so, this is false.

I think I'd wait for the big boys at the NIST
to test it.

They won't. There is zero, and I mean zero possibility of showing FTL of
information in a transmission line. even Steven hawking got a bit of
stick when he first proposed that Black Holes would evaporate under QM.

What I find sad here is those who are responding to Mathew "I am a fool"
Orman, as if there is even the slightest possibility that he has
achieved FTL. There isn't. This issue has been studied way too long by
too many experts, over around 100 years, for such a physics mind blowing
effect to be possible. As I have previously noted, amateur cranks simple
never disprove the status quo. When Einstein blew away 300 years of
Newton absolute time, he had a bloody PhD in physics. He was an expert
in the subject matter. When, Hisenburg/Shrodinger/Einstein/Plank blew
away classical mechanics with QM, they all had PhD's in physics. These
guys are not that stupid to have missed something so trivial.

The reasons for non FTL are quite deep. Its unfortunate that many
haven't taken the trouble to look at this background to see just how off
base Orman is. There are simply too many interrelated things going on
for this daft claim to be correct. e.g. electron spin is derived from
both SR and QM, which is essential to all current understandiong of
atomic structure. Experimentally, 1000000's of them, by 10000's of
experts, over 100 years have always confirmed SR/QM/QED, at times, to 12
decimal places.

The laws of physics are not going to be upset by a stupid ignorant
posting in a NG.

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Frank Buss]

They won't. There is zero, and I mean zero possibility of showing FTL of
information in a transmission line.

And there is no possibility to fly faster than sound velocity

The reasons for non FTL are quite deep. Its unfortunate that many
haven't taken the trouble to look at this background to see just how off
base Orman is.

I don't believe in FTL, but this is no reason not to test it. Another
reason is, that while testing it, I can learn something about how to
measure, high frequency electronics and the like. And as John Fields notes,
it may not be faster than light, but perhaps it is faster than the normal
speed in cables. At least Orman has another patent (search at
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-bool.html for patent number
5,767,960), so chances are good that he doesn't tell just nonsense.

 

[Rene Tschaggelar]

Any ideas, how to measure the time (1ns-100ns) between two pulses with
100ps (100ps=1e10-10s) resoultion?

For once and one-of :
Get a trial week for a fast scope.
Le Croy, Tektronics, Agilent are the manufacturers
that immediately comt to my mind. There may be other though.

Rene

 

[mike]

Hang on here. You seem to be claiming that if one could design a system
to measure FTL, then FTL would exist. If so, this is false.

Hang on there. Read that again. I said. "if you could easily build a
test fixture to DEMONSTRATE FTL operation." So, yes, I AM stating that
if you can DEMONSTRATE it's existence, then it exists.

They won't. There is zero, and I mean zero possibility of showing FTL of
information in a transmission line.

Isn't that the point?

even Steven hawking got a bit of

stick when he first proposed that Black Holes would evaporate under QM.

What I find sad here is those who are responding to Mathew "I am a fool"
Orman, as if there is even the slightest possibility that he has
achieved FTL. There isn't. This issue has been studied way too long by
too many experts, over around 100 years, for such a physics mind blowing
effect to be possible. As I have previously noted, amateur cranks simple
never disprove the status quo. When Einstein blew away 300 years of
Newton absolute time, he had a bloody PhD in physics. He was an expert
in the subject matter. When, Hisenburg/Shrodinger/Einstein/Plank blew
away classical mechanics with QM, they all had PhD's in physics. These
guys are not that stupid to have missed something so trivial.

The reasons for non FTL are quite deep. Its unfortunate that many
haven't taken the trouble to look at this background to see just how off
base Orman is.

You MAY be right in this case. I submit that innovation is rarely
accomplished by those who are SURE it can't happen. Discovery requires
an open mind.

There are simply too many interrelated things going on

for this daft claim to be correct. e.g. electron spin is derived from
both SR and QM, which is essential to all current understandiong of
atomic structure. Experimentally, 1000000's of them, by 10000's of
experts, over 100 years have always confirmed SR/QM/QED, at times, to 12
decimal places.

The laws of physics are not going to be upset by a stupid ignorant
posting in a NG.

True, but science is advanced by crackpots. If you know it can be done,
it ain't a discovery. Just 'cause you can't prove it (yet) don't make
it not so.
mike

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

--
Bunch of stuff For Sale and Wanted at the link below.
laptops and parts Test Equipment
4in/400Wout ham linear amp.
Honda CB-125S
400cc Dirt Bike 2003 miles $550
Police Scanner, Color LCD overhead projector
Tek 2465 $800, ham radio, 30pS pulser
Tektronix Concept Books, spot welding head...
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/4710/

 

[Frank Buss]

For once and one-of :
Get a trial week for a fast scope.
Le Croy, Tektronics, Agilent are the manufacturers
that immediately comt to my mind. There may be other though.

It is not only for once, but I can use it for my digital circuit
developments, too. I think a digital storage oscilloscope would be fine;
my analog 20 MHz scope, is very limited for this sort of applications.

I've found a scope with no display and an USB interface for connecting to
the PC. It costs 875 $ (819 Euro at www.conrad.de), which is inexpensive
compared to similar scopes by Tektronics with a display (>3,000 $):

http://www.softdsp.com/sds200_spec.php

Connecting to the PC or laptop is no problem for me. Any comments for
this scope? Better ones?

I don't think that I can measure 100 ps with it, but it should be
possible to measure a 20 m FTL cable with it, and I can still learning a
bit by using the right termination, developing a pulse generator etc.

After reading the ideas in this thread (thanks to all) and google-ing the
web, it looks like developing my own 100 ps counter is to complicated and
time consuming for me.

 

[Joel Kolstad]

I've found a scope with no display and an USB interface for connecting to
the PC. It costs 875 $ (819 Euro at www.conrad.de), which is inexpensive
compared to similar scopes by Tektronics with a display (>3,000 $):

Although it's not a direct comparison, when it comes down to catching a
one-shot signal, a Tektronix TDS1002 (the lowest end scope Tek makes!) with
60MHz analog bandwidth and 1gigasample per second outclasses Conrad's
offering. The TDS1002 is under $1000.

Neither one is going to measure anything with 100 picosecond resolution,
however!

I actually have no interest in Tek, but am responding more because I
occasionally have looked for mid- to high-end -- yet still inexpensive! --
USB 'oscilloscopes' without success. To me that means at about 500MHz
analog bandwidth or better, and 1GS/s or more. I'd love to hear if people
have found something like this... what would also be cool would be USB
'scopes that can be 'stacked' so that you could buy anywhere from, say, 1-16
channels depending on your needs. The small drawback I can think of would
be that (presumably) you'd have to run some well-defined signal between all
of them to keep the timebases synchronized.

---Joel Kolstad

 

[Joel Kolstad]

And after looking at the Conrad some more, I can't resist thinking that
someone who writes something like this:

In practice, however, given errors in digital signal processing, the range
of frequencies needed to faithfully record an analog signal is one-fifth the
sampling rate. So reconstructing a 200MHz signal demand more than 1GS/s
sampling rate.

....is someone who wants to use pretty crappy anti-aliasing filters in their
device!

I've been told that -- in comparison to analog scopes, which tend to have
first order roll-off front ends, thereby reducing a sine wave at their
specified bandwidth by 3dB -- the digital scopes from the likes of Tek,
LeCroy, and Agilent these days have very sharp cutoff filters on the front
ends so that it's quite reasonable to measure accurate measurement on a
450MHz signal with a 500MHz digitial scope.

---Joel Kolstad

 

[Robert Baer]

And there is no possibility to fly faster than sound velocity


I don't believe in FTL, but this is no reason not to test it. Another
reason is, that while testing it, I can learn something about how to
measure, high frequency electronics and the like. And as John Fields notes,
it may not be faster than light, but perhaps it is faster than the normal
speed in cables. At least Orman has another patent (search at
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-bool.html for patent number
5,767,960), so chances are good that he doesn't tell just nonsense.

That patent is totally unrelated to so-called FTL horsemanure.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

And there is no possibility to fly faster than sound velocity

Oh...I just knew someone would state that. I note the smiley, but this
one is a bit tiresome.

Out of 1000's of claims of science being claimed wrong, only a few
succeed. So the avove, often used argument, is essentially, valueless.

I don't believe in FTL, but this is no reason not to test it. Another
reason is, that while testing it, I can learn something about how to
measure, high frequency electronics and the like.

And as John Fields
notes, it may not be faster than light,

There is no "may" about it.

but perhaps it is faster than
the normal speed in cables. At least Orman has another patent (search
at http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-bool.html for patent number
5,767,960), so chances are good that he doesn't tell just nonsense.

Oh dear me. Your serious on this? There are 100000's of useless garbage
patents. I'm even going to comment further.


Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Hang on there. Read that again. I said. "if you could easily build a
test fixture to DEMONSTRATE FTL operation." So, yes, I AM stating
that if you can DEMONSTRATE it's existence, then it exists.

Lets be quite clear of what you are saying here. One sets up a test that
is capable of measuring FTL, i,e, demonstrate it in principle. You then
claim that just because this test rig can be set up, then this proves
that FTL exists? If so, your are wrong. Not only wrong, but further
technical discussion would seem pointless as you have now shown not the
slightest understanding of the experimental method.

If all you mean is that if the test set-up performs a test, and FTL is
subsequently observed, then, and only then, FTL exists, then that's ok.
In this case your prose is misleading. There is confusion between the
test rig existing and the effect existing.

Isn't that the point?

A wasted point, since its *already* been proven false.

even Steven hawking got a bit of

You MAY be right in this case.

Nope. I *am* right. I am absolutely certain of this because the
equivalent experiments have *already* been done, others seemed to have
missed this basic point. Secondly, it has *already* been explained in
this NG how the peak of an input pulse can be before the peak of its
output pulse, without FTL.

I submit that innovation is rarely
accomplished by those who are SURE it can't happen. Discovery
requires an open mind.

Sure, I certainly have an open mind, but not so open as my brains fall
out.

All your doing here is quoting well known rhetoric. What you missing
here is what is already actually known in this particular case. EM FTL,
contradicts all known experiments already.

There are simply too many interrelated things going on

True, but science is advanced by crackpots.

Get fucking real dude.

I cant belive what I'm, reading here. You have no f'ing idea what your
talking about. Science has never been advanced by crakpots.

What part of "Hisenburg/Shrodinger/Einstein/Plank etc had PhDs" when
they advanced science, did you fail to understand? Of shit, I missed
Fynmean (QED), Dirac (electron spin form SR/QM), Hawking (Black hole
evaporation).

Name me one, and I mean just one crackpot that advanced physics in the
last 100 years?

If you know it can be
done, it ain't a discovery. Just 'cause you can't prove it (yet)
don't make it not so.

Again, you have no idea. You are arguing from complete ignorance. Do you
really think such a trivial argument is unknown to me? Of course, there
will always be new discoveries, contradicting what we already know.
However, today science is so well corroborated that only a few from
millions of possibilities are going have any meaning. You don't just
give credibility to any tom, dick, and Twinkie Winky that pops up yet
again, saying "this will revolutionise the world".

The basic reason Omans claim is false is that it has already been proven
false by millions of experiments already. There are 1000's of experiment
types, that automatically infer the results of this particular case.
There is no chance that this FTL could prove successful, without all
these other tests also failing.

You just don't seem to understand the weight of real experimental and
theoretical evidence against this particular FTL claim. This is the way
it is:

1 Current science explains all EM phenomena by the momentum exchange of
photons.
2 Photons always travel at C.

Conclusion. EM information can not propergate FTL.

The evidence for this is absolutely stunning. The issue here is that
novices simple don't have the background, or the inclination to at least
read up on the confirmation of theories such as Quantum Electrodynamics
(QED). The number and accuracy of experiments that support this view, is
truly staggering. An EM effect FTL, would destroy all of this. So, you
might well call me closed minded, but I'm not about to accept that
physics, as known for the last 100 years, is all wrong based on an
unqualified idiot posting to NGs. It just aint goanna happen mate.

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Mathew Orman]

Oh...I just knew someone would state that. I note the smiley, but this
one is a bit tiresome.

Out of 1000's of claims of science being claimed wrong, only a few
succeed. So the avove, often used argument, is essentially, valueless.



There is no "may" about it.


Oh dear me. Your serious on this? There are 100000's of useless garbage
patents. I'm even going to comment further.


Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Yes,
because it would require to admit that NASA is using the technology
which would contradict you statement about my patent being useless!

Here the link:

As the example of my previous successful inventions see:
US Patent 5,767,960 World most advanced 6D Laser Tracking System
Currently used by NASA and referenced at:
http://www.ascension-tech.com/news/press_032503.php


Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

 

[Mathew Orman]

Hang on there. Read that again. I said. "if you could easily build a
test fixture to DEMONSTRATE FTL operation." So, yes, I AM stating that
if you can DEMONSTRATE it's existence, then it exists.




Isn't that the point?

even Steven hawking got a bit of

You MAY be right in this case. I submit that innovation is rarely
accomplished by those who are SURE it can't happen. Discovery requires
an open mind.

There are simply too many interrelated things going on

True, but science is advanced by crackpots. If you know it can be done,
it ain't a discovery. Just 'cause you can't prove it (yet) don't make
it not so.
mike




--
Bunch of stuff For Sale and Wanted at the link below.
laptops and parts Test Equipment
4in/400Wout ham linear amp.
Honda CB-125S
400cc Dirt Bike 2003 miles $550
Police Scanner, Color LCD overhead projector
Tek 2465 $800, ham radio, 30pS pulser
Tektronix Concept Books, spot welding head...
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/4710/

Mike,
all you need to do is to ask Kevin Aylward
<[email protected]>
to submit a link to a single experiment that demonstrates property of
Electrically Short Open-ended transmission lines!
Or a single experiment description that shows Light Speed Invariance!
He's just given you 100% bologna an lies!

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Yes,
because it would require to admit that NASA is using the technology
which would contradict you statement about my patent being useless!

What part of "There are 100000's of useless garbage patents" did you
fail to understand?


Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.