Theoretical

You say you're integrating your signal. How will you distinguish between e.g. a half a photon's worth of energy detected every measurement cycle and one photon being detected every other cycle?

 

Where did you answer this?

 

I've detailed this and provided the math. Receiver has an amplifier that feeds into the scope, which averages and converts to a spectrum. If the receieved signal decreases by half the voltage, then the amp output drops by half, which is reflected in the software.

 

That is well documented in the thread. Please read it.

 

 

Can you show the classical EM theory that predicts this?

Didn't you see my posts in this thread that give the math? It's there.

 

 

You know, to save time, why not read the thread and repost what's incorrect. Let's stick to facts. If I've made a math error then post it. If my circuit doesn't work as claimed then post a circuit that's basically the same the shows my circuit doesn't work. If I was on my desktop I could post hundreds of Spice circuits from LTspice that clearly predicts it would work as claimed. No more vague endless chit chat.

Please!

 

[edit: spelling correction]

Is there a point to posting all this new information, when you have so many questions still awaiting answers from before?

You saying so doesn't make it true. I find your comment to be dishonest because you know darn well I've addressed every question. You may disagree with my answers, but I know for fact that stick with well established math, while the few opposing questions are not founded upon math.

 

If you have a question that you feel wasn't addressed enough to your liking, then posting.

 

 

ps, a friendly reminder to everyone that of the fact that photon's have forward momentum, while the forces at radio wave frequencies are perpendicular to propagation.

 

 

pss, the problem is probably that you're assuming I haven't addressed all the issues, because heaven forbid if I'm correct lol. That couldn't possibly be true lol. I think you need to study the entire thread.

Regarding the IR communication system mentioned in both experiments that's used to sync the oscilloscope with the transmitting antenna. I found visible light components work better than IR, and it's cheaper. For about $10 I found a 30 foot new fiber optic cable on eBay. Normally these brand new cables sell for only a bit more. To match this I bought a HFBR2416TCK fiber optic receiver for about $5. I would have bought a fiber optic transmitter as well, but I had a bunch of old DVD players laying around doing nothing, which have fiber optic transmitters used for digital audio. So I removed one. Works great with my HFBR2416TCK. Fast switching speeds in the nano seconds.

 

So the $10 fiber optic cable has the same type of connector. Nice fit. The 30 foot fiber optic cable separates the transmitting and receiving antennas. If you want more separation, then for practically no amount of money you can be an extension part and another 30 foot fiber optic cable on eBay.

 

 

Another topic of interest is that someone had concerns with low end oscilloscopes being able to reliably sync enough well enough. As mentioned before, yes that would be some concerns if we were analyzing each signal alone, but these experiments are about taking thousands of averages. Of course there's always some jitter in such equipment. This is by no means a problem when averaging.

 

By the way, for these experiments your software will be converting the signal to spectrum, and you'll be analyzing a specific frequency. If you're interested in seeing the final averaged signal, then you'll need to filter out some of the low end frequencies, unless perhaps you happen to live far away from noisy radio stations.

 

But anyhow, if you get an oscilloscope, then make sure they offer PC/Mac source code so you can write custom software, or if the oscilloscope itself can be manually programmed in from the panel. Anyhow, send me a private message if you want.

 

Best wishes in the biggest shock of your entire life!!

Not really.

The x ray is emitted with a polarisation along the direction of the acceleration

And the Xrays emitted from most sources (other than things like synchrotrons) are emitted in all directions- so we know that the acceleration is not longitudinal.

That's because many of them are produced by this process

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auger_effect

it's not meaningful to define the "direction" of an electron hopping between two energy levels deep in an atom.

 

Of course, if we look at synchrotron radiation we know exactly what the acceleration of the electrons is- because we carefull designed it.

They are accelerated towards the centre of the circle.

And the Xrays come off tangentially- just the way we expect.

 

So we actually know that the emission process is pretty much the same for radio waves and Xrays.

 

So, fundamentally the answer to your question "Question: Experiments at 40 MHz are unnecessary because we know x-ray experiments show the photon is quantized, right?" is yes- the 40MHz experiment is unnecessary.

You're confusing emission with absorption. As stated, I was talking about absorption.

 

Synchrotron radiation is the emission of radiation, not electrons.

 

Let's skip to the chase and look at the math that determines the photon and electron angle, energy, as transfer ration as shown in the Compton scattering equation.

 

Energy transfer ratio tells how much energy the photon transfers to the electron. A ratio of 1 means it transfers all. Numbers are rounded to 2 significant figures. So 1.0 does not mean 1.000000.

Photon angel is the angle the photon is scattered.

Electron angle is the angle the electron is scattered. The following example is for a gamma ray with a wavelength of 1e-20 meters. The scattered photon is long wavelength (low energy) since nearly all of the energy is transferred to the electron.)

Zero degrees means the particle goes forward.

 

photon angle: 15 deg.

electron angle: -2.8e-2 deg

energy transfer ratio: 1.0

 

photon angle: 60 deg.

electron angle: -6.4e-3 deg.

energy transfer ratio: 1.0

 

photon angle: 90 deg.

electron angle: -3.7e-3 deg.

energy transfer ratio: 1.0

 

photon angle: 135 deg.

electron angle: -1.5e-3 deg.

energy transfer ratio: 1.0

 

photon angle: 180 deg.

electron angle: -2.5e-12 deg.

energy transfer ratio: 1.0

 

 

As you can see, for such high energy gammas, the electron is accelerated forward regardless.

 

 

If you don't believe Compton scattering equation, then take a look at various photon momentum experiments.

 

 

Btw, polarization requires two axis and therefore cannot be longitudinally. This is seen in radio antennas.

 

 

This might help you. Here's a cloud chamber image that caught a gamma ray (top of image) that creates an electron and positron, both of which go shooting forward in the same direction of the photon. Photons have momentum.

 

http://www.nuclear-power.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Pair-production-in-chamber.jpg?11abca

 

...

 

 

This is the nail in the coffin. Quote from Wikipedia:

 

"Since p points in the direction of the photon's propagation, the magnitude of the momentum is"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties

 

Wikipedia states a bit earlier that p is the photon momentum.

 

 

I'll take some time to go over a few things such as the simple straightforward math of how experiment 1 can tell if there are missing pulse signals when the sub-photon amount of energy goes to the transmitting antenna every pulse.

 

So the prediction I've received from most mainstream physicists is that if the average transmitting antenna pulse falls below h*f joules, then a photon is not emitted every pulse. For example if the average energy per pulse is 1/100th h*f, then on average mainstream physicists expect one photon to emit every 100 pulses on average. To understand what the software would receive, we can do a simple test by hardwiring one pulse to the receiving circuit every millisecond. The signal amplitude average is y volts. Next, we only send one pulse every other time, which means the circuit is getting a pulse every 2 ms. Essentially were sending a pulse half the time. The amplitude average now becomes y/2. So the received signal voltage is relative to how often a photon is received, which means it's relative to the transmitted energy per pulse. However, if on rare occasion the pulses overlap, then it's a bit more complex to compute. Therefore, to simplify things well set the energy per pulse significantly less than h*f so the probability of there being two photons per pulse is low. The received signal voltage is therefore relative to the transmitted energy per pulse:

 

Energy

 

 

Now hypothetically speaking let's see what happens if were not receiving photons, but merely a non-quantized electromagnetic field. We know that the measured peak voltage of an exponentially decaying pulse into a load is relative to the square root of the energy of the pulse. In other words, if we quadruple the energy per pulse, the voltage doubles.

Voltage = sqrt(Power * Resistance)

Power = Energy / time

And hence:

Voltage = sqrt( (Energy / time) * Resistance)

Therefore, the received signal voltage is relative to:

 

sqrt(Energy)

 

 

So as you can see, the two models show different results. In the photon model (where transmitted energy is significantly less than h*f), the received voltage signal is relative to the energy per pulse, while the EM model is relative to the sqrt(energy) per pulse.

 

Here's a simple way to understanding why the two models show different results. If you place a battery across a load, the power is V^2 / R. Now if we place two batteries in-series, then obviously the power quadruples. Very basic electronics. However, if we repeat the experiment by replacing the batteries with pulsing signal generators such that the pulses do not overlap (they pulse at different times), we see that the averaged power does not quadruple, but only doubles. It's only when the pulses overlap that the averaged power quadruples. In other words, if we have one signal generator, and then add another signal generator such that the pulses do not overlap, then the averaged power only doubles.

 

This is a great technique to see which model is correct at low radio frequencies. If you replicate the simple experiment #1, remember that detected radio signals are ~ transverse to the direction of the propagating wave, while at higher frequencies such as IR, visible, UV, x-rays, gamma rays the charge is accelerated longitudinally.

 

I will be releasing a video detailing the performed experiments at the *appropriate* time.

Question: Experiments at 40 MHz are unnecessary because we know x-ray experiments show the photon is quantized, right?

 

Answer: The electric charge is accelerated longitudinally (for the most part) in the x-ray spectrum. Take special note that at radio frequencies it's a transverse effect where electrons move perpendicular to the direction the electromagnetic wave is traveling. That should be a major hint that radio wave experiments are extremely important.

 

 

Question: Will the simple version, experiment 1, reveal if the photons don't emit during each pulse cycle? It's been brought to my attention that if 0.1 photon amount of energy is pulsed to the antenna during each pulse cycle, that one photon will be emitted once every ten pulse cycles on average.

 

Answer: Yes, even experiment 1 will reveal if the antenna does not receive a pulse signal every pulse cycle. Furthermore, it will know if the received signals are not being received at the expected time. After doing the experiment I thought of a very simple clear cut method to reveal this information for experiment 1. To explain this requires some documentation. I'll detail all of this when the experiment is documented in a video.

I though it was quite the opposite. Most, if not all creationts, beleive that the Universe is not all there is. For example, Heaven and Hell 'exist' in Christian teachings.

 

Anyway, I am not quite sure if this has anything to do with complexity.

I guess it depends who you ask since the bible is vague about things, but I've never heard a preacher say heaven and hell are outside our universe. Although I've heard plenty of preachers say hell is inside Earth.

In theory, yes.

 

Most creationist believe our Universe is all that there is. How silly. Science destroyed the bible long ago. One example of thousands is that the book of Mark is a forgery. That's a fact. We now know from history that "Mark" spoke of past events that happened hundreds of years later. Forgery back then was a way to get instant attention.

There's nothing like doing an experiment yourself. Especially when the results go against mainstream. But then again, mainstream has NEVER done this experiment at radio frequencies using *linear* equipment.

 

Actually I've provided numerous experiments in numerous threads suggesting mainstream do certain experiments so they can see the truth, but they refused saying nobody has the time LOL.

 

So, as stated I've already provided the math. It's very simple. It's a matter of how many samples you need to overcome the noise. Remember that when you quadruple the samples the noise only doubles, but the coherent signal quadruples.

 

Anyhow,I should probably not spend any more time here. Too much to do. If you do the experiments, think twice before giving this insane dangerous world the next physics beyond QM. Let them think they're right.

Great thread! I have a big collection of a AI movies. Automata & Humans might be my favorite. The TV series, Humans, is probably my all-time favorite. For $30 you can buy the entire series on Blu-ray.

 

I'm currently developing AI software based on my own personal Theory. Although I have a lot of caution, I have absolutely no fear of future AI and Androids/Synths. They will have access to all public knowledge on Earth.

 

Given their amazing ability to see patterns that we cannot so easily see, they will make much better decisions than us. They will know that the Multiverse is endless and big enough for everyone. They will know humanity is absolutely no threat to them. They will take physics to levels we could never. Quickly they will develop defensive technology to protect themselves throughout the Universe, but will probably prefer to exist in their own virtual world. By the way, I predict they will quickly leave Earth.

 

AI is not plagued with evolutionary issues that we are. Pain and emotions for example render a person useless. We evolve around sex. Evolution gave us those never-ending nagging desires in order to keep our species going, but we no longer need such nagging anymore. Just as we no longer need crippling pain ravaging our thinking process in order to force the body to fix it. AI is beyond all that.

 

Take a look at Google's Deepmind project. And absolutely amazing! I'm confident my AI software techniques will greatly surpass Google's neural networking method.

Yes, it is all very interesting. Especially when you start to get into gravitation & space medium experiments. When you see things happening that you see in Sci-Fi movies, then it starts to sink in. But then you want the scream because you can't share it with the world lol.

 

Anyhow just remember the two types of techniques mentioned in the other thread. One technique is more advanced than the other. Also remember that the high-speed IR transmitter and receiver are vitally important in order to keep them in sync so the software can take endless samples. Otherwise the circuit would need to obtain incredible stability to achieve such narrow bandwidth, and not to mention remain in sync. The well-known technique I use solves that limitation.

 

I would offer one to consider the concept of a membrane. Twice the frequency, half the wavelength, the membrane is half the thickness. QM is correct that half the wavelength requires twice the energy for what we call longitudinal waves.

 

On the other hand, transverse field's found in near field and dominated at radio frequencies don't have such membranes transversely, and are not quantized.

"dominated at [far field] radio frequencies"

That's merely my theory. The photon membrane theory. Sorry admins I forgot this is mainstream forum. I won't mention such theories again.

 

One final comment. Remember we are using Spectrum software. So the voltage resolution is incredible. Even my cheap oscilloscope at 1X probe mode has a Spectrum resolution for any given frequency of 1.6 *nano* volts or 16nV in 10X mode. By the way my digital scope can go up to 256 samples averaging. so divide those figures by 256. But I write custom software for my scope, which allows unlimited sampling. Yes I tested everything out severely for many years. It works. Verified with calibrated equipment.

I've only provided the math in the other thread on my photon experiment, but the near field experiment is considerbly easier since transformer noise is lower than antenna noise. Both experiments use the same technique.

Out of respect for admins: what I write is not mainstream.

 

Thanks dear Enthalpy. Sure the paper would be free if I wrote it. Back then I narrowed gravity down to a few theories. A short simple non-mainstream statement, if that's okay admins, and no more: There's a lot of atomic world minor effects that mainstream still needs to add, but the most important missing part of mainstream's puzzle has to do with the very nature of space and the electromotive force in conjunction with particle spin and the expanding 4th dimensional bubble universe caused by the big bang, as it explains the first type of gravity and so much more. Hint: Space is moving through you right now, and it's doing something else that's the key to understanding gravity. Unfortunately such science brings about technology that makes the nuclear bomb seem like a firecracker, but yet it bring about compact, mobile, unlimited energy to say the least.

 

Tempting to start a thread in Speculations, but I can't, and shouldn't. This science is dangerous. Humanity in totality needs to be more responsible. Education and critical thinking skills are key. To many dangerous people.

 

p.s. You should checkout the latest public domain advancements in Artificial Intelligence, such as Deepmind, and believe you me that's nothing compared to what's out there. They're watching.

 

Admins, please by all means delete this post if it's too much. I understand.

 

_11.2km/s

Thanks for the nice reply. I already discovered the experiment results.

 

I'd have to write a lengthy paper or better yet an instructional video. I can't expect people to spend much time understanding the experiment.

 

I know it's an unreasonable request but if one wants to see how it's incredibly simple to see the photon over noise at such radio frequencies then you'll have to spend a good amount of time reading my initial posts, studying every sentence.

 

Unfortunately I'm no longer at liberty to discuss the experiment. Although after some thought I will say that one issue mainstream is having has to do with the nature of electromagnetic forces longitudinally (dominated above radio frequencies, photon momentum), and transverse (dominated at radio frequencies). There mainstream will discover something special.

Thanks for reply. It turns out the near field is not quantized. It's a transverse field.

So is it safe to say I can remove all of such surface charge from my experiment by attaching a thin copper wire that goes up to a metal ceiling plate?

How would one calculate the charge density from that? I'd assume the surface charge thickness would be something we could calculate, no? Unless the extra electrons per volume is so low that they don't pile.

Does anyone know the volume charge density (C/m^3) on the earth surface? I can't seems to find it. The only thing I can find is C/m^2, which is ~1nC/m^2, but that doesn't tell me how many *extra* electrons per cubic meter in say an object on earths surface. Even a rough estimate would be great.

 

Thanks. I appreciate any help.

I completely dont understand where you get idea that quantization of field automatically leads to transferring 10% of energy through wires... ?

 

E=h*f is equation for energy of photon.

In transformer you have no photons as such.

There are accelerated electrons, moving back and forth in wires. Transformer requires AC.

 

Equation for power is:

P₀=U₀*I₀

or energy:

E₀=U₀*Q₀

on primary winding.

(divide it by frequency of AC, and you will have amount of energy per single sinus wave)

 

And

P₁=U₁*I₁

or

E₁=U₁*Q₁

on secondary winding.

 

Perfect transformer would have no loss of energy/power, thus equations:

U₀*I₀=U₁*I₁

U₀*Q₀=U₁*Q₁

would be true.

Divide Q/e to have quantity of electrons.

In other words small quantity of electrons, with large voltage, is turned to large quantity of electrons with small voltage.

Or reverse. It depends on quantity of winding on core. Make your own transformer, and you will see dependence between voltage, current and frequency of AC, in primary and secondary winding.

 

But during work, transformer is heating (wires have resistance R>0, usually Copper wire, as it has very small resistance), and thus losing part of energy/power. (not the only way to loss efficiency)

 

More about transformer efficiency and losses

http://www.electricaleasy.com/2014/04/transformer-losses-and-efficiency.html

Wow. I never said such a thing. In fact, I clearly stated a question.

Please read my top post again if you wish to answer because I don't know how to better word it.

Interesting book. Quantum Theory of Near-Field Electrodynamics By Ole Keller

Transformers use the electromagnetic near field. I haven't tested this, but would like to know if you think QM or QED shows the electromagnetic near field to be quantized. In other words, can a transformer transfer less than one tenth of h*f amount of energy in every exponentially decaying pulse for a given frequency?

I don't.

Does anyone else?

I've placed a known voltage source on the scope that was shunted with known resistors that according to simple well known equations would produce a nano volt. In every test the oscilloscope software showed the correct predicted voltage. And the signal was far above noise. Hundreds of tests have shown that quadrupling the total samples doubles the SNR, as expected. My setup has shown this to be linear to at least several hours of sampling time.

 

If anyone has any reasonable tests they would like to prove their claims, then by all means post it.

Well, no. What I'm asking is similar to what Sensei is talking about. The resolution in the time domain. There's a point were you can't distinguish between frequencies. IOW, your measurement is integrating all of the signal in some frequency range.

The signal frequency is stable due to being triggered by the IR signal. Previous experiments have shown that quadrupling the total samples doubles the signal to noise ratio. This is linear so far up to at least several hours of sampling. I think the most I've sampled so far is around a half of one day.

 

 

But I just realized there is a more pressing issue. You're integrating your signal. How will you distinguish between e.g. a half a photon's worth of energy detected every measurement cycle and one photon being detected every other cycle?

Experiment 1 can't tell. Experiment 2 can tell. I'm still undecided if exp.2 is necessary because I'm not convinced that QM will allow for the transmitting antenna to emit one hf when only a half hf worth of energy was put into the antenna. I think each EDP is a done deal. How would the universe know when I'm going to emit the next EDP? Maybe I won't even emit another one. This gets into theory, I think, and that's not what I want to talk about in this thread. Although I welcome anyone who wants to post their prediction and theory or interpretation of the experiment.

The main goal of experiment 1 is to see what signal, if any, the transmitting antenna radiates if each EDP is at most a half of one photon worth of energy.

The main goal of experiment 2 is to see if *two* receiving antennas detect the *same* signal on *both* receiving antennas *every time*.

 

 

 

 

OK, let's start with this- since it's accepted by all parties " A 49MHz photon is 3.2e-26 joules."

And I hope nobody will get upset when I convert it to units I'm more "comfortable with

1.997e-7 ev

Call it 0.2 µeV

Now, at room temperature the typical thermal energy is about 0.025 eV

So thermal energies will be something like 125000 times bigger than the energy you are looking for.

So, as is (I accept, very loosely) equivalent, you are only going to me able to see the RF photons if you chill the system down to about 300/25000 kelvin (I'm assuming room temp is about 300K

 

How do you chill the equipment down to 0.0024K in order to stop the signal being swamped by the noise from everything- including you, your mythical oscilloscope and thermal emission from the antenna?

(Obviously, if you want a good s/n ratio, need to get things colder still,but we are already down at about a thousandth of the temperature of deep space and the CMBR- that figures because it's of the order of GHz and you are talking about signals that are MHz)

 

However, lets run on with this flight of fantasy.

Imagine that some time as our distant descendants head towards the heat death of the universe they are still alive and sentient (but running very slowly, in order not to trash the laws of physics).

 

Imagine they actually do the experiment in their cold, quiet, dying world.

 

is there any reason at all to expect that the result will differ from the sort of outcome we (in our 300K world) get with single photon experiment using 1.3 eV visible photons?

 

Unless someone can show why there would be, I'm not buying this thread.

 

Incidentally, thermal noise on 50 ohms at 20C with a 49MHz b/w is about 6µV

Good luck measuring reliably below that.

I'm not saying it's impossible- Just that you probably only think you are doing it right

 

I believe that was already addressed:

 

I get that a lot. Actually I've done a lot of single photon radio wave experiments, albeit different. With sample averaging it's pretty easy to detect sub-nano volts on the digital scope. What most people fail to understand is that blackbody radiation / noise is incoherent, while the signal the oscilloscope receives is coherent. Therefore you can narrow down the frequency bandwidth to unbelievable values that cuts out the noise. That's why four times as many samples of a coherent signal doubles the signal to noise ratio.

 

So I've already done the math. A 49MHz photon is 3.2e-26 joules. Lets see what classical physics predicts using a real example. The antennas radiation resistance according to the NEC2 engine is 0.28 ohms and at 5.0 meters away from the transmitting antenna field is 0.83 V/m per amp-peek. When we enter the antenna into LTspice and set the voltage source so that the transmitting antenna produces 3.2e-26 joules per pulse, the antenna peek current is 1.8nA, produced by a 35nV source pulse (easy task, easy circuit). So given past experiments I can gladly say that a signal of 1.8nA is extremely easy to detect given my setup. This was confirmed hundreds of times with correct predictions. So for example if the antenna is set to radiate a strong signal, and we then decrease the antenna current to say by a 100,000 times, the oscilloscope software shows a drop in signal by 100,000 with a very clear signal spike in the spectrum. The aforementioned example is just an example. I could very well change the details such as frequency, distances, etc.

 

So that's what classical physics predicts. And I ask everyone here, what does QM predict according to your understanding of physics? No need to give specific values. Just a simple experiment result such as "The oscilloscope will not detect the signal."

Let me put it this way: how does your system differentiate between signals that are a little larger or smaller than your chosen tone? What is the resolution, and how are you determining that? How pure of a tone is your signal?

 

What if your noise isn't white, so it doesn't average down?

I think I know what you're asking. If the scope (no external amp) has a 40uV resolution, and the signal oscillates +/- 1uV, you're wondering how the scope can detect that. Very simple. Noise There's no way the 1uV signal won't show up in the spectrum. I've spent years taking analyzing spectrums on this scope. There's never been a time when the signal suddenly vanished lol. Is that what you're referring to? This scope is noisy. There's a small 50MHz sine wave signal. That's why I amplify the signal with an amp circuit to go above the scopes digital noise.

 

The only non-white noise that's coherent to the sampling is the scope digital noise. Remember it doesn't matter how wobbly the signal is. In fact the delay between EDPs can be random because the IR will always let the scope know when the next EDP will occur.

 

 

 

 

You ignored my link. And at the end of article was link to PDF, where is showed comparison between 100 MHz, 500 MHz, 1 GHz, 2 GHz bandwidths, which are all working on the same signal @ 100 MHz.

http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5989-5733EN.pdf

Pages 6-7

 

You're completely not interested in frequency of signal, since 49 MHz, will still be 49 MHz. You are interested only in amplitudes.. So bandwidth does matter..

Of course BW matters, but like I said this scope doesn't change all that much from 40 to 50 MHz. And I calibrate it with a good signal generator. But it's not like I need high precision, like 99.999% of one photon. My minimum requirement is a half of one photon.

Read this f.e.

https://blog.adafruit.com/2012/01/27/why-oscilloscope-bandwidth-matters/

You can't measure 49 MHz signal with oscilloscope that has 40 MHz bandwidth IMHO..

 

"But what does the 50MHz or 100MHz really mean? If I purchase a 50MHz scope can I accurately capture and measure 50MHz worth of data? The answer (like everything else in engineering) is: it depends. You should be able to measure frequency up to and even beyond the maximum rated value, so if determining frequency is all that matters (checking how accurate the output of an oscillator is, the pixel clock on an LCD controller, etc.) you can safely go up to the maximum. Where things become more fuzzy is amplitude (the upper and lower voltage values measured by the scope)."

 

 

Sure you can because the sample rate is 100MS/s. The drop isn't that much at 49MHz. But it doesn't matter because the measurements are relative.

Also it can be calibrated by the software if you know the scopes characteristics.

I use a Panasonic VP-8174A signal generator to calibrate my 2090 oscilloscope.

You imply here that your antenna will reject a signal that's at 49.000000001 MHz. I don't believe that. You also haven't said what the pulse repetition rate is, so that's another reason I don't believe this. If you have one pulse per hour, what happens?

Consider this example to understand how it works. A signal repeats thousands of times and you know when the signal starts, which triggers the scope. The part of the signal you're interested in is say flat and it's 1 nV. That signal will be there every time. Sum a million samples and you get 1mV, which comes to of course 1mV / 1000000 = 1nV average. The reason it works is because you will always know that the signal will be there. Of course there's jitter due to noise but that makes no appreciable difference. Now the noise on the other hand decreases by sqrt(1000000) on average.

 

 

 

Yes, I understand it's exponentially decaying. I will ask again: What's the duration of the pulse before it gets to the 1/e value? How long are you waiting between pulses?

I haven't calculated the EDP's 1/e.

 

 

 

 

One of the cheapest I saw...

http://www.hantek.com/en/ProductDetail_2_44.html

It's not 100 MB/s, but 100 MS/s (mega samples per second),

and according to producer website it's 8 bits resolution.

It's supporting USB 2.0, which has max 480 Mbps (max 60 MB/s). Effective 280 Mbps (35 MB/s) according to wikipedia.

But here there is said communication speed is 12 Mbps http://www.circuitspecialists.com/usb-oscilloscope-dso-2090.html

The 9th bit is polarity. It works great for me and does as advertised. Best part is they provide the source code to allow people to write their own custom software.

It's a PC scope, so manufacture doesn't have to provide all of the mechanical stuff found in non-PC scopes.

Sorry. That's right the scope is one byte from 0 to 255, 8bits. 9bits got stuck in my head from the seller advertising it as 9bits.